That gay marriage thing........
- Thread starter Dozer
- Start date
out:
Elbo
pesky scooter kids git off ma lawn
On the issue itself; I wish they'd quit faffing around and pass it. It's shows an absolute lack of leadership to procrastinate as much as possible about it and distracts from actual issues.
The only issue I have with the pro-side of the argument are with the people who make it known they won't be happy until everyone agrees with them 100%. This is infantile. While it's only a small issue, I side with the Liberal Democrats on their view that no one should be forced to participate in anything they don't want to be involved in and businesses/churches/celebrants, etc reserve a right of refusal if it contradicts their morals. At the same time, those businesses also reserve a right to lose or gain income from the position they take.
The only issue I have with the pro-side of the argument are with the people who make it known they won't be happy until everyone agrees with them 100%. This is infantile. While it's only a small issue, I side with the Liberal Democrats on their view that no one should be forced to participate in anything they don't want to be involved in and businesses/churches/celebrants, etc reserve a right of refusal if it contradicts their morals. At the same time, those businesses also reserve a right to lose or gain income from the position they take.
I agree that not everyone has to agree but I think there are problems with that above situation.
If businesses are allowed refuse services if it contradicts their morals, does that mean they can refuse service to interacially married people, to women wearing Muslim head dress, to black people, to women, etc. etc.? I don't think churches should be forced to marry as they are not really carrying out a service, per se, they are being forced to do the exact thing they disagree with (I know marriage pre-dates Christianity but some interpretations of the bible do not support homosexuality) and that's unfair to them. However, making a cake is not against anyone's religion or beliefs, espeically if that's the service they provide. so a cake maker isn't being forced to do anything they morally object to - they aren't marrying anyone, they're providing a service of making a cake. If you let service providers discriminate against same-sex couples, why can't they also discriminate against interracial couples, gay people and non-Christians too?
I wonder if results from the postal vote will be broken down by electorate. Fanciful notion I know but imagine if 99% of uncle Tony's constituents voted yes would he stand up and represent that vote rather than his own (insert whatever derogatory terms you like here) opinion?
Elbo
pesky scooter kids git off ma lawn
That's a fair point and I can see how that could become an issue. I would probably separate out those examples a bit better regarding private businesses and religious institutions and say I'm against forcing any institution to officiate in things they are diametrically opposed to.
As far as private businesses go, I guess it depends to what extent we want to legislate. I'm not sure what the current laws are regarding refusal of service based on discrimination, but to me it seems to boil down to whether or not we think someone should be able to be sued for refusing service, or whether they can just dig their own grave by acting that way. Either way, if a business really doesn't want someone's custom (or to employ someone, to think of a related scenario) they will just say they are too busy to do the work, they're not the right fit, or quote high, or any other range of tactics to avoid doing a particular job. So the question is, can a person be sued for bigotry? And, how do you prove discrimination by non-provision of a service?
99.9% sure that businesses are not allowed to refuse service unless legislatively supported (service of alcohol, gambling, etc. are examples). If you can prove that you have been discriminated against based on sex, sexual attraction, race, religion, culture/ethnicity, etc. then the guilty business can be sued and charged with an offence.
Agree that forcing religious institutions to act against their beliefs is a bit harsh, although I'm sure there are some tough scenarios on that one as well. One of them we're looking at now is the protection of children and the sanctity of confession.
Agree that forcing religious institutions to act against their beliefs is a bit harsh, although I'm sure there are some tough scenarios on that one as well. One of them we're looking at now is the protection of children and the sanctity of confession.
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
For Tony, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't change. For most of the others that have been asked they have given answers that imply they would vote with the result because it's a democracy, but they have answered in a way that doesn't offend their constituents who have a diametrically opposed view point.
Ultimately, what pisses me off about the politicisation of this in really only the last couple of years (ie I was genuinely surprised that both labor and greens decided to oppose the plebiscite post election), is when the obvious does happen and it passes the people test easy, it makes it abundantly clear to the social conservatives that they do not have the ascension, and the debate is over, and over in as clear a way as could possibly be.
I don't think it's that easy, though. If the conservatives didn't have the ascension wouldn't we already see the ALP in power with strong numbers?
This is only one issue on the social spectrum, many people who are socially liberal are economically conservative and would still vote for the Liberal rep based on their economic platform.
This is only one issue on the social spectrum, many people who are socially liberal are economically conservative and would still vote for the Liberal rep based on their economic platform.
Elbo
pesky scooter kids git off ma lawn
Yeah, I'm not sure what law it comes under, but I think you're right. I think there is a tendency in Australia for people to want the government to tell them exactly what to do in every situation, hence why we have a select few businesses making fools of themselves asking for permission to discriminate instead of doing what all the other morally corrupt people do and just refuse service on 'other grounds.'
Your last point would definitely be an interesting debate. When you say 'we' do you mean its something being talked about in the media at the moment? I haven't noticed anything. I would've assumed it would be the same as doctor-patient confidentiality, i.e. confidentiality, but with a responsibility to report to police if something criminal has happened (e.g. child abuse, etc)
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
The social conservatives don't run the govt but they have enough power to stop it being re elected, or at least to make it difficult to operate.
It used to be the wet and the dries, not so simple anymore.
So I was using "social conservative" to describe people who love tony Abbott within the Libs. Probably the group who also came closest to delievering bill shorten into the lodge - I'm not sure they quite get the irony in that though.
It's all about the narrative these days......
It used to be the wet and the dries, not so simple anymore.
So I was using "social conservative" to describe people who love tony Abbott within the Libs. Probably the group who also came closest to delievering bill shorten into the lodge - I'm not sure they quite get the irony in that though.
It's all about the narrative these days......
Yes, it's something that is being considered in terms of legislation so the public debate is underway regards forcing the Catholic Church to report to authorities when some one confesses child abuse [insert obligatory joke about altar boys, pedo priests, etc].
@ Pharma, I think Tony's second biggest problem was that he never understood that he was in power at the grace of Julia Gillard and Kevin The Rudd. He actually believed that he won the election - as opposed to Labor losing it - and that he had a mandate to take Australia back to the early 1900s. Clearly Tony's greatest problem was Tony himself.
Should Bill get the keys to The Lodge it will be interesting to see if he makes the same mistake in thinking that Australia actually wants him.
indica
Serial flasher
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
But what if the cake maker is against gay marriage because of their religious moral convictions? I think this is about an institution, which is defined by their principles/rules/beliefs, rather than the individual, such as the Baker in this scenario. It's all muddled at the moment nasty hopefully we have an inclusive and correct outcome soon.
They will have bar codes...so I'm guessing it will be possible. They'll maybe even know who said what...then Tony's goons can come round up the trouble makers.
No one is asking the baker to marry same-sex couples. The baker is being asked to bake a cake. Unless baking cakes is against the baker's religious moral convictions then they have no reason to refuse service to anyone.
safreek
*******
If I was to get SSM I would not want this sort of fuckwit to make my cake.
Let them have their bigoted business, don't think they would last long in this area once named, let the.bigots support them because as time.goes by the future will look grim for them
moorey
call me Mia
If you opened a specialty shop, advertising special God cakes, specifically made for religious occasions and celebrations, that only made cakes with a cross (et al), a man and a woman on every cake....you dubiously might have a leg to stand on if a customer asked for a homocake or a Satancake and if said you couldn't make them one.
Technically, a business can refuse a customer service if they choose to, but choosing to because of sexuality, religion or race, and they were challenged on it, rather than refusing service because customer was a chunt etc, is going to be hard to squirm out of.
Technically, a business can refuse a customer service if they choose to, but choosing to because of sexuality, religion or race, and they were challenged on it, rather than refusing service because customer was a chunt etc, is going to be hard to squirm out of.
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
Churches have never been forced to marry anyone they didn't want to. That's why the Catholic church is allowed to get away with knocking back people who've been divorced.
Secular businesses need to abide by secular law. This includes non-discrimination law. If you're in the business of selling cakes, sell the nice men a cake and say thank you very much when they pay you money for it. Nobody's asking them to 'participate'. Nobody's asking for their personal blessing. Nobody's asking them to have any opinion whatsoever.
The 'personal morals' thing is just a smokescreen for bigotry, anyway. I've yet to hear of a baker or florist refusing service to a heterosexual couple who've been previously divorced, or somebody who's actively cheating on their spouse. And Jesus talked about that shit in the Bible a whole lot more than he talked about gay people (which is to say, not at all).
Here's a good illustration of the hypocrisy these people have when it comes to their 'beliefs' and 'morals':
http://reverbpress.com/news/us/diff...ian-florist-serves-adulterers-not-gays-video/
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
Not everyone has the time, money, or inclination to sue everyone who discriminates against them. This is why we have laws; to protect everyone, rather than leaving them to fend for themselves.
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
What if they're against interracial marriage because of their equally arbitrary 'religious moral convictions'?
I find it interesting that the religious beliefs of bigots always seem to support their bigotry, while the beliefs of non-bigoted people always seem to support their willingness to treat all people equally. I've never yet heard somebody say, "Well, if it was up to me I'd be all for marriage equality, but...that pesky Bible...what can you do?"