Marriage equality debate - Pt.3 - Australia votes yes

[Pessimistic]

What if a gay couple wanted to buy bread rolls to be served with dinner at their wedding reception?

Saturday or Sunday?

 

[Pie eyed]

Tell Saudi Arabia that laws are based on rights.

Also if you think people shouldn't be enforcing their opinions on others - I assume you're appalled by the yes campaign/campaigning in general?

Seriously?
If you think Australia is anything remotely like Saudi Arabia you need serious psychological assistance.

I think it behoves you to make such comparisons because you have absolutely nothing else of worth or validity to contribute.

 

[Frank Bunn]

What if a gay couple wanted to buy bread rolls to be served with dinner at their wedding reception?

The answer is in my post that you replied to. Bread rolls are standard products. But you should not be able to force someone to make a product that is against their beliefs.

As the baker in the Supreme Court case said -

I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies. I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I have no problem serving anybody — gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu. Everybody that comes in my door is welcome here, and any of the products I normally sell I’m glad to sell to anybody.

But a custom-made wedding cake is another matter.​

 

[Frank Bunn]

What you are arguing for is religious law to trump the secular law of the state.

If you want to talk about slippery slopes, that is an even bigger slippery slope than anything SSM could lead to.

All well and good to believe in a great jigglypuff in space, but to then argue that said belief entitles you to then follow your own theocratic law rather than secular law is ludicrous.

The law of the state protects freedom of expression and freedom of religious beliefs. No one should be compelled to express a belief or carry out actions that are against their own faith. A priest should not be made to marry a gay couple, a baker should not be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding, and a commissioning Aboriginal artist should not be made to paint a picture celebrating the death of Bunjil.

 

[Pessimistic]

The answer is in my post that you replied to. Bread rolls are standard products. But you should not be able to force someone to make a product that is against their beliefs.

As the baker in the Supreme Court case said -

I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies. I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I have no problem serving anybody — gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu. Everybody that comes in my door is welcome here, and any of the products I normally sell I’m glad to sell to anybody.

But a custom-made wedding cake is another matter.​

So the bakers convictions were adjustable to the situation. Should be a politician. Honestly we're afraid to strive for respect and fairness because of a few grandstanders?

 

[Maggie5]

So the bakers convictions were adjustable to the situation. Should be a politician. Honestly we're afraid to strive for respect and fairness because of a few grandstanders?

It really doesn't matter that much, those that will bake a wedding cake for a gay couple will have new business those that don't will miss out because of some belief. Hopefully others will boycott them just because. I know I would.
Win/lose.

 

[Showbags]

The law of the state protects freedom of expression and freedom of religious beliefs. No one should be compelled to express a belief or carry out actions that are against their own faith. A priest should not be made to marry a gay couple, a baker should not be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding, and a commissioning Aboriginal artist should not be made to paint a picture celebrating the death of Bunjil.

No such law of the state protects religious freedom in the way you describe. Section 116 was interpreted very narrowly by the HC to only prevent government interference with religious observance not excuse someone from a legal obligation. So basically only laws banning religious observance in its entirety will be unconstitutional.

You cant use your beliefs as an excuse to get out of a legal obligation of the state. Such a system would lead to complete anarchy and is the slippery slope of all slippery slopes. One minute it will be not having to adhere to anti-discrimination laws the next it will be something else.

And why do the religious get exemptions simply for having a sincerely held belief in an imaginary sky fairy, but I can't have exemption for my sincerely held non-religious beliefs?

 

[Pie eyed]

The answer is in my post that you replied to. Bread rolls are standard products. But you should not be able to force someone to make a product that is against their beliefs.

As the baker in the Supreme Court case said -

I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies. I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I have no problem serving anybody — gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu. Everybody that comes in my door is welcome here, and any of the products I normally sell I’m glad to sell to anybody.

But a custom-made wedding cake is another matter.​

Wonder how he feels about making cakes for christian weddings which will be eaten by paedophile priests?

 

[Crankyhawk]

From your link:
"Mr Smith’s draft legislation includes a number of exemptions to the law including allowing both religious ministers and marriage celebrants to refuse to officiate same-sex weddings.

The bill would also allow organisations with a solid link to a religious body to opt out. A church, for example, could refuse to rent its hall out for a same-sex wedding."

Labor and most of the Coalition MP's support this. That's where the rubber hits the road in my opinion.

Its the delcons who want to bring in extra "amendments". Its standard political BS. What will happen is that Labor will say f off, then liberals will campaign that it wa slabor that blocked the gay marriage bill.

The question is whether anyone will care enough to listen to th epolitical spin.

 

[Underarm]

It really doesn't matter that much, those that will bake a wedding cake for a gay couple will have new business those that don't will miss out because of some belief. Hopefully others will boycott them just because. I know I would.
Win/lose.

This is pretty much it. Gays make up a small section of the community of marriages, and homophobic cake bakers/florists/civil celebrants make up a smaller percentage than that. Wedding industry uses word of mouth advertising quite a bit so the gay friendly places will get passed around more often.

 

[yebiga]

I wish it to be known, that despite the extraordinary and annoying tantrums, the unrestrained mendacity of the YES campaign to convince me to vote NO - I have managed to sustain my belief in the freedom of every individual and continue to Support the YES vote.

 

[Chief]

I wish it to be known, that despite the extraordinary and annoying tantrums, the unrestrained mendacity of the YES campaign to convince me to vote NO - I have managed to sustain my belief in the freedom of every individual and continue to Support the YES vote.

#sobrave

 

[yebiga]

#sobrave

With me Chief - the individual is supreme - it's an Enlightenment Principle which I Uphold dearly.
Viva the Revolution!

 

[Lebbo73]

Its the delcons who want to bring in extra "amendments". Its standard political BS. What will happen is that Labor will say f off, then liberals will campaign that it wa slabor that blocked the gay marriage bill.

The question is whether anyone will care enough to listen to th epolitical spin.

I honestly believe that Turdbull won't concede to Abbott and Abetz on SSM. This is assuming that the Yes vote wins of course.

 

[Showbags]

I honestly believe that Turdbull won't concede to Abbott and Abetz on SSM. This is assuming that the Yes vote wins of course.

Lol he has conceded on everything else. What makes you think this will be any different?

 

[Lebbo73]

Lol he has conceded on everything else. What makes you think this will be any different?

There are a lot of issues that I believe he had to concede because Turdbull was sliding too far left. He won't on SSM.

 

[Showbags]

There are a lot of issues that I believe he had to concede because Turdbull was sliding too far left. He won't on SSM.

If you think Turnbull is too far left then i'd seriously reassess my political compass.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I honestly believe that Turdbull won't concede to Abbott and Abetz on SSM. This is assuming that the Yes vote wins of course.

I hope you are right. It will give him a chance to be remembered for standing up for something before his seemingly inevitable electoral obliteration.
A bit Julia remembered for NDIS (for better or worse), Krudd for "sorry", Abbott for wearing budgie smugglers..

 

[Crankyhawk]

If you think Turnbull is too far left then i'd seriously reassess my political compass.

Not that Turnbull is left but rather was getting too far left for the delcon part of the liberals. Who control the money and the votes.

 

[Flameboy]

You're being disingenuous. You threw Saudi Arabia in there as if passing a law for same sex marriage would somehow lead us down a similar path.

I find the mental gymnastics to somehow deny a group a human right quite absurd from many on the no side. We're not giving gays better marriage rights than straight couples here - it's marriage equality, not marriage preference.

Umm no I’m not, and no I didn’t. Don’t be presumptuous.

 

[Flameboy]

Seriously?
If you think Australia is anything remotely like Saudi Arabia you need serious psychological assistance.

I think it behoves you to make such comparisons because you have absolutely nothing else of worth or validity to contribute.

It had nothing to do with that.
And are you going to answer my question or just ignore it?

 

[Pessimistic]

The thing is it's not really left

Do people think gays etc are rusted on left voters

I don't think so there be a similar spread to the wider community

We on the left like it cos it's so uncomfortable for the coalition

 

[bourbons]

Well done you right wing ******s. You will stonewall again and it will be a general election issue anyway. Which I presume is what you wanted to avoid

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...s/news-story/b83e146cfdf8403dada34509fccc3133

lol. Good luck with that guys.

Agree. The government shouldn't compel businesses to serve anyone.

Still, mate? Really?

The answer is in my post that you replied to. Bread rolls are standard products. But you should not be able to force someone to make a product that is against their beliefs.

As the baker in the Supreme Court case said -

I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies. I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I have no problem serving anybody — gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu. Everybody that comes in my door is welcome here, and any of the products I normally sell I’m glad to sell to anybody.

But a custom-made wedding cake is another matter.​

I don't accept that writing 2 blokes names on a cake, or placing 2 little icing figures both wearing tuxes atop a cake, fundamentally changes the nature of the cake.

I don't think the supreme court will accept it does either, even stacked as it is.

The law of the state protects freedom of expression and freedom of religious beliefs. No one should be compelled to express a belief or carry out actions that are against their own faith. A priest should not be made to marry a gay couple, a baker should not be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding, and a commissioning Aboriginal artist should not be made to paint a picture celebrating the death of Bunjil.

False equivalence. A priest performing a SSM wedding ceremonies or an aboriginal artist painting the death of Bunjil is very different to a baker making a cake for a SSM wedding.

I still don't get how a business providing a service they literally exist for is "expressing a belief or carrying out actions against their own faith". When a draftsman creates a building plan for a builder, is that some endorsement of the builder's skills or implicit belief in the quality of his work? Here endeth your responsibility comes to mind.

Its bizarre.

 

[sherb]

There are a lot of issues that I believe he had to concede because Turdbull was sliding too far left. He won't on SSM.

The only way Turnbull is "left" is in comparison to the right-wing nutters.

Which doesn't actually make him "left".

 

[sherb]

The answer is in my post that you replied to. Bread rolls are standard products. But you should not be able to force someone to make a product that is against their beliefs.

As the baker in the Supreme Court case said -

I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies. I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I have no problem serving anybody — gay, straight, Muslim, Hindu. Everybody that comes in my door is welcome here, and any of the products I normally sell I’m glad to sell to anybody.

But a custom-made wedding cake is another matter.​

I am guessing you don't get how ridiculous that actually sounds and how stupid it makes the baker in question sound.

So he's happy to make products for same sex weddings unless he actually knows he is making products for same sex weddings.

Lol. Ignorance is bliss I guess......