 Whether or not Australia is a secular country largely depends on what you mean by secular. Australia is secular in that at a political level. Religion isn't the dominant discourse, it is one discourse amongst many. So Australia takes what's known as a pluralist approach to secularism. Rather than saying religion over there separate to the state, we say that religion is one voice amongst many in public discourse. Politicians, for example, are quite free to express their religious views but that's not given any more privilege than a politician expressing their secular views. So yes, Australia is a secular state in that we are a pluralistic society that gives religion one voice amongst many. How does that play out in this particular context? Is that those arguing on religious basis against same-sex marriage are once again just one voice amongst many as are those arguing for same-sex marriage on non-religious basis are just one voice amongst many and each have a role in the public sphere and the public debate. Generally speaking it is not permissible to discriminate on the basis of someone's sexuality or relationship status. The difficulty we're going to have going forward is the way in which that is articulated varies from state to state and in different territories. So the user's different wording and as a result it's very difficult to know exactly how that's going to play out. In terms of those who have a religious objection to being required to provide these services as I said before they are going to as the law is currently written going to be required to engage in providing these services because the only exemptions that would be relevant are those provided to religious organisations and if you are just an ordinary individual or an ordinary business or bakery you're not going to be covered by those exemptions. In terms of getting the balance right ultimately that's a conversation that Australia needs to have. Freedom of religion is not absolute and neither is anti-discrimination or both are rights absolutely but both have limitations particularly where they impinge upon the rights of others and in this instance they may well impinge upon each other so the right to freedom of religion may be impinged and impinged upon freedom right to anti not to be discriminated against and so therefore getting the balance right is going to be first a question of working out what as a society we believe that balance should be. Should somebody be permitted to refuse to provide a service where they don't agree with the beliefs of the person that reign the service to that's a conversation we have to have as a society and what the correct balance is isn't something that's going to be easily determined simply on an objective basis and that's going to need a mature reasoned polite political debate and I'm not quite sure we're having that just yet.