Same sex marriage debate...

[Abraham]

So, people should be able to refuse dealing with others based on the ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, religion etc? Refuse goods/service type of thing and not have any sort of prosecution levelled at them? Is that essentially what you're concerned with?

Thats not what im saying.

Simply talking about not forcing people to cater for an event they dont want to (like a gay wedding) or forcing a religious school to teach kids that gay sex is on par with heterosexual intercourse, or deregistering a charity for holding up a traditional view of marriage.

I dont think anything i have mentioned is unreasonable.

 

[Geo]

Huh…I work in a Catholic High School and we teach Love, Tolerance and Equality in fact it's part of our vision statement... and no one forces us to do that...

 

[Yossarian]

So, people should be able to refuse dealing with others based on the ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, religion etc? Refuse goods/service type of thing and not have any sort of prosecution levelled at them? Is that essentially what you're concerned with?

Thats not what im saying.

Simply talking about not forcing people to cater for an event they dont want to (like a gay wedding) or forcing a religious school to teach kids that gay sex is on par with heterosexual intercourse, or deregistering a charity for holding up a traditional view of marriage.

I dont think anything i have mentioned is unreasonable.

On par? To quote Lou Reed "And no kinds of love are better than others."

 

[Nelson]

I want to avoid getting into a religious argument about marriage because it is not relevant to this specific discussion, and focus on the important question at hand : should people be thrown in jail for having the opinion that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman?

How is that even remotely a possibility? That's just scaremongering.

 

[Nelson]

So, people should be able to refuse dealing with others based on the ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, religion etc? Refuse goods/service type of thing and not have any sort of prosecution levelled at them? Is that essentially what you're concerned with?

Thats not what im saying.

Simply talking about not forcing people to cater for an event they dont want to (like a gay wedding) or forcing a religious school to teach kids that gay sex is on par with heterosexual intercourse, or deregistering a charity for holding up a traditional view of marriage.

I dont think anything i have mentioned is unreasonable.

What if they don't like black people? Can they refuse to cater a wedding if they don't like black people? Is that cool?

 

[sheer64]

So, people should be able to refuse dealing with others based on the ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, religion etc? Refuse goods/service type of thing and not have any sort of prosecution levelled at them? Is that essentially what you're concerned with?

Thats not what im saying.

Simply talking about not forcing people to cater for an event they dont want to (like a gay wedding) or forcing a religious school to teach kids that gay sex is on par with heterosexual intercourse, or deregistering a charity for holding up a traditional view of marriage.

I dont think anything i have mentioned is unreasonable.

What if they don't like black people? Can they refuse to cater a wedding if they don't like black people? Is that cool?

Is it a catering monopoly?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Here is another insane anecdote special for Yossa who seems to appreciate them greatly and slightly relevant. About 25 years ago in the Philippines I was having a large ornate picture/carving made out of beautiful wood in the shape of 3 serpents curled into the shape of 666 each with an apple in mouth tempting Eve. They probably thought I was crazy but made it regardless. During the process the guys mother had a stroke and they blamed my carving'for upsetting God whom took revenge. They demanded I take it awake and held a smoking ceremony to get rid of the evil spirits.

So maybe these cake-maker refusiks are worried about incurring the wrath of God if they serve gay weddings.

 

[Yossarian]

Here is another insane anecdote special for Yossa who seems to appreciate them greatly and slightly relevant. About 25 years ago in the Philippines I was having a large ornate picture/carving made out of beautiful wood in the shape of 3 serpents curled into the shape of 666 each with an apple in mouth tempting Eve. They probably thought I was crazy but made it regardless. During the process the guys mother had a stroke and they blamed my carving'for upsetting God whom took revenge. They demanded I take it awake and held a smoking ceremony to get rid of the evil spirits.

So maybe these cake-maker refusiks are worried about incurring the wrath of God if they serve gay weddings.

How is it you don't have your own TV series? I'd watch for the re-enactments alone…

 

[Tigerdave]

So, people should be able to refuse dealing with others based on the ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, religion etc? Refuse goods/service type of thing and not have any sort of prosecution levelled at them? Is that essentially what you're concerned with?

Thats not what im saying.

Simply talking about not forcing people to cater for an event they dont want to (like a gay wedding)

which is exactly what I said, if people wish to refuse goods/service, then you would like them to be able to do that without fear of some form of legal repercussions

or forcing a religious school to teach kids that gay sex is on par with heterosexual intercourse, or deregistering a charity for holding up a traditional view of marriage.

On the surface, I don't have a problem with that, but free speech of course doesn't mean you escape any consequences of that. I agree with you that there shouldn't be any legal issues, but I wouldn't be complaining if a school or charity did this copped bad press either.

I dont think anything i have mentioned is unreasonable.

On the surface no, but to dig a little deeper on the "forcing people to cater for an event" etc. How would you feel if the caterers here refused to say, cater for black people? should they be able to refuse or should there be some legal repurcussions here? I feel again I need to go back to my mysongist analogy, should a male be able to not employ a woman, just because she's a woman and not have any legal repercussions?

 

[Tigerdave]

Methuselah out lived them all…I always thought Cain and Able were pretty funky dudes...nothing suss there...

Anyway can we get off the swings and round-a-bouts ...and back on topic..

But without religious reasoning there would probably be no debate and thus no topic.

actually, I know a couple of non-believers who are against a change, they are traditionalists (probably the best word to describe them here), it makes no sense to me, but you don't have to be religious to be against SSM

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I wonder how Abe would feel If someone didn't want to cater for a holy event.

 

[Abraham]

Huh…I work in a Catholic High School and we teach Love, Tolerance and Equality in fact it's part of our vision statement... and no one forces us to do that...

You havnt been following the conversation.

Oveaseas where ssm was made legal, religious schools have been forced to teach kids about homosexual sex.

Thete is currently a jewish school in the UK facing closure for failing to do this.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Methuselah out lived them all…I always thought Cain and Able were pretty funky dudes...nothing suss there...

Anyway can we get off the swings and round-a-bouts ...and back on topic..

But without religious reasoning there would probably be no debate and thus no topic.

actually, I know a couple of non-believers who are against a change, they are traditionalists (probably the best word to describe them here), it makes no sense to me, but you don't have to be religious to be against SSM

I'm sure there are, but I think the percentage would be very low. Take Religion away and the "Yes" vote would probably win in a landslide. I still think it will anyway though. Nevertheless it's ridiculous the church tries to dictate laws. Especially when they pay zero tax.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Here is another insane anecdote special for Yossa who seems to appreciate them greatly and slightly relevant. About 25 years ago in the Philippines I was having a large ornate picture/carving made out of beautiful wood in the shape of 3 serpents curled into the shape of 666 each with an apple in mouth tempting Eve. They probably thought I was crazy but made it regardless. During the process the guys mother had a stroke and they blamed my carving'for upsetting God whom took revenge. They demanded I take it awake and held a smoking ceremony to get rid of the evil spirits.

So maybe these cake-maker refusiks are worried about incurring the wrath of God if they serve gay weddings.

How is it you don't have your own TV series? I'd watch for the re-enactments alone…

There is a lot of original footage in TV news archives, one exploit is included in a movie I was the main actor for about ten minutes - it is funny when you see yourself on the big screen about 20 feet tall.

The 666 carving was used as a protest "placard" at a Christian rally that took over Sydney streets about 1997, I was attacked on all sides so used it as a weapon - I may have broken a few jaws in the process but they could not get me. Then the cops came and it turned hilarious surely you don't want me to continue.

Now to try and make it relevant to thread. The Christians told me that they had permission for their rally and that I should not be there, was the corner of George and Park streets CBD. I then remembered that I had just got my rate notices that cost a fortune and that I paid rates and that churches didn't so I had more rights than them and strongly told them so that they were bludgers. The same goes for the SSM issue. They want to control that gays can't marry even though it is completely none of their business and the gays are actually subsidising the churches' rates.

 

[Abraham]

I want to avoid getting into a religious argument about marriage because it is not relevant to this specific discussion, and focus on the important question at hand : should people be thrown in jail for having the opinion that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman?

How is that even remotely a possibility? That's just scaremongering.

Like i have told everyone else, jump on google and see for yourself what has happened over seas.

I would be exposed pretty quickly if i was making this stuff up.

 

[Abraham]

What if they don't like black people? Can they refuse to cater a wedding if they don't like black people? Is that cool?

No its not cool, and there is a difference you are not seeing.

You shouldnt be able to refuse to service a person based on their immutable characteristics… race, sexuality, gender, skin colour etc. Most decent people woild agree this to be straightforward discrimination.

But in refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, these people are not refusing service because the customer is gay, they are refusing because the particular event in question goes against their beliefs.

It is the purpose of the event, and not the people taking part in it, which is the issue at hand.

I hope this clears up that question.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

What if they don't like black people? Can they refuse to cater a wedding if they don't like black people? Is that cool?

No its not cool, and there is a difference you are not seeing.

You shouldnt be able to refuse to service a person based on their immutable characteristics… race, sexuality, gender, skin colour etc. Most decent people woild agree this to be straightforward discrimination.

**But in refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, these people are not refusing service because the customer is gay, they are refusing because the particular event in question goes against their beliefs.**

It is the purpose of the event, and not the people taking part in it, which is the issue at hand.

I hope this clears up that question.

Except homosexuality is a characteristic, just like the colour of your skin. No one chooses to be gay, just like you didn't choose to be straight. You can't help who you are attracted too.

 

[Abraham]

On the surface no, but to dig a little deeper on the "forcing people to cater for an event" etc. How would you feel if the caterers here refused to say, cater for black people? should they be able to refuse or should there be some legal repurcussions here? I feel again I need to go back to my mysongist analogy, should a male be able to not employ a woman, just because she's a woman and not have any legal repercussions?

See my reply to Nelson, which covers what you have asked me here.

 

[Nelson]

I want to avoid getting into a religious argument about marriage because it is not relevant to this specific discussion, and focus on the important question at hand : should people be thrown in jail for having the opinion that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman?

How is that even remotely a possibility? That's just scaremongering.

Like i have told everyone else, jump on google and see for yourself what has happened over seas.

I would be exposed pretty quickly if i was making this stuff up.

Yes and people get killed for dealing in drugs in the Philipines yet they don't get killed here. The criminal justice system in Australia would not see people imprisoned for "having the opinion that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman". Anyone who works in it would tell you that.

 

[Tigerdave]

What if they don't like black people? Can they refuse to cater a wedding if they don't like black people? Is that cool?

No its not cool, and there is a difference you are not seeing.

You shouldnt be able to refuse to service a person based on their immutable characteristics… race, sexuality, gender, skin colour etc. Most decent people woild agree this to be straightforward discrimination.

But in refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, these people are not refusing service because the customer is gay, they are refusing because the particular event in question goes against their beliefs.

It is the purpose of the event, and not the people taking part in it, which is the issue at hand.

I hope this clears up that question.

ahhh ok right, yes I see, so it's not that they're gay, it's the marrying of gay people and that's it. It's a bit of a fine distinction, but I see where you're coming from. So, if people refused to cater for a black couple, a similar distinction could apply.

I would say though that the number of people who may think this way is on the small side and the number who would refuse the work would probably be even smaller. Once word got out, I wouldn't think gay people would then see these people for their wedding, even if they were forced. Why would anyone want to have someone at their wedding who was forced into it? I think worrying about people being forced is a waste of time tbh, it's just not logical that anyone would want to use said forced people in the future. So, if gay people don't use them, then they have nothing further to worry about. In so far as an actual charge? That I don't know, again I've said, if they go for criminal charges, then I stand with you against that. I wouldn't think charges are necessary, they'd lose some business for sure and based on that, would all those against SSM, all say no to work? I wouldn't think so.

Based on the supposition of a minimal amount of people that would actively say no, as I said, I think the number is too small to be concerned about. Certainly can't see anyone wasting their time pursuing a civil case, not that it couldn't happen, but again, I don't believe the courts are currently filled with discrimination cases from women or people from a non anglo-saxon background etc for discrimination cases and there's way more of them than gay people, and it's what? only 10% of the country is gay (that's the usual percentage given from memory), how many of them will get married anyway? It all just reduces the amount of people that could potentially be charged with anything anyway.

Just seems like a mountain out of a molehill.

In saying all of that, I'm certainly against forcing churches to hold gay marriages if they don't want to, whilst I don't agree with the belief system nor the discrimination, forcing them isn't going to change their minds. However, it's not up to the Government to say "no gay people can't marry" either. We live in a secular country and everyone should have equal rights.