Politics & Government Should a baker be forced to bake gay wedding cakes?
- Thread starter Smiling Buddha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
C'mon mate you can do batter than that.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think you are trying to make an issue where none exists.
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Might be getting slightly off topic now but I remember one of the first TV chefs was an old crone called Fanny Craddock. On one occasion she made "Angel cakes". This involved baking cup cakes, slicing the tops off, cutting them in two, then placing the two pieces on top of the cake in a near vertical arrangement to represent "angels wings" (hence Angel cakes). There was a nice final shot of the cakes, with a comment by her faithful assistant Johnny
"And if you're making Angel cakes, I hope they turn out like Fanny's".
"And if you're making Angel cakes, I hope they turn out like Fanny's".
- Nov 21, 2010
- 13,486
- 17,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Detroit Pistons
How could someone object to the ceremony without objecting to homosexuality? A marriage isn't intrinsically religious nor does it intrinsically promote having children. If that were the case then Atheistic people wouldn't be able to get married and you'd have to take a fertility test. A marriage is a formal union of people that carries with it certain benefits (taxation, inheritance, medical rights etc) and in modern times (but not always) carries connotations of love. So what you are saying when you object to homosexual marriage is that you do not view a union between same sex people as legitimate and do not feel that they should have access to the same rights that an equivalent heterosexual couple does. That is overtly calling into question the legitimacy of homosexual attraction and relationships. If you could produce a logical argument as to how someone could be anti-homosexual marriage but not anti-homosexuality then I'm all ears.
- Nov 21, 2010
- 13,486
- 17,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Detroit Pistons
Well if my religion promotes slapping babies and I go out into the street and start slapping babies and get into trouble, I'm not sure I have the right to claim discrimination.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
A marriage in Australia is presently defined as 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.'
Some people agree with this definition, some do not. I'll give you the tip - not all who agree with it think 'God hates ****!' and not all that disagree with it have any intention on marrying a member of the same sex.
The bolded is actually you saying that.
- Nov 21, 2010
- 13,486
- 17,338
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Detroit Pistons
Why would someone object to altering the definition to two people? All I keep reading is that it's possible to be accepting of homosexuality and but not of homosexual marriage, yet it's never actually articulated as to how this may be the case.
- Apr 2, 2013
- 10,981
- 16,393
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Don't see how they have to. Pretty sure you can refuse a sale/do business/not even enter a contract for whatever reason. A baker could say no to the offer.
A conceivable problem arises when an employee (say of a chain/employee of a small business) knocks the offer or directive back. The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or religious beliefs (assuming that was the reason for refusal). Who's right trumps who? Interesting test case.
A conceivable problem arises when an employee (say of a chain/employee of a small business) knocks the offer or directive back. The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or religious beliefs (assuming that was the reason for refusal). Who's right trumps who? Interesting test case.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Hence I said 'presently defined'.
I think you're conflating 'homosexuality is OK' with 'homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality'. The social split between those who oppose gay marriage and those in the 'God hates ****!' bracket is huge. There's obviously a reason behind it.
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Weird that you bang on about the MSM but then start a thread with a link to Fox News.
Anyway to answer your question: no.
- Sep 18, 2013
- 17,752
- 11,820
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I should know better, it never ends well. but here goes.
Marriage is an institution that serves various purposes in communities countries and families. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with people making commitments to each other and their love. Some people believe strongly in the family unit and the ties that bind them and they have the right to defend that, whether their right or wrong. People have a right to want to preserve the institution that is marriage. Just like people have the right to pull it down.
Because some who are anti same sex marriage are homophobic doesn't make everybody who is against same sex marriage homophobic. Just like because homosexuals in sydney have the highest HIV infection rate in the world doesn't make all un straight people irresponsible.
Niximus
Brownlow Medallist
No coloureds?
- Sep 22, 2000
- 62,351
- 41,697
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Ford
Oh crap,you mean he could get more annoying ?
Should a businessmen have the right to deny service to a potential customer based on the traits of that customer?
If yes; when does it go too far? When the business owner doesn't serve those of dark complexion? Should businesses be forced to reflect the values of the broader society in which the operate?
If no; what rights does a man acting as a business have?
The title is basically an unanswerable question IMO.
I'm going to go and say YES. The baker should be forced to bake the cake for whomever is paying. You cannot have businesses denying service willy nilly... what if they all decide to stop serving gays? Or anyone who looks gay? People would starve to death...
If yes; when does it go too far? When the business owner doesn't serve those of dark complexion? Should businesses be forced to reflect the values of the broader society in which the operate?
If no; what rights does a man acting as a business have?
The title is basically an unanswerable question IMO.
I'm going to go and say YES. The baker should be forced to bake the cake for whomever is paying. You cannot have businesses denying service willy nilly... what if they all decide to stop serving gays? Or anyone who looks gay? People would starve to death...
Last edited:
Except he wasn't denying service to gays, he would have made them anything else they requested. He just didn't want to cater a ceremony that didn't align with his religious beliefs.
I think this situation highlights the laughable issues surrounding the legalisation of gay marriage. Yes we can discriminate but no you can't discriminate type of scenario.
You don't like the goddess Julia Zemero and cricket. Your're getting close to mine.
Should be ban worthy.
- Sep 22, 2000
- 62,351
- 41,697
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Ford
Forced removal to Manus Island for sensitivity training.
Sorry misread that at first,thought it was Rove McManus Island
Sorry misread that at first,thought it was Rove McManus Island
Surely the Hague would get involved in that case?
