Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[bourbons]

Insurance for over 50s?

Demarkation is everywhere

Funny you should mention that, its one of the specific examples mentioned on the website when discrimination is allowed;

When factual evidence supports that the discrimination is reasonable in the circumstances. For example, where an insurance company can show that a refusal to provide a policy to a person is based on statistics or actuarial data which is reasonable for the company to rely on.

https://www.business.gov.au/info/pl...ess/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service

 

[EagleShore]

So anyone campaigning for same sex marriage before the plebiscite came out would have been wrong because it was the law. The analogy still stands. Try articulating a better argument instead of posting gifs and emojis, your maturity really shows when you result to such things.

Just, please stop. Stop embarrassing yourself.

The original assertion you made was that a company breaching anti-discrimination laws is analogous to someone voting YES in the SSM postal survey because the law currently defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

In order for something to be illegal, a law has to have been breached.

Neither voting YES nor campaigning for SSM involve the breach of any laws.

IF, while campaigning for SSM, someone got so frustrated hearing your bullshit analogies and walked up into your personal space and whacked you on the head with a baseball bat, THAT would be illegal and to that extent, analogous to a company breaching anti-discrimination laws.

Your analogy does not still stand...it never stood and it never will because it is patently wrong.

 

[Pessimistic]

Breaking the law?
Uber did that and got rewarded not punished so its a moving thing

 

[RupieDupie]

Breaking the law?
Uber did that and got rewarded not punished so its a moving thing

Ah yes the Golden Rule, "he who has the gold makes the rules", that's why lawyers are very expensive, because of "duh munny"

But anywho, apparently Australia has joined the Human Rights Council, and they were immediately grilled on Australia's record with asylum seekers and the postal vote noting that, "Human rights are not to be determined by opinion poll or a popular vote" which seems reasonable and rational. But this kind of thinking when presented to our non-secular-Christianity-as-interpreted-by-Professor-Abbott* government, goes straight out the window. At the University of Parliament House they are inventing a new way of thinking. Especially given that Abbott's colleague, the man of letters Professor Turnbull* said, "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia"

Yep, they have made some pertinent discoveries over here in Australia, where are the honorary doctorates, Fields medals, Nobel prizes even? Here is a summation of their major thesis;

politicians + munny = good
politicians + no munny = bad

*Professor Abbott - Amongst other things, Theologian, and Climate Change expert
*Professor Turnbull - Mathematical expert

 

[bourbons]

Breaking the law?
Uber did that and got rewarded not punished so its a moving thing

Horses for courses I suppose, Uber is essentially new tech.

Can't see laws prohibiting discrimination by race and sexual orientation moving any time soon, as they shouldn't.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yea uber is "ride sharing" has anyone ever shared with a stranger?

It's jut a monopoly grab

I really hope another mob nick their market using their tactics

 

[Appa]

Better argument? This coming from someone who believes businesses should have the right to deny service based on race and sexual orientation "because feelings" lol

You summing my argument up like that would be me summing your argument as business are not allowed to discriminate because feelings, unless they show there is a market for it. I don't result to being petty like yourself so I won't strawman you to make myself feel as if i have successfully rebutted your arguments.

Not an expert, but I'd guess a market and community need/benefit, backed up by data. You'd have just as much luck proving that for a white-only business as you would for straight-only one I'd imagine.

This isn't about whether it could be done it is whether you would be happy for it to be done. Being consistent with your argument you would be happy for there to be a white only, black only, gay only, straight only businesses aslong as the business can prove there is a market.

Again not an expert, but I imagine it would be a factor yes. A large part of Fernwood getting the exemption in the first place surely would have been that the community need it was addressing didn't exist.

Your argument that if the community needs is flawed. No one needs a single sex gym, some people may prefer one. Again, if you are happy for this then you should be happy for a single race, or sexuality based business. Consistency.

Compare that rationale with we'd prefer to only sell wedding cakes to straight people "because feelings". Its patently ludicrous, mate.

The government has no right to compel someone to make and sell something to anyway. It doesn't matter the decision the person has come to for refusing to sell. Again you intentionally try to belittle the argument to simply because feelings. If you can't attack the point you just make up another point to attack.

If they want an exemption from anti-discrimination legislation, they have to prove that and a whole lot more.

Or they could just, you know, sell cakes to anyone without basing service on race or sexual orientation. Pretty big ask I know.

I dont know your fascination with bringing up how they could get an exemption with the current legislation. I do not know the current legislation in detail to be able to debate getting an exemption from it and have no interest in debating such a point. The point has always been the government has no right to compel a business who they can and can't sell to. My point has never been that under the current legislation

The original assertion you made was that a company breaching anti-discrimination laws is analogous to someone voting YES in the SSM postal survey because the law currently defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Never made that assertion.

Business should not be compelled to serve by the government.
The law says they should be compelled so that argument is invalid

The government shouldn't put a same sex restriction on marriage.
The law says there is a restriction so that argument is invalid.

The analogy stands strong.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Any updates on the % of forms returned so far?

With all the trade dramas I have lost track of this.

 

[Appa]

Any updates on the % of forms returned so far?

With all the trade dramas I have lost track of this.

Last update i saw it was just under 70% of forms returned.

 

[NSWCROW]

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/ente...un-says-leftie-bullies-turned-off-voting-yes/

A 55-year-old who spent a big part of the eighties looking for gay men to bash at local parks says he was almost considering lending his vote to marriage equality, until ‘these people’ tried to make him feel a certain way.

 

[Flameboy]

‘Because feelings’ lmfao. What a stupid comment.

 

[happy_eagle]

‘Because feelings’ lmfao. What a stupid comment.

Uhm its satire.......

 

[DemonTim]

You summing my argument up like that would be me summing your argument as business are not allowed to discriminate because feelings, unless they show there is a market for it. I don't result to being petty like yourself so I won't strawman you to make myself feel as if i have successfully rebutted your arguments.

This isn't about whether it could be done it is whether you would be happy for it to be done. Being consistent with your argument you would be happy for there to be a white only, black only, gay only, straight only businesses aslong as the business can prove there is a market.

Your argument that if the community needs is flawed. No one needs a single sex gym, some people may prefer one. Again, if you are happy for this then you should be happy for a single race, or sexuality based business. Consistency.


The government has no right to compel someone to make and sell something to anyway. It doesn't matter the decision the person has come to for refusing to sell. Again you intentionally try to belittle the argument to simply because feelings. If you can't attack the point you just make up another point to attack.

I dont know your fascination with bringing up how they could get an exemption with the current legislation. I do not know the current legislation in detail to be able to debate getting an exemption from it and have no interest in debating such a point. The point has always been the government has no right to compel a business who they can and can't sell to. My point has never been that under the current legislation


Never made that assertion.

Business should not be compelled to serve by the government.
The law says they should be compelled so that argument is invalid

The government shouldn't put a same sex restriction on marriage.
The law says there is a restriction so that argument is invalid.

The analogy stands strong.

Can you please:
1. Stop making stupid comparisons
2. Actual research what Fernwood had to do to get approval to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. It is not just “because there’s a market

Why the * do people discuss material they do not understand

 

[Pessimistic]

Thia thread is an indication the whole survey is going on too long.

Some of the advertising has been suss too. surely the only people left who havent responded are people who dont give a rats. advertising needs to encourage them to respond not get more and more radical

 

[Admiral Byng]

Thia thread is an indication the whole survey is going on too long.

Some of the advertising has been suss too. surely the only people left who havent responded are people who dont give a rats. advertising needs to encourage them to respond not get more and more radical

Yeah, I think it is already done and dusted. Just waiting for the count.

 

[bourbons]

You summing my argument up like that would be me summing your argument as business are not allowed to discriminate because feelings, unless they show there is a market for it. I don't result to being petty like yourself so I won't strawman you to make myself feel as if i have successfully rebutted your arguments.

Well to be fair its not exactly my argument, its the argument of multiple high courts, human rights commissions and western governments the world over for the best part of 20 years.

I was just attempting to play the ball - thus far you haven't presented any argument other than "because feelings". But ok, lay it on me - what exactly are your arguments for allowing businesses to refuse service based on factors like race or sexual orientation?

This isn't about whether it could be done it is whether you would be happy for it to be done. Being consistent with your argument you would be happy for there to be a white only, black only, gay only, straight only businesses as long as the business can prove there is a market.

We just covered this. Market is not the only factor despite your wish to frame my argument as such. Again, if a business went through the appropriate process, presented the appropriate data, demonstrated an appropriate need and were granted an exemption, sure why not. Don't know how much more consistent I can be than that.

Your argument that if the community needs is flawed. No one needs a single sex gym, some people may prefer one. Again, if you are happy for this then you should be happy for a single race, or sexuality based business. Consistency.

Then its not my argument you believe is flawed, but rather the government decision to allow a same sex gym. They looked at the application/data and decided an appropriate exemption could be made - I'm guessing, but like I said body image particularly among young women is a pretty big ticket item these days.

I would be happy for a single race or sexuality based business to exist if it was deemed appropriate based on data presented in an exemption application. Consistent.

The government has no right to compel someone to make and sell something to anyway. It doesn't matter the decision the person has come to for refusing to sell. Again you intentionally try to belittle the argument to simply because feelings. If you can't attack the point you just make up another point to attack.

I can only assume you're deliberately muddying the waters here. No-one is being compelled to make and sell something. But if you have decided to make and sell things, you don't get to pick and choose who you sell to based on race and sexual orientation without an exemption. In this case, it 100% matters the decision/reasoning the business has for refusing to sell.

I dont know your fascination with bringing up how they could get an exemption with the current legislation. I do not know the current legislation in detail to be able to debate getting an exemption from it and have no interest in debating such a point. The point has always been the government has no right to compel a business who they can and can't sell to. My point has never been that under the current legislation

My fascination?? Good lord dude, you've been banging on about Fernwood for 3 pages, the process that allowed them to exist is pretty central to the discussion I would have thought. I don't know the legislation in detail either, like I said I'm no expert. I found what I needed to in about 45 seconds via Google - pretty good indication of how clear the law is in this area I'd say.

Ok, so returning to my first point in this post - if you think the current laws are wrong, lay out your argument as to why.

 

[bourbons]

‘Because feelings’ lmfao. What a stupid comment.

Come on then hotshot, you too. Whats your rationale if not 'feelings'?

 

[Crankyhawk]

If bakers etc really wanted to not serve they could just wait until they ask which date then say hmm.. Seem to be booked then, can't do. Which difficult for customers to prove a lie and doesn't break any legislation.

 

[bourbons]

If bakers etc really wanted to not serve they could just wait until they ask which date then say hmm.. Seem to be booked then, can't do. Which difficult for customers to prove a lie and doesn't break any legislation.

Yep, same as blokes getting knocked back from clubs coz "we're full" or "not in those shoes mate" when all they really want is more hot chicks in there.

 

[Pessimistic]

If bakers etc really wanted to not serve they could just wait until they ask which date then say hmm.. Seem to be booked then, can't do. Which difficult for customers to prove a lie and doesn't break any legislation.

or do the tradie trick of tripling the quote

 

[TimmeT]

Wonder if I go to the Melbourne Marriage equality rally on Sunday to advocate to be allowed the legal right to marry my teddy bear whether I will be accepted by the same sex marriage supporters?

 

[DemonTim]

Wonder if I go to the Melbourne Marriage equality rally on Sunday to advocate to be allowed the legal right to marry my teddy bear whether I will be accepted by the same sex marriage supporters?

After spending all your time in here, you still don’t seem to understand that inanimate objects can’t consent, and aren’t legal ‘persons’?

I’m glad you see gay people on the same level as inanimate objects. Really shows your underlying feelings.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Wonder if I go to the Melbourne Marriage equality rally on Sunday to advocate to be allowed the legal right to marry my teddy bear whether I will be accepted by the same sex marriage supporters?

You have a teddy bear?

 

[Frank Bunn]

or do the tradie trick of tripling the quote

Don't even need to do that. I'm waiting for call backs from several plumbers. If they are not interested they don't return the call.

 

[Showbags]

Wonder if I go to the Melbourne Marriage equality rally on Sunday to advocate to be allowed the legal right to marry my teddy bear whether I will be accepted by the same sex marriage supporters?

Tbh if u wanted to marry a teddy bear no one would likely give a *.

Its only the "libertarians" on the No side that want to regulate what others do in their private love life.