So she asked why the disparity between the two systems and was told, if you convert to our denomination and embraced our beliefs and became active in the church we will pay as well as state schools.

She declined.

She wanted to teach for an income; she didn't want to become an ordained teacher.

It was a transactional relationship.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is trying to thread the eye of a fine needle with another social adventure, so fresh from the Voice debacle.

As promised the government wants to reform Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws by abolishing current provisions that allow the church and its schools to discriminate against students on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, relationship status or pregnancy in schools.

We are talking about one in three Australian children who attend a religious school.

This is not a peripheral distraction.

The reforms would preserve the right of religious schools to give preference to prospective staff on religious grounds, where teaching, observance or practice of religion is a part of their role.

This is dynamite stuff because the reforms have united the Christian, Islamic and Jewish institutions in opposition to the changes.

Against the current international climate it is a potent alliance.

The wording of the Australian Law Reform Commission proposals suggests a narrow corridor where schools can require faith-based adherence from teachers.

I might be wrong, but that's how I read it and we don't know yet because the PM has attempted to strike a bipartisan deal with the Opposition and now is courting the Greens.

And while the reforms would accept religious schools being able to preference teachers with the same beliefs and values, there is a get-out clause which stipulates that as long as giving preference to these teachers "is not discriminatory on other grounds".

While the Greens argue they are not anti-religion, they see plenty of scope for reform and this is spooking the broader church.

It is accompanied by a resentment that while religious schools are independent and set their own fees they still enjoy generous government funding.

Albanese has chosen the mother of all conundrums for the vanguard of social reform - trying to reconcile discrimination in the church with the rights of the church to manage its curriculum and administration.

It is almost a mission impossible.

Irrespective of what my partner was subjected to I strongly support the rights of church schools to preference staff who hold the same beliefs and practice as such.

I would not want my kids to sit in a classroom and be told unilaterally that there is no God and Jesus was a Sunday school fantasy.

I would expect discretion from secular teachers but sure as hell there are crazies out there who would want to liberate these kids from all these medieval fallacies.

The church points to polling which suggests a high percentage of parents who support a school's right to vet staff, and further that schools be given the right to sack staff who no longer subscribe to the school's religious beliefs and values.

The ALRC report to the government proposed abolition of Section 38 of the Anti-Discrimination law, so that schools would be prevented from rejecting gay or transgender students or sacking a teacher who gets divorced, has an affair or has a pregnancy outside marriage.

I could agree with all that because it is discriminatory in anyone's book and hurtfully so.

If a school finds itself lumbered with a gay or transgender student, then suck it up and manage it.

Discriminating against these people is contrary to my religious values and beliefs.

The simple foundation of my approach to all this is the greatest gift of all, being love.

The church may want to count the number of cases world wide of sickening child abuse before it starts pontificating about the theology of love and tolerance.

Of course the church argues that it warned how the gay marriage plebiscite would be the thin edge of the wedge and to some extent that might be true.

But the church needs to get practical and illuminate this debate with an argument that informs the debate rather than cloak the debate in a catechism we left behind a few centuries ago, when the church was the sword and shield of corrupt monarchs.

I think Australians could live with discrimination laws that protect staff and students from any form of oppression because that is not who we are.

As well I'm sure we would support the freedom of religious schools to ensure the school ethos is protected and sustained by staff who shared these same beliefs and values.

If a religious school was prevented from doing that it may as well close its doors.