Privileging prejudice: the threat and opportunity posed by the movement for 'religious freedom'

The recent election was an excellent example of this re-positioning.

The religious right claims the Coalition was re-elected and Labor defeated by a small but critical voter bloc that avidly supports religious freedom, and was stirred up all the more by sanctions against Israel Folau for comparing homosexuals to liars, thieves and other wrongdoers bound for Hell.

That voter bloc is said to exist chiefly in western Sydney and regional Queensland, areas that voted No in the postal survey.

The argument for 2019 being a "religious freedom" election is pretty weak.

The three to five per cent swings against Labor in those areas were not much different to swings in areas that voted Yes.

In Yes-voting seats that swung from Labor to the Coalition, like those in northern Tasmania, there is no evidence that religious freedom or LGBTI equality had any impact at all.

On top of that, Senate candidates who were the face of the No campaign, like Lyle Shelton and Sophie York, received miniscule personal votes.

Prior to the election, the ABC's Vote Compass found only one per cent of voters rated religious freedom as their number one issue, a figure the election result seems to confirm.

Despite the lack of evidence for a significant religious freedom constituency, the leaders of both major parties seem to have accepted the political myth that it exists, laying the foundation for legislation to protect "religious freedom".

Attorney-General, Christian Porter, says he will introduce legislation as early as July.

Porter's bill might simply prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion. This type of law already exists in most states and should be enacted nationally.

But there's also a strong possibility Porter's bill will go further, entrenching an unfettered right to religious freedom.