Michael Bird is Lecturer in Theology at Ridley College in Melbourne.

Social Progressives in Australia proudly cling to two badges.

First, there is LGBTI rights - something observed in their advocacy for marriage equality.

Second, there is their opposition to Islamophobia - something evidenced by their stand against hostile attitudes towards Muslims, particularly those currently detained in detention centres.

These are the two causes - being for LGBTI rights and being against Islamophobia - that have defined social progressives in recent years.

However, I can't help but wonder why no one seems to have noticed the seeming contradiction at work in these two causes. The fact is that Muslims are, for the most part, opposed to the LGBTI cause. They shun homosexual behaviour in their communities. Most Muslim nations shockingly imprison and execute LGBTI men and women every year.

When I see a pro-progressive protest at an Australian Christian Lobby event for their stance on marriage equality, I'm always bemused that the same people are not also out there protesting in the front of the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Iran over the capital punishment of LGBTI people.

Let us remember that Australia's Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohamed is on record for saying that homosexuality and lesbianism are a "sexual perversion." In fact, you don't have to look far in Muslim websites to find evidence of Muslims decrying homosexuality as a disease of the West and calling for severe penalties against it. Sadly, the events unfolding in Orlando are proof that radicalised Muslims will even seek out and target LGBTI people. While it is undoubtedly wrong to associate this action with all Muslims, nevertheless it does evidence a link between Islamic extremism and violence towards innocent LGBTI men and women - violence that should make us mournful as enraged at such evil.

This is the unresolved paradox of the social progressives: advocating for LGBTI communities and for Muslims who generally do not share in the values of the West's sexual revolution and regard homosexuality with either indifference or disdain. Maybe the paradox exists because both groups are victims of prejudice and intolerance which enables social progressives to live with but never resolve the tension. Even so, I do wonder how long social progressives can turn a blind eye to Muslim indifference and/or hostility to LGBTI people.

Well, we might not have to wait much longer because the subject of removing religious exemptions from section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act is now a serious topic of discussion. What is more, the removal of the exemption has huge repercussions for religious freedom. The Greens have officially taken the position that they will remove the exemption and faith communities can simply deal with the consequences. Somewhat more benign is Bill Shorten who announced Labour's position: "We are not interested in telling religious organisations how to run their faith-based organisations" - but with the curious caveat, "at this point in time." So watch this space.

Would federal and state governments force faith-based charities, schools and even worship communities to exclude religious qualifications for employment with the threat of litigation and the prospect of any state funding being cancelled? It is not likely at this moment, but it is hardly an unrealistic scenario for the future.

So let us imagine that religious exemption laws are repealed. And consequently a Muslim school, charity, or mosque finds itself in a legal dilemma because, well, it only hires Muslims who hold to Islamic beliefs and follow the Muslim way of life. What happens next? Does anyone really expect Australian Muslims en masse to alter their deeply held religious beliefs about family and marriage and just get with social progressive program? Would this cause Muslims to feel even more resented by society than they already are? I think we already know the answers to both questions.

I sense that social progressives are positively drooling at the prospect of unleashing a legal apocalypse and financial judgment on Catholic and Christian institutions for their discriminatory hiring practices. But I'm wondering if they have the stomach to do the same thing to Muslim schools, charities and mosques? And why stop there? What about Jewish synagogues and associations or even the Baha'i communities and their charities? The rub is you can't just penalize churches and leaves the mosques and the synagogues untouched. If you are going to go after religion by repealing the religious exemption laws, then you have to go after every single religion in society.

So do the Greens and their social progressive base have the desire to be the first Western democracy to prosecute or close Islamic schools, charities and institutions for being, well, Islamic? If so, where is your anti-Islamophobia badge now?

At the risk of being shouted down in vehement rage by social progressive in the comments section below, can I ask for a few moments of indulgence to explain why I think the religious exemption laws should not be repealed.

First, the state cannot dictate to faith communities what they believe and whom they appoint to undertake services. Only by the most Erastian of policies can the state arrogate itself to such a position. The constitution supports freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, which should entail the freedom of faith communities to determine who is fitting to serve as representatives for their religious, social and charitable services.

Faith communities do, after all, make a positive contribution to society through education, charities, as well as pastoral and chaplaincy services. While the Salvos, World Vision and the Red Crescent might not have done much for you personally, they do a great deal for a good many people all over the world. The Catholic Church is one of the largest employers in the country. Many Christian schools provide affordable private education to families who otherwise could not afford it. Out of the largest 25 charities in Australia, at least 23 of them are faith based. Do the social progressive really want to go nuclear on these faith-based charities for simply doing what they've been doing since federation? (If the answer is "yes," I suggest you start using the hashtag #ErastianismNow!)

Second, diversity in a multi-cultural society entails diverse views about sexuality, family, gender and child-rearing. This is the thing that frustrates me the most about social progressives. They are all for diversity, pluralism, and tolerance. Yet they have scowling contempt for persons whose views do not line up with their social progressive values. Forgive me for saying the painstakingly obvious, but embracing diversity means embracing a society where people are genuinely ... different. Diversity means the freedom to be different without fear of reprisal. That includes different political views, different social convictions and different ethical beliefs - even on matters of sexuality.

You might not find other people's views persuasive, agreeable, or tasteful. You have the right to criticize and even mock those beliefs. But the moment you say that certain people no longer have the right to hold and live by their beliefs, you are then rejecting diversity as a value and instead are insisting on the dogmatic imposition of your own beliefs as the sole acceptable position in the public domain.

No one knows how the social progressive paradox of supporting LGBTI rights and opposing Islamophobia is going to play out. I suspect that they will bumble along together for some time yet with social progressives playing innocent to the tension.

If, however, the religious exemption laws are repealed, and if Islamic communities face litigation or lose funding for schools and charities, at least the paradox will have been settled. Should that time come, then social progressives will have finally embraced ideology over tolerance, succumbed to secularizing zeal over religious freedom, and chosen leftie dogma over genuine diversity.

Michael Bird is Lecturer in Theology at Ridley College in Melbourne.