Born out of the contentious debate over same-sex marriage, the religious discrimination bill was always going to attract its fair share of attention. The Morrison government has now released two drafts of the bill and, based on the response from a broad array of groups, appears no closer to finding the right balance.

Much of the bill is reasonable and follows existing laws against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age and disability. It follows such precedents as prohibiting discrimination against a person because of their religious belief in such cases as being denied employment because, for example, they are Muslim or Buddhist.

But then, in a remarkable about-face, the same bill sets about giving religious organisations and individuals the ability to override such precedents so long as it's in good faith with their doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings, including the right to discriminate against someone to “avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents” to the religion.

Human rights groups lambasted specific provisions that protect a person making discriminatory comments under the shield of it being a genuine "statement of belief". They also took aim at the move to diminish the ability of larger companies to restrict employees expressing their beliefs outside of work – clearly a nod to the controversy ignited by Israel Folau's inflammatory remarks on gay people – and the extension of rights for health professionals to conscientiously object to providing health services on religious grounds.

Church leaders voiced no such concerns, instead wanting the religious entities that would be given protection over their ability to hire and fire staff to be extended beyond churches, religious schools and registered charities included in the bill and on to religious hospitals and aged care homes, which had been left out for being engaged in primarily "commercial activities".

While the second draft largely placated the church groups, extending the bill to include hospitals and aged care homes on the issue of the right to discriminate, essentially the same concerns exist. Read more via SMH