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

[Appa]

Um, what?

You're the worst drawer of an analogy I've ever seen.

You claimed I was wrong because the Law says I'm wrong. If you took that same position with the marriage survey you would have voted No. Either you don't have consistency in your argument or you voted No.

 

[Pessimistic]

If they were secular celebrants refusing to perform a civil union, you'd have a point.

But some celebrants are there to perform a very specific, spiritual service. Do we force orthodox rabbis to solemnize intermarriages? I doubt it. & they shouldn't be forced into performing gay marriages either.

My point from before. Marriage has all sorts of sub groups. Ssm is just one more

 

[Pessimistic]

They can refuse service provided they aren't breaching anti-discrimination laws, as they clearly would be in refusing to provide a cake for a same sex wedding.

You are categorically wrong mate, it's not even debateable;


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

You might not like it but it's still the law.



They're completely free to apply for an exemption, same as Fernwood. Good luck rationalising a need not currently provided for straight people to eat cake unencumbered by the presence of the gays lol



By that logic businesses would be free to murder you once you entered their premises. Another extreme example of course but it would be "doing as they please".

This is the crux of the argument that you somehow inexplicably don't get - businesses already are free to do as they please, provided they don't breach existing laws in doing so. Its really not that hard to understand.

We are told all the time how banks refuse entry to people wearing motorcycle helmets

 

[Chief]

Appa Did you want to address the substance of my post?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Maggie5]

We are told all the time how banks refuse entry to people wearing motorcycle helmets

Security?

 

[Pessimistic]

Only a small proportion of helmet wearers are criminal

 

[Bradesmaen]

Only a small proportion of helmet wearers are criminal

Let's introduce laws into parliament. Ban the Biker (helmet). Pauline should be behind that.

 

[Maggie5]

Only a small proportion of helmet wearers are criminal

Do the banks know that before or after the fact?
I don't see it as a major problem banks having that right, unless of course they have a wedding cake under their helmet.

 

[Appa]

Appa Did you want to address the substance of my post?

I try to make sure i address every point made when responding to someone so I'm sorry i missed something. I assume you mean the post below as the thing you wanted me to give a more thorough response to. The original questions you quoted were from a response to bourbons using a hypothetical that if every florist, baker, caterer refused service to same sex weddings it would be a problem and therefor any discrimination is a problem. My questions were to gauge a response directly from bourbon that hypothetical to find a consistency in his argument. If in his hypothetical all gyms allowed only women to join it would also be a problem. However, this is not the case and hence why no one cares that Fernwood and other gyms like it exists. Similarly with clubs, if they were all exclusive to someone of a high social status it would be a problem.

It is hard for me to argue against your claims without knowing your logical reasoning for the original hypothetical premise. The only way for me to do so is to straw-man you into having the exact same logic of a different poster. If you do accept his hypothetical than that is logically inconsistent.

Nightclubs are social venues, for a start. A balance of genders is part of that service.

A gym also has a social side and puts people at a certain level of intimacy with other people.

Providing a cake or flowers isn't the same as providing sex services. Obviously.

Providing flowers impacts on none of the florist's other customers. It doesn't change the nature of the service or product.

 

[Chief]

I try to make sure i address every point made when responding to someone so I'm sorry i missed something. I assume you mean the post below as the thing you wanted me to give a more thorough response to. The original questions you quoted were from a response to bourbons using a hypothetical that if every florist, baker, caterer refused service to same sex weddings it would be a problem and therefor any discrimination is a problem. My questions were to gauge a response directly from bourbon that hypothetical to find a consistency in his argument. If in his hypothetical all gyms allowed only women to join it would also be a problem. However, this is not the case and hence why no one cares that Fernwood and other gyms like it exists. Similarly with clubs, if they were all exclusive to someone of a high social status it would be a problem.

It is hard for me to argue against your claims without knowing your logical reasoning for the original hypothetical premise. The only way for me to do so is to straw-man you into having the exact same logic of a different poster. If you do accept his hypothetical than that is logically inconsistent.

You seemed to me to be trying to draw a parallel between the businesses/transactions you mentioned and supplying goods for a wedding. Is that not what you were doing?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Appa]

You seemed to me to be trying to draw a parallel between the businesses/transactions you mentioned and supplying goods for a wedding. Is that not what you were doing?

Yes. There is a similarity. If gyms can discriminate based on gender, cake shops can discriminate based on sexuality. If the owner of every gym discriminated against one gender we have a problem, if the owner of every cake shop discriminated against one sexuality we have a problem. We live in a society where only a minority would discriminate due to personal beliefs instead of taking an extra revenue stream. I'm trying to find the logical consistency in the opposing argument.

 

[EagleShore]

You claimed I was wrong because the Law says I'm wrong. If you took that same position with the marriage survey you would have voted No. Either you don't have consistency in your argument or you voted No.

The poor logic you're displaying is becoming painful.

The postal vote is predicated upon a possible CHANGE TO THE EXISTING LAW.

It is legal to vote YES and it is legal to vote NO in this postal vote.

 

[Brick Loosener]

How many gay wedding cakes have been purchased in Australia?

 

[Underarm]

How about the Jewish baker and a Nazi cake?

More like a Nazi baker and a gay Jewish cake.

 

[Chief]

Yes. There is a similarity. If gyms can discriminate based on gender, cake shops can discriminate based on sexuality. If the owner of every gym discriminated against one gender we have a problem, if the owner of every cake shop discriminated against one sexuality we have a problem. We live in a society where only a minority would discriminate due to personal beliefs instead of taking an extra revenue stream. I'm trying to find the logical consistency in the opposing argument.

And the transactions you mentioned are distinguishable from supplying goods for a wedding.

 

[bourbons]

You claimed I was wrong because the Law says I'm wrong. If you took that same position with the marriage survey you would have voted No. Either you don't have consistency in your argument or you voted No.

I would say the law plus common sense and decency say you're wrong... but anyway, you're confusing an illegal act (discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual preference) with expressing an interest in changing current legislation via a plebiscite. As is blindingly obvious, voting yes in the plebiscite is not illegal.

Again, you're the worst drawer of an analogy I've ever seen.

 

[bourbons]

We are told all the time how banks refuse entry to people wearing motorcycle helmets

Yep, also "no shirt no shoes no service" policies. Or dress codes for nightclubs. Intoxication. There are plenty of service denial examples which are reasonable and don't breach any laws.

 

[sherb]

Do the banks know that before or after the fact?
I don't see it as a major problem banks having that right, unless of course they have a wedding cake under their helmet.

 

[sherb]

How many gay wedding cakes have been purchased in Australia?

I didn't even know wedding cakes could even be gay.

 

[bourbons]

Yes. There is a similarity. If gyms can discriminate based on gender, cake shops can discriminate based on sexuality. If the owner of every gym discriminated against one gender we have a problem, if the owner of every cake shop discriminated against one sexuality we have a problem. We live in a society where only a minority would discriminate due to personal beliefs instead of taking an extra revenue stream. I'm trying to find the logical consistency in the opposing argument.

One more time.

Fernwood applied for an exemption to anti-discrimination law. I imagine they would have produced a mountain of research and survey material as part of this application to demonstrate that women are interested in having access to a female-only gym - they're not going to setup an operation like that without knowing they have a decent chance to turn a profit, are they? If subsequent gyms decide they want go women-only, they'll need to go through the same process. And I imagine they'll be knocked back, seeing as Fernwood already fills the objectively demonstrated community need that wasn't being addressed previously.

Cake shops are completely free to apply for an exemption too. As mentioned, good luck providing data supporting a community need to eat cake while not in the presence of gay people, much less the totally ****ing unreasonable task of an owner/employee handing a wedding cake to a gay person who then walks out of the store never to be seen again.

Honestly, this is pretty simple stuff.

 

[Pessimistic]

And more often than not the people chipping at the fringes of laws are just seeking publicity anyway.

That's why Mouncies conduct has been so commendable

 

[Appa]

The poor logic you're displaying is becoming painful.

The postal vote is predicated upon a possible CHANGE TO THE EXISTING LAW.

It is legal to vote YES and it is legal to vote NO in this postal vote.

I would say the law plus common sense and decency say you're wrong... but anyway, you're confusing an illegal act (discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual preference) with expressing an interest in changing current legislation via a plebiscite. As is blindingly obvious, voting yes in the plebiscite is not illegal.

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.

Fernwood applied for an exemption to anti-discrimination law. I imagine they would have produced a mountain of research and survey material as part of this application to demonstrate that women are interested in having access to a female-only gym - they're not going to setup an operation like that without knowing they have a decent chance to turn a profit, are they? If subsequent gyms decide they want go women-only, they'll need to go through the same process. And I imagine they'll be knocked back, seeing as Fernwood already fills the objectively demonstrated community need that wasn't being addressed previously.

So Fernwood are exempt from discrimination because they can prove that women are interested in a female only gym. So can any business ran by a white identitarian that can prove that there is a market for a white only business also be exempt?

If subsequent gyms decide they want go women-only, they'll need to go through the same process. And I imagine they'll be knocked back, seeing as Fernwood already fills the objectively demonstrated community need that wasn't being addressed previously.

You think that no one else should be able to set up a female only gym because Fernwood already have that market covered. The idea that any business shouldn't be able to get a licences because another business already fills that need is perplexing.

Cake shops are completely free to apply for an exemption too. As mentioned, good luck providing data supporting a community need to eat cake while not in the presence of gay people, much less the totally ****ing unreasonable task of an owner/employee handing a wedding cake to a gay person who then walks out of the store never to be seen again.

You instantly create a different argument for the cake shop. Fernwood only needed to show that there was a market for such a gym. Now you say a cake shop needs to prove that there is a community that need to eat cake without the presence of gay people. Why wouldn't you at least be consistent in your argument and allow the cake shop to prove there is a market for it.

Regardless, businesses shouldn't need to prove to the government the rules of their private business have a market. It is a private business, they should be able to sell to who they like.

 

[Pessimistic]

Insurance for over 50s?

Demarkation is everywhere

 

[sherb]

You are a pretty sad and pathetic human being if you are in business and you want the "right" to refuse service to someone based on who they want to marry.

 

[bourbons]

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 for you )

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

So Fernwood are exempt from discrimination because they can prove that women are interested in a female only gym. So can any business ran by a white identitarian that can prove that there is a market for a white only business also be exempt?

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.

You think that no one else should be able to set up a female only gym because Fernwood already have that market covered. The idea that any business shouldn't be able to get a licences because another business already fills that need is perplexing.

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.

You instantly create a different argument for the cake shop. Fernwood only needed to show that there was a market for such a gym. Now you say a cake shop needs to prove that there is a community that need to eat cake without the presence of gay people. Why wouldn't you at least be consistent in your argument and allow the cake shop to prove there is a market for it.

Read the Fernwood point again, I mentioned community need;

...And I imagine they'll be knocked back, seeing as Fernwood already fills the objectively demonstrated community need that wasn't being addressed previously.

Market is not the only consideration, you'd have to have a bloody good case to get something like this through in today's climate. I can totally accept that some women who are conscious about weight, appearance or other issues would prefer a female-only exercise environment, and that would have been thoroughly documented in Fernwood's application. Body image is a pretty big ticket item these days.

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

Regardless, businesses shouldn't need to prove to the government the rules of their private business have a market. It is a private business, they should be able to sell to who they like.

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.