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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Happy Mastenator said:
We need yes voters to realize that the no side are a joke, and arseholes on the wrong side of history, and that as such it's important that they get their yes votes in.
Click to expand...
How does that gel with the whole 'moslems are wonderful' narrative when they've come out as a definitive NO likening gay marriage to incest and bestiality?
 
Appa said:
It would definitely be a suicidal move for a business to take with many probably boycotting the business. I'm sure most successful business people wouldn't let their personal beliefs get in the way of revenue or public opinion. And for the same reason people should be allowed to boycott, business should be allowed to refuse service.
Click to expand...
How would that be different to a cafe for example telling gay patrons to piss off? I'm pretty sure that breaks discrimination acts currently. The only services that should get exemption would be the direct church ones.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

WeetBixKid said:
When you've got a decent argument you're right, it doesn't matter. But when you go around telling people to "suck it up", name your handle after a wife beater that murdered his girlfriend, & try to act big without contributing much of anything the hypocrisy become relevant, & funny.
Click to expand...
These christian cake bakers have their tentacles around everyone.
 
KGBeast said:
How does that gel with the whole 'moslems are wonderful' narrative when they've come out as a definitive NO likening gay marriage to incest and bestiality?
Click to expand...
that's because conservatives have a tendency to see things in black/white terms and think that if you don't join in the muslim bashing then you must one hundred percent approve of everything that muslims do.
 
KGBeast said:
How does that gel with the whole 'moslems are wonderful' narrative when they've come out as a definitive NO likening gay marriage to incest and bestiality?
Click to expand...
The three that are in Federal Parliament are all voting YES.
 
WeetBixKid said:
So being tolerant and minding your own business isn't enough. Now you want the state coercing individuals into actively celebrating relationships their personal beliefs don't approve of. It really never ends does it.
Click to expand...

Its legit staggering that you got that from the post of mine you replied to o_O

Providing the service that your business literally exists for does not = being forced to actively celebrate anything.
 
Appa said:
Neither should be punishable by the law. It is actually a legitimate argument from the No side where trends around the world have seen people fined just for protecting their personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Appa said:
It would definitely be a suicidal move for a business to take with many probably boycotting the business. I'm sure most successful business people wouldn't let their personal beliefs get in the way of revenue or public opinion. And for the same reason people should be allowed to boycott, business should be allowed to refuse service.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, in your first sentence (neither should be punishable) you are now arguing that businesses should be allowed to racially discriminate :huh:

"People around the world" are not being fined for protecting their personal beliefs. They are being fined for discriminatory practices.

Re: boycotts, an individual is not a business. Different rules apply, as they should.

Depending on the wedding, you probably need to pay/contract out for certain things - cake, flowers, transport, venue. Imagine if the owners of all of the businesses that provided these were religious and allowed to refuse on that basis? That is an infringement of rights. A business being compelled to provide the service they exist and are paid for is not.
 
Last edited:
bourbons said:
Just to be clear, in your first sentence (neither should be punishable) you are now arguing that businesses should be allowed to racially discriminate :huh:

"People around the world" are not being fined for protecting their personal beliefs. They are being fined for discriminatory practices.

Re: boycotts, an individual is not a business. Different rules apply, as they should.

Depending on the wedding, you probably need to pay/contract out for certain things - cake, flowers, transport, venue. Imagine if the owners of all of the businesses that provided these were religious and allowed to refuse on that basis? That is an infringement of rights. A business being compelled to provide the service they exist and are paid for is not.
Click to expand...
You’re comparing homosexuality to racism. Completely different things.
 
bourbons said:
Depending on the wedding, you probably need to pay/contract out for certain things - cake, flowers, transport, venue. Imagine if the owners of all of the businesses that provided these were religious and allowed to refuse on that basis? That is an infringement of rights. A business being compelled to provide the service they exist and are paid for is not.
Click to expand...
Your hypothetical situation is extreme. If it were the case I'd agree on working towards a society like we have today, perhaps that may need some government control. In the real world it is a very small minority that would refuse business and a very minor inconvenience to go somewhere else.
It is not an infringement of rights for a business to refuse service. It is an infringement on rights to compel someone to provide a service.

What are your thoughts on Womens only gyms such as Fernwood? Are they gender discriminatory or should they be compelled to allow Men to join. What are your thoughts on clubs and bars trying to keep an equal gender balance inside and denying people entry based on gender or social status? Should Male/Female sex workers be compelled to provide a service to both the opposite sex and the same sex?
 
Appa said:
Neither should be punishable by the law. It is actually a legitimate argument from the No side where trends around the world have seen people fined just for protecting their personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Woah, so a place of business that’s agreed to rules and regulations regarding discrimination should be allowed to cherrypick customers based on personal preference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Appa said:
Yes. It would be bad business but they should be allowed.
Click to expand...
This is a reminder that posters who use this argument would also have rejected integrated lunch counters. And probably would still oppose it.

68%20peoples%20drug%2018%27wide.jpg
 
Kidd Vicious said:
It's not. It's the exact same argument. You're aware, on some level, of how backwards your ideas are.
Click to expand...
No, it is the complete opposite of what I am saying. I am arguing for businesses freedom to run a business how they please. I am not advocating for businesses to have segregation policies.

Nice try.
 
Appa said:
No, it is the complete opposite of what I am saying. I am arguing for businesses freedom to run a business how they please. I am not advocating for businesses to have segregation policies.

Nice try.
Click to expand...

You actually are. In saying businesses can disregard rules on discrimination, you are saying the door is open to anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Appa said:
No, it is the complete opposite of what I am saying. I am arguing for businesses freedom to run a business how they please. I am not advocating for businesses to have segregation policies.

Nice try.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t segregation policies be “running how they please”
 
Appa said:
Yes. I'm not rejecting integration which was your post.
Click to expand...
Sorry. How is segregation the complete opposite of what you’re arguing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

nut
The Nuclear debate
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
Cap
Cap
Ohitsthatguy
The Coalition initiated Robodebt on the most vulnerable...
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred
QuietB
Inequality is out of control in Australia
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
5K
Saint
Saint
Ohitsthatguy
Is it cool that Stokes, Murdoch and Costello own Australian media?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred
HurleyHepsHird
It is time to end the consultancy gravy train and rebuild the public service
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Demonic Ascent
Demonic Ascent
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
6K
Saint
Saint
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top