[pbhjpbhj]

>Your distinction is not relevant, and outside the meaning of the legal definition. //

I say it is relevant. It probably wouldn't be to a legal case. However, you say that you can't discriminate against someone because of an abstract label and then go on to describe behaviour that can't be discriminated against. That was essentially my point that behaviour defines a person (before the law that would be the actus as well as the mens [rea]).

>only legal because religious are except from those laws //

It's legal because you live in a democracy where a marked percentage of the population don't hold the same morals as you. I'm pretty sure the SA won't tolerate all sorts of sexual behaviour from their members (I don't know if they really have staff) not limited to homosexuals. If you can't tolerate this then that would be bigotry, FWIW.

>Pointing out that the SA will provide soup and compassion to all people, homosexual or otherwise, is irrelevant. //

You said they were discriminating negatively against people. Showing that they provide "services" without discrimination appears to be relevant.