@ said:
Already said this. The ALP is just as guilty.
Same sex marriage debate...
- Thread starter TrueTiger
- Start date
Already said this. The ALP is just as guilty.
@ said:
Ridiculous- any company has the right to take on work or not take on work. It's a capitalist country and if said cake maker refuses to make the cake, he will lose money he would of made by baking the cake, and probably a fair few of the community will no longer by their cakes from said shop as it will go against the grain of most the community.
I believe the biggest mistake the yes campaign is making is taking the moral high ground. They are ramming the fact home that if you are not voting yes you are living in the past or you are pre historic in your thinking.
I've been inundated with the "yes campaigns" message so much I just don't want to vote, I don't want people telling me how I should vote and don't want the TV telling me I need to vote when I don't.
Personally I'm for gay marriage, don't have an issue on it but it's not something I care deeply about.
The biggest issue the "yes vote" will have after this non binding non mandatory bit of a nuisance to complete postal vote will be the number of participants.
Even if they win 90% of the vote, the plebiscite won't get over the line if only 50% of the country bothers to vote on it.
I'm not sure how many people in Australia identify themselves as gay. I'd imagine less than 10%. Add in close friends and family you may get 30% of Australia with a close connection to the marriage debate.
However make it about human rights and everyone being entitled to the same legislation regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or social status and you will find most of Australia will agree with that.
I'll be voting Yes, but I can see and completely understand both sides of the argument. It's not as clear cut as many of the Yes advocates are making it sound. One of the arguments that keeps coming up is Marriage being Human Right, for what it's worth the Declaration of Human Rights has this to say on Marriage:
**Article 16.**
**(1)** Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
**(2)** Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
**(3)** The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Even the Declaration of Human Rights specifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. So I'm not entirely sure that same sex couples not being able to marry is a denial of their rights.
**Article 16.**
**(1)** Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
**(2)** Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
**(3)** The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Even the Declaration of Human Rights specifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. So I'm not entirely sure that same sex couples not being able to marry is a denial of their rights.
Tigerdave
Well-known member
Shouldn't even be a debate, the whole thing is a waste of money given the Govt can still say no.
Give consenting adults equal rights, it's not that difficult.
Give consenting adults equal rights, it's not that difficult.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
@ said:
Not necessarily so. Once a person touches a taxi door that driver is committed to taking that person unless perceived to be dangerous or alcoholic etc.. They cannot discriminate on race, religion or what footie team they follow.
Tiger_Steve
New member
@ said:
Ahh ….....footy
@ said:
I can tell you for a fact that there is an unwritten yet widely accepted rule in the construction industry regarding an "Indian tax" due to the crap you have to go through with a lot of them when it comes time to pay. They try to negotiate agreed upon contract prices at the end of the job so smart operators add this in to the original price.
I also flat out refuse EOI requests from Chinese builders.
@ said:
Then surprised you will be Bob:
_**Passenger Transport (General) Regulation 2017**\
\
**146 Driver of taxi-cab to accept hiring**\
\
(1) Subject to this clause, the driver of a taxi-cab that is available for hire must accept a hiring immediately when offered.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
…_
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
@ said:
The NSW Taxi Council urges all drivers to provide exceptional customer service by accepting all hirings and doing the right thing by passengers. However, there are exceptional circumstances where a driver may refuse a hiring – these are specified in Passenger Transport Regulation Number 146:
Driver of taxi-cab to accept hiring
(Subject to this clause, the driver of a taxi-cab that is available for hire must accept a hiring immediately when offered. Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
The driver of a taxi-cab may refuse to accept a hiring:
if acceptance of the hiring would result in the number of passengers in the taxi-cab exceeding the maximum number of passengers that may be carried in the taxi-cab, or
if acceptance of the hiring would cause the driver to contravene the provisions of clause 41 (Carriage of goods and animals), or
in the case of a taxi-cab that is displaying a sign in accordance with clause 142 (Display of destination sign on taxi-cab), if the intending passenger indicates that he or she wishes to be taken to a location that is not on the way to the destination displayed by the sign, or
if the intending passenger indicates that he or she wishes to be taken to a location that is outside the taxi-cab's area of operation, or
if the intending passenger is smoking, eating or drinking and refuses to stop doing so, or
if the intending passenger is a person who is, or who is carrying a thing that is, likely to soil or damage the taxi-cab or the clothing or luggage of other passengers, or to otherwise cause inconvenience, a nuisance or annoyance to other passengers or to the driver (as referred to in clause 53 (1) (a) or (b)), or
if one of the intending passengers is under the age of 1 year and neither the driver of the taxi-cab nor any other intending passenger is carrying a child restraint that is not more than 10 years old, or
if the intending passenger cannot, on request, satisfy the driver that the person is able to pay the estimated fare, or
if the intending passenger, on request, refuses to pay the deposit in accordance with clause 163A or 163B.*
–----------------------------------------
so according to the Act a driver must have solid grounds for refusing a hiring.
Not like this case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4484688/Aboriginal-girl-punches-taxi-driver-face-steals-cab.html
voice_of_reason
Well-known member
@ said:
I humbly suggest the fact they're religious means they are brainwashed.
Go_You_Good_Things
Well-known member
For so many years, the homosexual community kicked and screamed about wanting their differences recognised and accepted. They wanted society to respect them for being different.
Now, they are kicking and screaming to be recognised the same as mainstream society.
They demand tolerance from us, yet do not tolerate differing opinions to theirs.
They demand acceptance, yet do not accept any outcome other than their wishes.
They demand the same rights in marriage as man and woman, yet defy the only precursor to marriage . . . being a man and a woman. Let them have some sort of union legally recognised, but don't let them change the fabric of marriage as it has been for hundreds of years.
The most important reason for a NO vote is " where will this end ?". If they get their way, how long will it be before some militant lesbian with a crewcut demands to be married in a Catholic / Anglican / Muslim church, because it is legal ? And if the priest/minister of mufti refuses to marry them, she will go to some government funded lesbian rights help centre and take the church to some government funded tribunal to force them to marry them, or to force the church to change it's 2000 year old theological viewpoints to suit the current climate of political correctness and pandering to the minorities.
So for me it's a clear NO. Let them live together, let them have some sort of union recognised. But if they live their life in total contrast to the atypical man/woman union . . . . why demand that the meaning of traditional marriage is altered when they don't want to live as man/woman ?
So they want us to tolerate and accept them as they are . . . and not to try and change them. But their demands are that they don't tolerate marriage as a man/woman thing. They don't accept that marriage . . . by it's traditional definition doesn't include homosexuals . . . and so they want to change that.
Now, they are kicking and screaming to be recognised the same as mainstream society.
They demand tolerance from us, yet do not tolerate differing opinions to theirs.
They demand acceptance, yet do not accept any outcome other than their wishes.
They demand the same rights in marriage as man and woman, yet defy the only precursor to marriage . . . being a man and a woman. Let them have some sort of union legally recognised, but don't let them change the fabric of marriage as it has been for hundreds of years.
The most important reason for a NO vote is " where will this end ?". If they get their way, how long will it be before some militant lesbian with a crewcut demands to be married in a Catholic / Anglican / Muslim church, because it is legal ? And if the priest/minister of mufti refuses to marry them, she will go to some government funded lesbian rights help centre and take the church to some government funded tribunal to force them to marry them, or to force the church to change it's 2000 year old theological viewpoints to suit the current climate of political correctness and pandering to the minorities.
So for me it's a clear NO. Let them live together, let them have some sort of union recognised. But if they live their life in total contrast to the atypical man/woman union . . . . why demand that the meaning of traditional marriage is altered when they don't want to live as man/woman ?
So they want us to tolerate and accept them as they are . . . and not to try and change them. But their demands are that they don't tolerate marriage as a man/woman thing. They don't accept that marriage . . . by it's traditional definition doesn't include homosexuals . . . and so they want to change that.
@ said:
Nicely found!
Although you are correct, and I tip my hat to you on those googling skills. I would imagine that this rule exsists because as categorised as public transport under a minister for transport there are governing rules and regulations. (Same reason why pilots, tram drivers etc are legally puniable when at fault for numerous reasons. I again doubt (happy to be proved wrong again) that a small business could be fined or sued for refusing work.
…..Or has common sense died
voice_of_reason
Well-known member
This is a terrible waste of money. $122M which could go to schools or hospitals or medical research being pissed against the wall. If there's a decision, It should be in Parliament. To think we've got hundreds of thousands of homeless, huge natural disasters, drug epidemics, unaffordable housing, record numbers with diabetes and heart disease, two morons have us on the brink of nuclear war and the biggest issue on the political agenda is gay marriage…
But a couple of quick points.
On the great cake debate - no-one should be compelled to do something they don't want to - the reason doesn't matter - it's about the rights of the individual to run their business as they wish. In reality, the only time this will be an issue is if a gay couple decides they want to be malicious and make an example of someone they don't like. Who on earth would want to deal with a business that doesn't want to deal with them? There's plenty of cake shops/photographers/Djs out there - I'm sure some run by gay people.
On voters of either side being labelled 'bigots - it's nothing more than trying to shame them into changing their vote. People are either for or against and I can't see them changing their mind - they would have been better off having a ad blackout so the average Joe isn't being bombarded with this unbelievably tiresome debate.
Finally, vote as you want but respect that everyone else's opinion is just as valid as yours - whether you agree with it or not.
But a couple of quick points.
On the great cake debate - no-one should be compelled to do something they don't want to - the reason doesn't matter - it's about the rights of the individual to run their business as they wish. In reality, the only time this will be an issue is if a gay couple decides they want to be malicious and make an example of someone they don't like. Who on earth would want to deal with a business that doesn't want to deal with them? There's plenty of cake shops/photographers/Djs out there - I'm sure some run by gay people.
On voters of either side being labelled 'bigots - it's nothing more than trying to shame them into changing their vote. People are either for or against and I can't see them changing their mind - they would have been better off having a ad blackout so the average Joe isn't being bombarded with this unbelievably tiresome debate.
Finally, vote as you want but respect that everyone else's opinion is just as valid as yours - whether you agree with it or not.
THE AUSTRALIAN
September 11, 2017.
Same-sex law should see exodus from marriage act
Same-sex marriage does not constitute an inherent attack on religious freedom. However, the Liberal Party’s draft same-sex marriage bill could empower a state-funded assault on religions across the nation.
Tomorrow, the postal ballots on marriage reform will be distributed. Despite being urged to modify the bill to provide stronger protection for the core freedoms of speech and religion, Liberal politicians who endorsed it have chosen not to act in the interim. Unless the Coalition presents a modified bill that properly protects core freedoms, marriage reform will produce an entrenched conflict between queer ideology and liberty.
For those of us who understand that homosexual and heterosexual relationships have equal worth, the question of same-sex marriage should be straightforward. Yet international precedent demonstrates that the legalisation of same-sex marriage can change the nature of marriage itself from a natural institution with social ends to an activist institution with political ends. It can herald a profound transformation of society by making the most pre-political institution a servant of the PC state.
Wherever the state has codified neo-Marxist minority politics in discrimination law, the institution of marriage is gradually subordinated to the dictates of political correctness. In the context of codified neo-Marxism, the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not what it seems. Instead of creating equality, it can create inequality by empowering the persecution of dissenters from PC politics.
In the Western world, dozens of cases have been brought against private enterprises, religious organisations or individuals by same-sex marriage activists. Some are reasonable in a secular society. Others are anti-religious bigotry masquerading as equality. In the UK, for example, the Equality Commission funded activist Gareth Lee’s case against a Northern Irish baker who wouldn’t write the political slogan “support gay marriage” on a cake. In my view, that is state-funded prosecution of a political dissident.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage can give PC activists a new, taxpayer-funded power to prosecute those who disagree with them. While attacks on free speech may be an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, they are so pervasive that Liberals should have prepared legislation accordingly. Yet many Yes campaigners deny the threat that marriage reform poses to freedom of speech and religion. Speaking to The Australian, Liberal Party president Nick Greiner said: “The necessary religious protections for ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, and use of church grounds and services, will be assured … Such freedoms are at the forefront of legislation drafted by senator Dean Smith and MPs Tim Wilson, Warren Entsch, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans.”
Freedom of speech is not protected in the Liberals’ draft bill. If LGBTQI marriage is legalised without sufficient protections for freedom of speech and religion, it will establish an oppressive regime that will become more so under Labor.
Earlier this year, Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus foreshadowed the extension of PC censorship under notorious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to sexual orientation.
We know that freedom of speech will be affected by marriage reform after the fact because it has been attacked before the fact. Greens candidate Martine Delaney lodged a complaint against Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous for a booklet supporting traditional marriage. Porteous ultimately won the case, but had to defend free speech on marriage to the satisfaction of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
Activists have attacked numerous individuals to censor free speech that dissents from the PC line on same-sex marriage. Last year, church leaders were prevented from meeting at the Mercure Hotel in Sydney after queer activists threatened hotel staff. In December, a man drove a van into the Australian Christian Lobby office. It has come to light that the accused, Jaden Duong, allegedly told police he disliked the ACL because of its “position on sexuality”.
This year, activists called for a boycott of Coopers beer after a video featuring Liberal MPs drinking Coopers while discussing diverse views on same-sex marriage aired. Last week, GP Pansy Lai was attacked by activists who called for her deregistration after she went public to support traditional marriage.
There is little protection for traditional marriage supporters in the draft bill. The religious protections are limited to ministers or religious marriage celebrants and bodies that can prove their stance on marriage conforms to anti-discrimination law. The lack of protections leaves dissenters from LGBTQI marriage vulnerable to hate speech, harassment, boycotts and lawfare.
People who understand the capital importance of religious freedom to liberal democracy should consider their options in relation to voting on marriage reform. Some might simply vote No in the postal survey. A second option is to introduce a positive right to religious freedom along with the new right to LGBTQI marriage. A third option for legal exemptions was prepared by the Wilberforce Foundation in its submission to the government committee on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. However, it was excluded from the Liberals’ same-sex marriage bill.
There is a sound proposal which is largely absent from the current debate. In my view, it is the only approach that will protect religious liberty and freedom of speech in the spirit of secularism. The Presbyterian church has resolved to withdraw from the Marriage Act if forced by legislation to conduct same-sex marriage. The proposal reflects realism. The current Marriage Act is secular, consistent with our secular state. It does not represent the view that marriage is the sanctified union of a man and woman under God. The withdrawal of religions from the Marriage Act would strengthen the vital distinction between state authority and church authority.
If the Yes vote wins public support, politicians should respect it by passing legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. However, understand that the draft bill could broaden the scope of state regulation of the family, private enterprise, private property and core freedoms. If passed in its current form, the same-sex marriage bill could empower taxpayer-funded activism against freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Consequently, I believe that legalisation of same-sex marriage should give rise to the withdrawal of churches, temples and mosques from the Australian Marriage Act.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/samesex-law-should-see-exodus-from-marriage-act/news-story/81d160c0f4b85ba4fe92a86b1aa9f2ee
September 11, 2017.
Same-sex law should see exodus from marriage act
Same-sex marriage does not constitute an inherent attack on religious freedom. However, the Liberal Party’s draft same-sex marriage bill could empower a state-funded assault on religions across the nation.
Tomorrow, the postal ballots on marriage reform will be distributed. Despite being urged to modify the bill to provide stronger protection for the core freedoms of speech and religion, Liberal politicians who endorsed it have chosen not to act in the interim. Unless the Coalition presents a modified bill that properly protects core freedoms, marriage reform will produce an entrenched conflict between queer ideology and liberty.
For those of us who understand that homosexual and heterosexual relationships have equal worth, the question of same-sex marriage should be straightforward. Yet international precedent demonstrates that the legalisation of same-sex marriage can change the nature of marriage itself from a natural institution with social ends to an activist institution with political ends. It can herald a profound transformation of society by making the most pre-political institution a servant of the PC state.
Wherever the state has codified neo-Marxist minority politics in discrimination law, the institution of marriage is gradually subordinated to the dictates of political correctness. In the context of codified neo-Marxism, the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not what it seems. Instead of creating equality, it can create inequality by empowering the persecution of dissenters from PC politics.
In the Western world, dozens of cases have been brought against private enterprises, religious organisations or individuals by same-sex marriage activists. Some are reasonable in a secular society. Others are anti-religious bigotry masquerading as equality. In the UK, for example, the Equality Commission funded activist Gareth Lee’s case against a Northern Irish baker who wouldn’t write the political slogan “support gay marriage” on a cake. In my view, that is state-funded prosecution of a political dissident.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage can give PC activists a new, taxpayer-funded power to prosecute those who disagree with them. While attacks on free speech may be an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, they are so pervasive that Liberals should have prepared legislation accordingly. Yet many Yes campaigners deny the threat that marriage reform poses to freedom of speech and religion. Speaking to The Australian, Liberal Party president Nick Greiner said: “The necessary religious protections for ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, and use of church grounds and services, will be assured … Such freedoms are at the forefront of legislation drafted by senator Dean Smith and MPs Tim Wilson, Warren Entsch, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans.”
Freedom of speech is not protected in the Liberals’ draft bill. If LGBTQI marriage is legalised without sufficient protections for freedom of speech and religion, it will establish an oppressive regime that will become more so under Labor.
Earlier this year, Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus foreshadowed the extension of PC censorship under notorious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to sexual orientation.
We know that freedom of speech will be affected by marriage reform after the fact because it has been attacked before the fact. Greens candidate Martine Delaney lodged a complaint against Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous for a booklet supporting traditional marriage. Porteous ultimately won the case, but had to defend free speech on marriage to the satisfaction of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
Activists have attacked numerous individuals to censor free speech that dissents from the PC line on same-sex marriage. Last year, church leaders were prevented from meeting at the Mercure Hotel in Sydney after queer activists threatened hotel staff. In December, a man drove a van into the Australian Christian Lobby office. It has come to light that the accused, Jaden Duong, allegedly told police he disliked the ACL because of its “position on sexuality”.
This year, activists called for a boycott of Coopers beer after a video featuring Liberal MPs drinking Coopers while discussing diverse views on same-sex marriage aired. Last week, GP Pansy Lai was attacked by activists who called for her deregistration after she went public to support traditional marriage.
There is little protection for traditional marriage supporters in the draft bill. The religious protections are limited to ministers or religious marriage celebrants and bodies that can prove their stance on marriage conforms to anti-discrimination law. The lack of protections leaves dissenters from LGBTQI marriage vulnerable to hate speech, harassment, boycotts and lawfare.
People who understand the capital importance of religious freedom to liberal democracy should consider their options in relation to voting on marriage reform. Some might simply vote No in the postal survey. A second option is to introduce a positive right to religious freedom along with the new right to LGBTQI marriage. A third option for legal exemptions was prepared by the Wilberforce Foundation in its submission to the government committee on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. However, it was excluded from the Liberals’ same-sex marriage bill.
There is a sound proposal which is largely absent from the current debate. In my view, it is the only approach that will protect religious liberty and freedom of speech in the spirit of secularism. The Presbyterian church has resolved to withdraw from the Marriage Act if forced by legislation to conduct same-sex marriage. The proposal reflects realism. The current Marriage Act is secular, consistent with our secular state. It does not represent the view that marriage is the sanctified union of a man and woman under God. The withdrawal of religions from the Marriage Act would strengthen the vital distinction between state authority and church authority.
If the Yes vote wins public support, politicians should respect it by passing legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. However, understand that the draft bill could broaden the scope of state regulation of the family, private enterprise, private property and core freedoms. If passed in its current form, the same-sex marriage bill could empower taxpayer-funded activism against freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Consequently, I believe that legalisation of same-sex marriage should give rise to the withdrawal of churches, temples and mosques from the Australian Marriage Act.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/samesex-law-should-see-exodus-from-marriage-act/news-story/81d160c0f4b85ba4fe92a86b1aa9f2ee
Tigerdave
Well-known member
@ said:
yeah marriage has changed heaps over the years, it was once acceptable to marry off young girls, it was once unacceptable to allow people of different ethnic backgrounds to marry each other…........
@ said:
slippery slope argument is a fallacy, this won't be happening, there are plenty of churches that would be happy to marry homosexual couples anyway
In so far as a church changing 2000 year old viewpoints, they've been changing their viewpoints on a variety of different matters for centuries.
In so far as the "traditional marriage" argument is concerned, this video covers my views best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
