That gay marriage thing........

[pink poodle]

No one is asking the baker to marry same-sex couples. The baker is being asked to bake a cake. Unless baking cakes is against the baker's religious moral convictions then they have no reason to refuse service to anyone.

What then if the baker didn't care, but the cake shop was owned by the catholic church or a minister?

The baker is being asked to bake a cake, part of their job like making cookies and muffins. The same for a minister being asked to marry people. Except the baker probably isn't under the impression they were given a great commission to bake nor calling customers their flock.

Interestingly I've a friend that is a minister (not catholic). Some of his work chat I've been told of was that his church will allow ministers to decide for themselves and this has caused quite a fruckass amongst his peers, especially those who want to black list it. So that jurisdiction may be reversed when it all comes into place.

If you opened a specialty shop, advertising special God cakes, specifically made for religious occasions and celebrations, that only made cakes with a cross (et al), a man and a woman on every cake....you dubiously might have a leg to stand on if a customer asked for a homocake or a Satancake and if said you couldn't make them one.
Technically, a business can refuse a customer service if they choose to, but choosing to because of sexuality, religion or race, and they were challenged on it, rather than refusing service because customer was a chunt etc, is going to be hard to squirm out of.

Would it help it the cakes were unleavened? Actually I think they usually are anyway.

The easy way to avoid doing work you don't want is make the quote ridiculously high, or so it seems with most trades.

 

[pink poodle]

What if they're against interracial marriage because of their equally arbitrary 'religious moral convictions'?

I find it interesting that the religious beliefs of bigots always seem to support their bigotry, while the beliefs of non-bigoted people always seem to support their willingness to treat all people equally. I've never yet heard somebody say, "Well, if it was up to me I'd be all for marriage equality, but...that pesky Bible...what can you do?"

I'm seeing a great t-shirt slogan here...

People will cling to whatever justification they can for their personal failings as humans in an attempt to feel secure.

 

[pharmaboy]

@ Pharma, I think Tony's second biggest problem was that he never understood that he was in power at the grace of Julia Gillard and Kevin The Rudd. He actually believed that he won the election - as opposed to Labor losing it - and that he had a mandate to take Australia back to the early 1900s. Clearly Tony's greatest problem was Tony himself.

Should Bill get the keys to The Lodge it will be interesting to see if he makes the same mistake in thinking that Australia actually wants him.

Cynical prick.

Of course you are almost certainly correct as well. Lacks self awareness, that seems to go along with the job, the only people who don't apply are probably the most suited for the job (sounds like management ).

 

[pharmaboy]

If you opened a specialty shop, advertising special God cakes, specifically made for religious occasions and celebrations, that only made cakes with a cross (et al), a man and a woman on every cake....you dubiously might have a leg to stand on if a customer asked for a homocake or a Satancake and if said you couldn't make them one.
Technically, a business can refuse a customer service if they choose to, but choosing to because of sexuality, religion or race, and they were challenged on it, rather than refusing service because customer was a chunt etc, is going to be hard to squirm out of.

Guy walks into 711 with hoody on and 3 of his mates, one of his mates tries to steal some chips, gets noticed and thrown out. Shopkeeper tells rest of mates to fuck off. They come back 3 days later trying to buy chips, shopkeeper tells them no, and don't come back.

3 mates cry racism at shopkeeper etc etc.

It's very hard to prove discrimination without an actual confession that that's the reason. You just refuse service and give no information. Happens in pubs all the time

 

[Knuckles]

If you opened a specialty shop, advertising special God cakes, specifically made for religious occasions and celebrations, that only made cakes with a cross (et al), a man and a woman on every cake....you dubiously might have a leg to stand on if a customer asked for a homocake or a Satancake and if said you couldn't make them one..

Mmmmmmmm......satancake, I have a sudden hankering.

If said Satanist or Homos wanted to buy a godcake, bishop fairybread of the wholy order of the mederia could not refuse to sell it to them. If, however they did ask for sweet, sweet homocake, he could refuse to make it for them. A shop can't refuse to sell me tampons just because a male, or extra large condoms, just because I have a tiny penis (or unlikely to find anyone or thing will to copulate with me), but a mechanic specialising in fords can refuse to undertake repairs on my Alfa, and who could blame him. Just because most people are eager to offer advice/service outside their field of expertise, doest mean you can make someone who isn't.

Try it out, I bet no one refuses to sell you a comb....

 

[johnny]

What then if the baker didn't care, but the cake shop was owned by the catholic church or a minister?

Equation remains the same.

The baker is being asked to bake a cake, part of their job like making cookies and muffins. The same for a minister being asked to marry people. Except the baker probably isn't under the impression they were given a great commission to bake nor calling customers their flock.

I don't think running a commercial business where goods and services are traded are the same as being a priest in a charitable organisation that is not a business but exists as part of civil society [insert obligatory quip about churches making big profits, owning property, etc....].

 

[moorey]

Guy walks into 711 with hoody on and 3 of his mates, one of his mates tries to steal some chips, gets noticed and thrown out. Shopkeeper tells rest of mates to fuck off. They come back 3 days later trying to buy chips, shopkeeper tells them no, and don't come back.

3 mates cry racism at shopkeeper etc etc.

It's very hard to prove discrimination without an actual confession that that's the reason. You just refuse service and give no information. Happens in pubs all the time

False equivalency anyone? It's not like 3 gay had sex in the shop and were refused service because of it

 

[pink poodle]

Mmmmmmmm......satancake, I have a sudden hankering.

If said Satanist or Homos wanted to buy a godcake, bishop fairybread of the wholy order of the mederia could not refuse to sell it to them. If, however they did ask for sweet, sweet homocake, he could refuse to make it for them. A shop can't refuse to sell me tampons just because a male, or extra large condoms, just because I have a tiny penis (or unlikely to find anyone or thing will to copulate with me), but a mechanic specialising in fords can refuse to undertake repairs on my Alfa, and who could blame him. Just because most people are eager to offer advice/service outside their field of expertise, doest mean you can make someone who isn't.

Try it out, I bet no one refuses to sell you a comb....

Can bishop fairybread bake a rainbow cake?

Equation remains the same.



I don't think running a commercial business where goods and services are traded are the same as being a priest in a charitable organisation that is not a business but exists as part of civil society [insert obligatory quip about churches making big profits, owning property, etc....].

...just like those damn over 55s villages that always have cheap villas I'm not allowed to buy. I'd clean up the loving in there! Too young my arse.

 

[dej]

What then if the baker didn't care, but the cake shop was owned by the catholic church or a minister?


Would it help it the cakes were unleavened? Actually I think they usually are anyway.

beinenstich is one of the many leavened cakes
they're pretty great too, pastry cream, almonds and honey..great for a fat guy like me

sorry for the thread hijack, carry on

 

[moorey]

Weird belated double post...

 

[Kerplunk]

After spending Sunday morning out in deliverance country (outer N melb burbs) with my young bloke playing soccer, I think this 'survey' is going to very close. There is a load of intolerant ignorant knuckle scrapers in this country. Suburb after suburb of them..

 

[pharmaboy]

It's at 63% in support in the last news poll, which is hardly known for producing progressive results.

It only needs to be a majority, not a majority by states etc, and the free vote will get it over the line in parliament. There is however a tendency for a protest vote that will come from people who don't like agreesive campaigns. The protest vote is a big problem in Aus when you try and change the constitution.

 

[pink poodle]

It's at 63% in support in the last news poll, which is hardly known for producing progressive results.

It only needs to be a majority, not a majority by states etc, and the free vote will get it over the line in parliament. There is however a tendency for a protest vote that will come from people who don't like agreesive campaigns. The protest vote is a big problem in Aus when you try and change the constitution.

...and it isn't a binding fiasco.

 

[pharmaboy]

...and it isn't a binding fiasco.

Ends up being a conscience vote in parliament which is what everyone here seems to want.

If you want an open conscience vote, then vote yes.

Is there some chance that when legislation is finally put to the house will labor look for a reason to not support? That seems the only chance of failure if a majority vote yes

 

[Kerplunk]

Exactly PP, Eric Abetz and co will vote no doesn't matter what the public votes for. It's a farce.

 

[pharmaboy]

Exactly PP, Eric Abetz and co will vote no doesn't matter what the public votes for. It's a farce.

What does it matter what a couple of members vote - it only needs a majority in the house.

So is labor going to allow a conscience vote in the house, or must they all vote as they are told?

 

[pharmaboy]

Ultimately, what's going on here is people have a position they seem to be passionate about it, but don't want the Australian populace to vote on it, just in case they lose.

While you are all bleating loudly as to how the coalition must have a conscience vote on the issue which presumably means YOU would win your position, why is it the case that Labor can force its members to vote how the leadership want?

Democracy isn't just about getting your view through, it's about accepting that others have views and they have a right to those views whether you disagree or not.

Much hypocrisy on this topic

 

[Kerplunk]

What does it matter what a couple of members vote - it only needs a majority in the house.

It matters because the gov are wasting millions asking the public to essentially decide for them because they can't. Whatever the survey outcome the gov members just vote however they want anyway. Why bother asking the public is my point.

 

[pharmaboy]

It matters because the gov are wasting millions asking the public to essentially decide for them because they can't. Whatever the survey outcome the gov members just vote however they want anyway. Why bother asking the public is my point.

Why? So that a party with a significant number of socially conservative MPs can end up being a party who can deal with questions that they actually find difficult to deal with.

It's probably called democracy - accepting an outcome you don't particularly like even when you are in power.

As to the money - that's a naive argument. It's just there from people who want one result and will grasp at anything to pretend it's not all about winning their point. The federal govt spend about $900,000 a second, so sit still and count for 120 seconds and that's pretty much the percentage of the year they have just spent to do something related to democracy

 

[Dozer]

Why bother asking the public is my point.

I kind of feel the same. Regardless of whether it is agreed to allow it or disallow it, the public will be in no different a position. In that case and with all common sense applied, they should just tick the fucking box and put some energy into things that actually have an effect on humans in Australia; less red tape and more bike parks you fuckers!