The Law Gay Couples Vs Christian bakers

Cooldude

Hall of Famer
Dec 12, 2003
44,838
22,595
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers/Liverpool FC
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.
If you refuse to bake a cake for Christians, you'd be called a bigot

If a Christian refuses to bake a cake for gays, it's called freedom

See how bulls**t the entire thing is?

I'm okay with Christians refusing services for gays if the rest of us can refuse to service or employ Christians, if that's the society they wanna create
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,151
33,846
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
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
There's no need to the antagonistic tone.

You've made a lot of assumptions there. I try to avoid hypocrisy in my views so yes, I'd be ok with a business run by gay people to refuse to serve someone whose religion is associated with discrimination against same-sex couples. But, just like the other side of the coin, there's limits and caveats on that. The example the thread is based on is a baker. Not exactly essential services or lacking in alternative options. I think the decision the courts made about distinct vs custom work was a fair middle ground. And, at the end of the day, should people want to make their thoughts felt by said business, they won't shop there.

So no, I'm not trying to protect one group over another. Generally speaking, that s**ts me.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
42,973
70,303
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If you refuse to bake a cake for Christians, you'd be called a bigot

If a Christian refuses to bake a cake for gays, it's called freedom

See how bulls**t the entire thing is?

I'm okay with Christians refusing services for gays if the rest of us can refuse to service or employ Christians, if that's the society they wanna create
Believing that a guy died for three days and was then reborn gives you special privileges.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,151
33,846
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
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.
Yeah maybe, but that's just like the "My parents belted the crap out of me when I was a kid, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do it to my kids?" argument.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
42,973
70,303
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Yeah maybe, but that's just like the "My parents belted the crap out of me when I was a kid, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do it to my kids?" argument.
No it's not. They're suggesting that their beliefs are more important than others, and they should be allowed to discriminate while demanding protection from others who would wish to discriminate against them. It's absurd.
 

Cooldude

Hall of Famer
Dec 12, 2003
44,838
22,595
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers/Liverpool FC
There's no need to the antagonistic tone.

You've made a lot of assumptions there. I try to avoid hypocrisy in my views so yes, I'd be ok with a business run by gay people to refuse to serve someone whose religion is associated with discrimination against same-sex couples. But, just like the other side of the coin, there's limits and caveats on that. The example the thread is based on is a baker. Not exactly essential services or lacking in alternative options. I think the decision the courts made about distinct vs custom work was a fair middle ground. And, at the end of the day, should people want to make their thoughts felt by said business, they won't shop there.

So no, I'm not trying to protect one group over another. Generally speaking, that s**ts me.
I don't think I am being antagonistic, that's being a bit sensitive

You were the one talking about a free society, so I'm just posing the question on whether you really think a society where gay businesses and religious businesses refuse businesses with their counterparts is considered "free", where customers would have to pick only certain businesses they can be served because of their religious or sexual orientation.

How is a society geared like that, in anyway, free? That is anything but

Your premises will lead to a quagmire where all kinds of scenarios can end up happening: so can Muslims or Hindu stop serving Christians because of religious grounds? Can Scientologists refuse others? Going by your reasoning, they all should. So what you are doing isn't freedom, you are actually segmenting society

You are talking about the details, let's hear them from you, what are these details that can make such a silly slippery slope work? How is a society like that going to be "free"?
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,151
33,846
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
No it's not. They're suggesting that their beliefs are more important than others, and they should be allowed to discriminate while demanding protection from others who would wish to discriminate against them. It's absurd.
Sorry, not seeing the link. You said Christians need to harden up [about being told they can't discriminate] and comparing that to being required to serve homophobic people. So in other words, saying that gay people have had to serve those they would rather not for a long time, so Christians should have to as well. Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's pretty much analogous to my example.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
42,973
70,303
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Sorry, not seeing the link. You said Christians need to harden up [about being told they can't discriminate] and comparing that to being required to serve homophobic people. So in other words, saying that gay people have had to serve those they would rather not for a long time, so Christians should have to as well. Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's pretty much analogous to my example.
Christians wish to be given impunity to discriminate against people who don't comply with their world view and at the same time they want to be protected from discrimination against them by people who might find their views to distasteful. It's astonishingly arrogant.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,151
33,846
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
I don't think I am being antagonistic, that's being a bit sensitive

You were the one talking about a free society, so I'm just posing the question on whether you really think a society where gay businesses and religious businesses refuse businesses with their counterparts is considered "free", where customers would have to pick only certain businesses they can be served because of their religious or sexual orientation.

How is a society geared like that, in anyway, free? That is anything but

Your premises will lead to a quagmire where all kinds of scenarios can end up happening: so can Muslims or Hindu stop serving Christians because of religious grounds? Can Scientologists refuse others? Going by your reasoning, they all should. So what you are doing isn't freedom, you are actually segmenting society

You are talking about the details, let's hear them from you, what are these details that can make such a silly slippery slope work? How is a society like that going to be "free"?
I'm not being sensitive - I'm trying to make sure we are on the same page about not having a go at each other rather than critique the ideas. When you argue I have no idea what a free society is and that I probably haven't read 1984, it's ad hom and not productive. I'm glad that isn't your intent.

A slippery slope isn't an accurate way to portray what I was suggesting. It wouldn't lead to those things through a series of ever-encroaching steps; it would be immediately possible.

The details that make a minimal-interventionist approach to discrimination work can only be found in specific examples. Like I said, blanket rules rarely work. In this example, I like the idea of it being a breach of anti-discrimination laws to refuse to serve an off-the-shelf item to someone due to their age/gender/religion/sexuality/football team, but not illegal to say "I morally disagree with the job you are asking me to do and won't do it".

Take for instance the same scenario, but the baker is asked to make a cake celebrating the coalition victory in the last election. Being a long time Labour voter, the baker should be able to say "Sorry, I don't want to support anything to do with celebrating that side of politics as I find it abhorrent. But, you can buy one of the standard pre-made ones and do what you want with it". Everyone (in theory) should be happy. Or can go to another store.

If you want more examples, you'll have to feed them to me. I can't possibly cover everything. I think an important distinction I could make fairly confidently is also the difference between an individual's labour and a company's. Company policy always trumps the individuals when it comes to refusing service, because that's part of the employment agreement. If you own the business though, different story. So I imagine it would be pretty rare that things like this come up relating to a large organisation or essential service.
 

Dixie Normous

Premiership Player
May 13, 2009
3,321
7,067
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Just buy a ready-made cake from a bakery or a cake shop then you won't have to worry about whether the baker is a churchie or whether he thinks you may be one of them gays
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,151
33,846
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Christians wish to be given impunity to discriminate against people who don't comply with their world view and at the same time they want to be protected from discrimination against them by people who might find their views to distasteful. It's astonishingly arrogant.
Sure, if they aren't happy for the pendulum to swing both ways (pun appropriate again), then it's arrogant and hypocritical. But I still don't see how that relates to what I was saying. I've also already said that those freedoms should apply to all too. Probably not worth going further into this rabbit hole.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
42,973
70,303
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Sure, if they aren't happy for the pendulum to swing both ways (pun appropriate again), then it's arrogant and hypocritical. But I still don't see how that relates to what I was saying. I've also already said that those freedoms should apply to all too. Probably not worth going further into this rabbit hole.
But they aren't happy to see the pendulum swing both ways, they want it all their own way and bugger (pun intended) everyone else.
 

Cooldude

Hall of Famer
Dec 12, 2003
44,838
22,595
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers/Liverpool FC
I'm not being sensitive - I'm trying to make sure we are on the same page about not having a go at each other rather than critique the ideas. When you argue I have no idea what a free society is and that I probably haven't read 1984, it's ad hom and not productive. I'm glad that isn't your intent.

A slippery slope isn't an accurate way to portray what I was suggesting. It wouldn't lead to those things through a series of ever-encroaching steps; it would be immediately possible.

The details that make a minimal-interventionist approach to discrimination work can only be found in specific examples. Like I said, blanket rules rarely work. In this example, I like the idea of it being a breach of anti-discrimination laws to refuse to serve an off-the-shelf item to someone due to their age/gender/religion/sexuality/football team, but not illegal to say "I morally disagree with the job you are asking me to do and won't do it".

Take for instance the same scenario, but the baker is asked to make a cake celebrating the coalition victory in the last election. Being a long time Labour voter, the baker should be able to say "Sorry, I don't want to support anything to do with celebrating that side of politics as I find it abhorrent. But, you can buy one of the standard pre-made ones and do what you want with it". Everyone (in theory) should be happy. Or can go to another store.

If you want more examples, you'll have to feed them to me. I can't possibly cover everything. I think an important distinction I could make fairly confidently is also the difference between an individual's labour and a company's. Company policy always trumps the individuals when it comes to refusing service, because that's part of the employment agreement. If you own the business though, different story. So I imagine it would be pretty rare that things like this come up relating to a large organisation or essential service.
That is a massive amount of waffle, lemme cut it down to size

So you are basically saying, they should have to serve the bloke anyway, but being able to voice that they disagree with it

Then you are not talking about a service access issue, you are merely talking about freedom of speech: that you can't refuse to give them service but you are free to trash talk them about it

What the religious folks have been arguing is that they should have a right to deny service altogether

If that is your stance then you have been agreeing with everyone who has said they don't have a right to withhold, you are only arguing for their right to verbally disagree, which is a very different issue.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,151
33,846
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
That is a massive amount of waffle, lemme cut it down to size

So you are basically saying, they should have to serve the bloke anyway, but being able to voice that they disagree with it

Then you are not talking about a service access issue, you are merely talking about freedom of speech: that you can't refuse to give them service but you are free to trash talk them about it

What the religious folks have been arguing is that they should have a right to deny service altogether

If that is your stance then you have been agreeing with everyone who has said they don't have a right to withhold, you are only arguing for their right to verbally disagree, which is a very different issue.
Waffle? C'mon, I'm trying to answer as best I can here. This isn't a simple issue and if you think it is, there's not much point in discussing it.

I said they (in this case a baker) should be allowed to refuse a CUSTOM service to someone based on their religion, but not a standardised service (I.e. off-the-shelf purchase). This, I believe, was one of conclusions the courts came up with in the well-known example of this case in the US and it sounded fair to me. I have a feeling that was legally challenged but I can't remember - it's probably somewhere back in thread.

It's a middle ground solution. I don't think I've suggested I support the religious people's view on this at all so far. If so, it wasn't intentional. It's possible to address things with nuance rather than be black and white about everything.
 

TimmeT

Premiership Player
Mar 28, 2017
3,486
3,741
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Christians wish to be given impunity to discriminate against people who don't comply with their world view and at the same time they want to be protected from discrimination against them by people who might find their views to distasteful. It's astonishingly arrogant.
so do some gays, certain gender based groups such as trannies or feminists this is not a thing that os solely limited to religious group
 

TimmeT

Premiership Player
Mar 28, 2017
3,486
3,741
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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.
do you think the same about homosexuals who seek to stop groups they are not in agreement with from entering their venues?
 

Taylor

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
38,712
39,632
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Believing that a guy died for three days and was then reborn gives you special privileges.
It's even simpler than that. The primary correlation to religion is where you were born. Geographically decided deities for the most part.

The child born in the West is more likely to be a Jesus worshiper, a child born in the middle east is more likely to be praying towards Mecca. One of those children will have a much better time if they were gay.
 

Connoisseur

Club Legend
Mar 25, 2010
2,092
1,650
AFL Club
Geelong
There's no need to the antagonistic tone.

You've made a lot of assumptions there. I try to avoid hypocrisy in my views so yes, I'd be ok with a business run by gay people to refuse to serve someone whose religion is associated with discrimination against same-sex couples. But, just like the other side of the coin, there's limits and caveats on that. The example the thread is based on is a baker. Not exactly essential services or lacking in alternative options. I think the decision the courts made about distinct vs custom work was a fair middle ground. And, at the end of the day, should people want to make their thoughts felt by said business, they won't shop there.

So no, I'm not trying to protect one group over another. Generally speaking, that s**ts me.

Like I've said on another similar thread I don't see what the big deal is about refusing to accept custom made work. It makes sense to allow some leeway to businesses that involve orders that can be tailor made but that the owner may find objectionable due to valid religious/political/ideological grounds, everyone should have that basic right. Let's be honest forcing someone to create something that goes against their core values and beliefs (for sh*ts and giggles in most cases) hardly constitutes the most pressing of human rights issues in the world right now as there are plenty of alternatives that can cater to whatever a person may need. The way I look it is a business' loss for not wanting to accept money for doing a job, that's the extent of it as far as I'm concerned, is not cause to lose sleep over it.

I haven't heard of Christians deliberately looking for homosexual shop owners, at least not that I'm aware of, and requesting that their cake have words to the effect of 'Homosexuality is a sin, homosexuals will go to hell, marriage is between man and a woman etc..' In the event that there are Christians who are purposely trolling homosexual businesses in this manner I think the law should absolutely allow them to do likewise and refuse requests of that nature as well by politely telling them to f*** off. Gays who come across these business are entitled to spread the word of mouth and dissuade their friends and family from doing business with that shop and get back at them that way if they so wish. Other examples that owners should be allowed to knock back are, 'Vegans are brainless morons, Mohammed is a pedophile, women belong in the kitchen, pro-women abortionists are murderers, etc..', this isn't just about sexuality.

Whether people like it or not the vast majority of the world's population is religious and growing, it's only in some Western countries (a tiny portion of the world's population) where loud vocal irreligious/atheist/lefties want to desperately give the impression that religion is on the decline and on an inevitable path to becoming irrelevant.

Who knows for how long radical left wing ideology will dominate mainstream societal values in Australia and similar Western countries, it wouldn't surprise me if within the next couple of decades there's a strong shift to centre as a response to the pervasiveness of extreme left wing ideology that has being predominant since the 90s. So it's in everyone's best interest to instill laws that don't impose certain values over others who don't share them as the prevailing attitudes of a society can very easily change as has history has shown time and again.
 
Last edited:

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
36,488
29,327
AFL Club
GWS
it's only in some Western countries (a tiny portion of the world's population) where loud vocal irreligious/atheist/lefties want to desperately give the impression that religion is on the decline and on an inevitable path to becoming irrelevant.
Who knows for how long radical left wing ideology will dominate mainstream societal values in Australia and similar Western countries,
Wow, you 2 are on complete opposite sides of the argument.

Compromise.
 

Top Bottom