The Law Gay Couples Vs Christian bakers

[Father Jack]

Such as what policy?

abortion and same sex marriage are two that readily come to mind

 

[Snake_Baker]

That's a pretty self-contradictory and and unworkable version of liberalism. You can't do the first bit if you allow the second bit with no restrictions.

You're clearly not a liberal.

 

[ShanDog]

abortion and same sex marriage are two that readily come to mind

Same sex marriage was passed with a rather large majority on recently (which includes many religious people obviously) and abortion probably has very similar support numbers. It's mostly the fundamentalist religious types who have issues with these things and they aren't even the majority of religious people, let alone the rest of society.

 

[Father Jack]

Same sex marriage was passed with a rather large majority on recently (which includes many religious people obviously) and abortion probably has very similar support numbers. It's mostly the fundamentalist religious types who have issues with these things and they aren't even the majority of religious people, let alone the rest of society.

And yet religions make up a powerful lobby against these measures. Why? Where are they getting their support if not from their rank and file membership?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Same sex marriage was passed with a rather large majority on recently (which includes many religious people obviously) and abortion probably has very similar support numbers. It's mostly the fundamentalist religious types who have issues with these things and they aren't even the majority of religious people, let alone the rest of society.

Yes, fundamentalist types having an opinion.

 

[ShanDog]

And yet religions make up a powerful lobby against these measures. Why? Where are they getting their support if not from their rank and file membership?

Ever had bosses out of touch with the workers? As far as I can tell, the stats just don't add up if you're claiming that - for example - the majority of religious people are against SSM. Could be wrong but that's what it looks like. Perhaps it depends on how you define religious.

 

[Father Jack]

Ever had bosses out of touch with the workers? As far as I can tell, the stats just don't add up if you're claiming that - for example - the majority of religious people are against SSM. Could be wrong but that's what it looks like. Perhaps it depends on how you define religious.

Proper religious, not just 'ticking the census box' religious.

 

[ShanDog]

Proper religious, not just 'ticking the census box' religious.

In that case I'd assume there would be more against than in favour within the Catholic church, perhaps a 50/50 split in most Protestant denominations (with age being the key demographic there - an interesting thing to find out about on its own) and for the fundamentalists it would be vast majorities against. I can't really speak to the Muslim faith at all but the impression I get is that age demographic would play a big role in that too, as well as the branch of the faith and background of the people.

 

[Evolved1]

The long term trend is a more humanist and liberal ideology to be dominant, and they include respect for and accommodation of religious beliefs. To enforce otherwise is arguably antithetical to those ideals which have been considered "progressive" for the latter part of the 20th century.

Regardless of what any fundamental religious types might preach that is intolerant and discriminatory, the reality is that not only are most religious people socially liberal, society is too. Encoding a standard for religion in law is something that should be done sparingly and with great thought, rather than out of spite or dislike for religion in general.

I personally don't know of any time in which respect towards and accommodation of religious belief has been at a lower point. Tbf, the religious shouldn't require nearly as much accommodation as they do in our modern society, yet here we are still debating the rights of gods vs people.

I think society sees religion as something to be accepted or reluctantly respected when it's kept in balance, and pushed back on when pushed into the public realm.

I don't see anything in religion that warrants special respect, however I agree that the right to have faith is a fundamental freedom of our society. The only standard I desire for religion is that it's kept personal and private. When we have religious people voting on the freedoms of others purely based on their faith, clearly the right balance hasn't yet been found.

That view is based on reason and egalitarianism rather than spite.

 

[ShanDog]

I personally don't know of any time in which respect towards and accommodation of religious belief has been at a lower point. Tbf, the religious shouldn't require nearly as much accommodation as they do in our modern society, yet here we are still debating the rights of gods vs people.

I think society sees religion as something to be accepted or reluctantly respected when it's kept in balance, and pushed back on when pushed into the public realm.

I don't see anything in religion that warrants special respect, however I agree that the right to have faith is a fundamental freedom of our society. The only standard I desire for religion is that it's kept personal and private. When we have religious people voting on the freedoms of others purely based on their faith, clearly the right balance hasn't yet been found.

That view is based on reason and egalitarianism rather than spite.

Yep, well put. The question that needs to be answered is whether we are OK with compelling people to do things that are against their religion (or in the case of bakers, what they think is somehow against their religion). It happens regularly as it is, but that's usually in relation to security / safety issues, and very few have a problem with that.

People's thoughts on that issue are most likely aligned with how individualistic or libertarian their politics are.

 

[Father Jack]

If your job compels you to do things that are against your religion, then shouldn't you be looking for another job?

 

[TimmeT]

If your job compels you to do things that are against your religion, then shouldn't you be looking for another job?

Why can't you just operate within the bounds of your religious beliefs. Why should you be forced to work in a way which will work to conflict with them especially like in this case you are self employed.

 

[darth_timon]

Why can't you just operate within the bounds of your religious beliefs. Why should you be forced to work in a way which will work to conflict with them especially like in this case you are self employed.

Because businesses are quite, rightly subject to public laws regarding discrimination. They're not private institutions; when you start a business, especially a public - facing one, you agree to terms and conditions.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Father Jack]

Why can't you just operate within the bounds of your religious beliefs. Why should you be forced to work in a way which will work to conflict with them especially like in this case you are self employed.

Because at the end of the day you choose not to do the thing you're employed to do.

 

[TimmeT]

Because businesses are quite, rightly subject to public laws regarding discrimination. They're not private institutions; when you start a business, especially a public - facing one, you agree to terms and conditions.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

Which is exactly why religious discrimination laws should be bought in.

 

[darth_timon]

Which is exactly why religious discrimination laws should be bought in.

To what? Allow religious business owners to circumvent current laws?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[TimmeT]

To what? Allow religious business owners to circumvent current laws?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

Why shouldn't there be religious discrimination laws? Do you think that it would be OK for a business to refuse someone on that basis? Imagine how well it would go down when those who are in support of the homosexual couple find out that it is acceptable for someone to tell people to piss off for being ******* towelheads? They will be raging and calling for action.

 

[darth_timon]

Why shouldn't there be religious discrimination laws? Do you think that it would be OK for a business to refuse someone on that basis? Imagine how well it would go down when those who are in support of the homosexual couple find out that it is acceptable for someone to tell people to p**s off for being ******* towelheads? They will be raging and calling for action.

I'm not quite following... Right now, arbitrary discrimination is simply not allowed. No one can hide behind their faith as an excuse to refuse to help customers, because businesses are bound by anti discrimination laws. Giving people the freedom to discriminate on religious grounds would mean they'd soon be finding all kinds of excuses/justifications to do that, simply because any person/group of people that doesn't actually affect their life expected the business to uphold its end of the bargain.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

This christian right stuff is weird. I hope Timme and his ilk realise it's a political project decades in the making that has him regurgitating their stuff.

 

[Cooldude]

I'm not quite following... Right now, arbitrary discrimination is simply not allowed. No one can hide behind their faith as an excuse to refuse to help customers, because businesses are bound by anti discrimination laws. Giving people the freedom to discriminate on religious grounds would mean they'd soon be finding all kinds of excuses/justifications to do that, simply because any person/group of people that doesn't actually affect their life expected the business to uphold its end of the bargain.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

The whole religious freedom ruse is just Christians wanting special treatment and higher privilege over the rest of society

Don't have to pay taxes, don't let ACCC examine their financial records, don't have to follow discrimination laws, outlaw any criticism of their faith, ban gays coz they don't like them

At the end of the day, "religious freedom" is about power, influence, wealth and privilege over the rest of society, it has never been a virtue. It basically aims to elevate one sector of society above all others, it's the opposite of a free society

 

[ShanDog]

The whole religious freedom ruse is just Christians wanting special treatment and higher privilege over the rest of society

Don't have to pay taxes, don't let ACCC examine their financial records, don't have to follow discrimination laws, outlaw any criticism of their faith, ban gays coz they don't like them

At the end of the day, "religious freedom" is about power, influence, wealth and privilege over the rest of society, it has never been a virtue. It basically aims to elevate one sector of society above all others, it's the opposite of a free society

Look, I understand the sentiment here, but that really reads like a paragraph from 1984, particularly as you reach that final crescendo. "Freedom is slavery" and all that.

A free society is best judged by the dearth of laws that compel you, not by how well society can restrict your own value structure.

I find it very hard to see why people shouldn't be free to withhold their business on certain religious grounds so long as they are willing to be known as assholes.

 

[TimmeT]

This christian right stuff is weird. I hope Timme and his ilk realise it's a political project decades in the making that has him regurgitating their stuff.

sure it is. it may also be because i believe discrimination shoudlnt occur in any form and examples like this should be fixed.

 

[Cooldude]

Look, I understand the sentiment here, but that really reads like a paragraph from 1984, particularly as you reach that final crescendo. "Freedom is slavery" and all that.

A free society is best judged by the dearth of laws that compel you, not by how well society can restrict your own value structure.

I find it very hard to see why people shouldn't be free to withhold their business on certain religious grounds so long as they are willing to be known as assholes.

Yes, stopping religious organisation's corrupted practices and encroaching influence on society is 1984, yeeeeah bet you never read the book

So you agree that a free society should allow religious people to refuse businesses to certain people on religious grounds, let's say, not hiring someone if they are gay. Yet I doubt you would have the same opinion if gay people refuse business to Christians on religious grounds, for different reasons, basically two sides of the same coin. You see what a silly quagmire you're creating here?

If religious people can refuse employment and services to certain people on religious grounds, then it is reasonable to assume the opposite can be true, that people can refuse services to certain religious people precisely because of their religion. If you only allow a special set of circumstances to religious people yet refuse it for non-religious people, then it is exactly as I say: you are only creating a more privileged society for the religious, over all else

I don't think you have a very good idea of what a "free society" is

 

[Father Jack]

Look, I understand the sentiment here, but that really reads like a paragraph from 1984, particularly as you reach that final crescendo. "Freedom is slavery" and all that.

A free society is best judged by the dearth of laws that compel you, not by how well society can restrict your own value structure.

I find it very hard to see why people shouldn't be free to withhold their business on certain religious grounds so long as they are willing to be known as assholes.

You mean take the religious excuse out of it and have people be solely responsible for their actions?

 

[Gough]

If I'd refused to serve every homophobe I've come across, I would have gone bust. Maybe christians should just harden up a bit.