If we take on board that discrimination by any other name is still discrimination, does that make it right? Any of it? Is there a 'right' way of telling someone that they're excluded from something?
The Law Gay Couples Vs Christian bakers
- Thread starter Todman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If we take on board that discrimination by any other name is still discrimination, does that make it right? Any of it? Is there a 'right' way of telling someone that they're excluded from something?
What's their beef? I mean, from a woman's unique perspective?
Fact.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #479
There are certain realities that come with being a woman. Growing up and living life you are sort of looking over your shoulder for the big bad guy you've heard about who will victimise you. The lesbian women I know find that extra disturbing because it's even less what they want.
Then transgender woman, born as men, didn't grow up in that world. They didn't know what it's like to be 14 and leered at in a disturbing way by a creepy guy they don't know. Now they want to wrestle that significance into their reality.
Then the lesbian women are into women. Not women with a penis or masculine features.
That ruling seems stupid, and truly American. Off the shelf over the counter services often don't come to the point where you are able to identify the customer's sexuality to begin with, in order to discriminate. If a guy buys a cake from the shelf, the store owner ain't gonna detect that he is gay with his Holy Spirit. That is an unlikely scenario to even trigger the point where one's sexuality comes into it
Custom services like making a cake with specific messages however is when you can identify their sexuality if they want you to put a message on the cake, and that message indicates that they are gay, or religious, or something. Then the possibility of discrimination starts, and that's when you have to make a decision.
Two sets of circumstances are completely different, it isn't middle ground at all, sounds more like a cop out; allowing the discrimination to occur by using another set of unlikely scenario as an "offset".
As US a ruling as you get, the judges there are often appointed on partisan grounds so it wouldn't be surprising that they make a ruling convenient for the religious Christian right
That's a fair criticism but I don't think it totally negates the idea. It's not allowing discrimination carte blanche but it does for the commission of work.
If I were a Christian baker hell-bent (loving these puns) on being a dick towards gay people, I'd take that solution and run. I get that it would still feel like a kick in the guts to gay people but really - do they expect someone with those sorts of fundamentalist beliefs to suddenly re-evaluate their values and come to some sort of epiphany because the government told them to stop discriminating? I'd have thought it would be a hollow victory, if that at all. I doubt that many would want to engage the services of someone who thinks that lowly of them in the first place.
There are certain things you can only do via custom services rather than off the shelf, so it is still denying certain services to people due to their sexuality aka discrimination.
They don't have to come to an epiphany about it, you just have to accept that if they want to deny services on others due to their sexuality, then it should be a two way street; people can deny service to you because you are a Christian.
It seems silly to say that people should just let bigotry go because they will never change the minds of the bigot. No one's changing anyone's minds, they just want equal treatment, not preferential towards the religious
Yeah look that's fair, but I don't think it's the whole story either. I think it's reasonable to say that people don't just want to be tolerated but want to be accepted. That seems to be a strong message from numerous minority groups.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 15,697
- 24,783
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
Have a read.
Gender-critical feminism - Wikipedia
Of course the different parties don't want to get together to discuss their differences. They would rather lobby to 'no platform' based on the offence caused by their opponents.
JW Frogen
Premiership Player
I once tested a Catholic baker.
Make me a cake, penis shaped squirting custard at a choir boy.
He agreed.
So I went to an atheist baker instead.
He made me a cake full of Spaghetti and smugly called it God.
Make me a cake, penis shaped squirting custard at a choir boy.
He agreed.
So I went to an atheist baker instead.
He made me a cake full of Spaghetti and smugly called it God.
- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #487
Why don't the people who want gay marriage cakes start their own gay marriage cake business?
Have a read.
Gender-critical feminism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Of course the different parties don't want to get together to discuss their differences. They would rather lobby to 'no platform' based on the offence caused by their opponents.
So some reckon that a male-to-female transgender person is a male intrusion into womanhood? I can kinda see the reasoning behind this way of thinking, but I don't agree with it at all. Womanhood is not sacred. Neither is manhood. Some have built an entire mythos around sacred gender differences almost to a religious type of awe and to me it is all just absolute crap. Gender is just what it is, and if a penis is sliced, diced, turned inside out and tucked into the human body to form a vagina (I'm simplifying a fair bit here, I know) that person is a woman as far as I am concerned. The inability to conceive a child or menstruate shouldn't even come into the argument.
You're right in that both parties need to actually talk to each other to sort their differences out though. If they can just see each other as human beings maybe some rationality might settle in.
I mean, I can understand this. I never lived the bolded part. Maybe I am thinking from the socially and politically more priviliged male perspective (I never lived through being leered at, but being a man with a male mindset I would probably have enjoyed it and indulged) but I still can't see a discrimination based on that as being valid. Some women have lived through war. Some through poverty. Some are born to sweet delight, others born to endless night - that sort of thing.
The experience of each should not invalidate the experiences of others. I can actually see why some feminists want their sacred womanhood border to be defended, but I can't agree with their stance. As far as I'm concerned it's a borderless state called Humanity. No guards. No razor wire separating us.
- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #490
Nonsense.
Yeah, we all have opinions, so fair enough! But...why? How do you justify your position?
- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #492
To assert that there are no fundamental differences between men and women (and that these differences necessitate a 'border' between them in their own interests) is arrant nonsense.
It's straight up solipsism.
I'm not saying there aren't differences. I'm saying those differences are immaterial. In the spirit of 'be the change you want to see in the world' I'm happy to share any kind of space with any kind of person. That's pretty much the exact opposit of solipsism, where it's believed that only the one self exists and all others are imaginary.
I believe in social inclusion. Again, not solipsism.
- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #494
How can you assert that given you've never experienced them?
Your view of 'social inclusion' is limited solely to your view of the world - what makes you comfortable. Maybe women want spaces free of male predation? Your opinion in this regard does not matter.
Of course my opinion dosen't matter. I'm only... (counts fingers) one man. That can't stop me OR you from expressing how we'd like to see the world, although from the interactions we've had already you don't really assert, you counter-argue. I mean, are you a fan of the status-quo? Would you call yourself conservative?
Or do you hate labelling?
- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #496
I don't care how the world is, I don't like disingenuous nonsense pushed as a social good, which is rife in left-liberalism.
Fair enough, although by not liking something you ARE injecting care, just a little, into your world view. Deny it all you want, but it's there.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,759
- 43,127
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Should someone be able to be forced to write something that they don't agree with? I get the position on the 'creative' argument about not being able to refuse an off the shelf type service to someone, but then also being able to refuse to write (or other create) something they disagree with.
I wouldn't expect a Muslim baker to make me a cake that says "Allah is a liar" or some such for example. But I get the feeling some people expressly want to be able to force anyone who disagrees with their idelogical position to be forced to do so.
See, that IS a good point. The more I think about it the more I'm wondering if bakeries would have the decorating stuff people would need to add their own messages and whatever in-store. I mean, the customer's already paid for it so it should be beyond the shop-owner's concern what the customer writes on the cake. Have the cake all laid out then the customer adds what they wish and walks out with the cake.
Shop-owners own beliefs aren't trampled on (as they would see it).
Customer's beliefs/lifestyle/whatever aren't violated (as they would see it).
Similar threads
