Month and Week Decided this is getting Real

floggg

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am always going to vote for same sex marriage because its the right thing to do and people should be able to marry who they want. This is all despite my dislike for the LGBT organizations who i feel are distancing and separating gay and straight people. I see alot of other people like myself being disillusioned by their motives which could cause problems for the election.

Not to go off on a tangent, but LGBT people have never ever been more integrated and visible in society, or accepted by their straight friends and family.

anonyanony

Daith wrote: »

The law didn't change. Why are you more emphatic for an unknown business than a person?

Daith wrote: »

What business?

Any cake shop the one in the north was a test case and the same would happen here if a private business objected on their moral beliefs, I believe in the free market if one shop did not want to make CP cakes others would have and if there was a market new business would spring up to meet that demand, to me it's like curves there was a demand for not allowing men in their gym and they boomed due to it free market at work, but I still don't know why they are allowed to discriminate and set their own clientele and others cannot.

I have no empathy for the shop but it's the removal of their personal choice that rubs me wrong, you don't win people hearts by forcing them to do something they don't want to that make them resent you more.

anonyanony

sup_dude wrote: »

No, it didn't. The only difference is now the owner knew they were gay. They could have gone in for birthday cakes or anything down through the years and the owner would have been none the wiser.

There are no secondary consequences. You're making them up based on one incident which was nothing to do with the referendum. How about we allow the referendum but ban them from eating cake? Happy?

Lots of places might have no issue with a birthday cake for a gay person, but object on religious or moral ground on a wedding/cp cake.

floggg

anonyanony wrote: »

Any cake shop the one in the north was a test case and the same would happen here if a private business objected on their moral beliefs, I believe in the free market if one shop did not want to make CP cakes others would have and if there was a market new business would spring up to meet that demand, to me it's like curves there was a demand for not allowing men in their gym and they boomed due to it free market at work, but I still don't know why they are allowed to discriminate and set their own clientele and others cannot.

I have no empathy for the shop but it's the removal of their personal choice that rubs me wrong, you don't win people hearts by forcing them to do something they don't want to that make them resent you more.

And the shop keep doesn't win hearts by preventing people doing what they want to do.

Implicit in that argument is the idea that the freedom of the business to discriminate is more important than the freedom of a person to marry and their right to equality.

Do you believe that to be the case?

Anyway, again this is a non-issue as the position won't change if we allow marriage equality.

Ave Sodalis

anonyanony wrote: »

Lots of places might have no issue with a birthday cake for a gay person, but object on religious or moral ground on a wedding/cp cake.

Well then tough. I think the use of the phrase "you can't have your cake and eat it too" is apt here. That's there own problems and if they seriously don't have a problem with a birthday cake and do with a CP cake, then that's just narrowminded hypocriscy (instead of narrowminded bigotry) and I don't give a damn about their "rights". Once again, I will point out that those rights don't exist for business owners and the law is there, irrespective of this referendum.

anonyanony

Deleted User wrote: »

Judging by a recent "article" (that is - blog opinion piece on a pretend online news paper) that we saw - I am not looking forward to it at all. It was a scare mongering article suggesting paedophiles will use gay marriage to meet other paedophile men - arrange sham marriages - and become somehow more likely to obtain children for nefarious sexual ends.

That is the level of material I fully expect from the "no" side in the coming months - and it is not going to be pretty or something to look forward to _at all_

The most I can do at this time is hope that the quality of their presentation does not have the effect of increasing any actual hate crimes against gay people.

They can do that without marriage like the gay couple in Australia did, the marriage change won't effect offenders offending. The chance sex offenders abusing the system is not a reason for me to vote no.

anonyanony

anonyanony wrote: »

The chance sex offenders abusing the system is not a reason for me to vote no.

My point exactly. This referendum is going to have almost ZERO impact on adoption _at all_ let alone on becoming a facility abused by sex offenders.

But that does not allay my fear - nor my prediction that this is _exactly_ the quality of the material we will see in the coming months. It is going to be a lake full of abhorrent red herrings that we are forced to deal with in our conversations on this topic in the coming months.

If there is not at least 20 irrelevant threads on gay parenting on this very forum in the run up to election day - I will eat my hat. Or any hat offered me for this service.

Daith

anonyanony wrote: »

I have no empathy for the shop but it's the removal of their personal choice that rubs me wrong, you don't win people hearts by forcing them to do something they don't want to that make them resent you more.

They have to obey the law no?

anonyanony

floggg wrote: »

And the shop keep doesn't win hearts by preventing people doing what they want to do.

Implicit in that argument is the idea that the freedom of the business to discriminate is more important than the freedom of a person to marry and their right to equality.

Do you believe that to be the case?

Customer votes with their feet free market and all shop closes down which I am perfectly happy with. Maybe a shop making just wedding cakes for gay people opens and the customers like them so much they do great business.

I am against anything that would effect the majority to please a minority, hence asking questions, I know nothing atm and have three months to learn.

Daith

anonyanony wrote: »

I am against anything that would effect the majority to please a minority,

Yes I do love when a majority gets to vote on a minority's rights

Though I do love a good troll, time to infringe on a business and ask the deli to serve a gay guy.

Ave Sodalis

anonyanony wrote: »

Customer votes with their feet free market and all shop closes down which I am perfectly happy with. Maybe a shop making just wedding cakes for gay people opens and the customers like them so much they do great business.

I am against anything that would effect the majority to please a minority, hence asking questions, I know nothing atm and have three months to learn.

Yes, if the shop ends up closing, then grand. In which case, why do you care?
Also, I repeat (again!) that this isn't a case of the minority against the majority. It's a case of unequal application of importance on rights. And also, I repeat (again!) this referendum has nothing to do with it.

anonyanony

Daith wrote: »

They have to obey the law no?

But why don't curves have to follow the law. There seems to be double standards to it

Aard

This entire thread is an example of how not to keep one's powder dry.

anonyanony

sup_dude wrote: »

Yes, if the shop ends up closing, then grand. In which case, why do you care?
Also, I repeat (again!) that this isn't a case of the minority against the majority. It's a case of unequal application of importance on rights. And also, I repeat (again!) this referendum has nothing to do with it.

Cause they closed of their own choice they where allowed to make, the last CP act brought in consequences that effected private business choice.

We are heading towards to much of an authoritarian 1984 newspeak world which I am totally against and find giving of rights to one section by removing it from others for the greater good a really scary prospect.

I am fine to give right to people if it does not impact on others.

eviltwin

anonyanony wrote: »

Cause they closed of their own choice they where allowed to make, the last CP act brought in consequences that effected private business choice.

We are heading towards to much of an authoritarian 1984 newspeak world which I am totally against and find giving of rights to one section by removing it from others for the greater good a really scary prospect.

I am fine to give right to people if it does not impact on others.

I'm totally lost as to where the connection is here with SSM.

Ave Sodalis

anonyanony wrote: »

Cause they closed of their own choice they where allowed to make, the last CP act brought in consequences that effected private business choice.

We are heading towards to much of an authoritarian 1984 newspeak world which I am totally against and find giving of rights to one section by removing it from others for the greater good a really scary prospect.

I am fine to give right to people if it does not impact on others.

They. Are. Unequal. Rights.


You cannot equate the rights (which they do not have!!) of a business owner to those wanting marriage. It cannot be done. Why? Because a) they aren't equal, b) business owners do not have those rights anyway, and c) it has nothing to do with the referendum! Say it all you like but the CP (and subsequently this referendum) will not change the law. The law still exists that you cannot discriminate and those that do, based on something like same sex, gender, race etc, do not have the right to do so. You cannot say that they're taking the rights of the business owner for the rights of lgbt because the business owner does not have those rights.

anonyanony

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm totally lost as to where the connection is here with SSM.

Cause the CP act and the way a lot of authoritarian sjw types think to benefit the greater good is to remove freedoms and rights to make things equal, I am asking questions here to make sure SSM does not have that effect, it's my second day talking about SSM.

floggg

anonyanony wrote: »

Customer votes with their feet free market and all shop closes down which I am perfectly happy with. Maybe a shop making just wedding cakes for gay people opens and the customers like them so much they do great business.

I am against anything that would effect the majority to please a minority, hence asking questions, I know nothing atm and have three months to learn.

But gay people would still have no remedy or relief as they wouldn't be able to marry.

Do you think it was wrong to abolish slavery? We granted freedom to the minority, but it could be argued caused great harm to the majority who were deprived of their "property" and livelihood.

We also harmed men by giving women the right to vote by diminishing the power of their votes.

Would you have voted against that change?

Ave Sodalis

anonyanony wrote: »

Cause the CP act and the way a lot of authoritarian sjw types think to benefit the greater good is to remove freedoms and rights to make things equal, I am asking questions here to make sure SSM does not have that effect, it's my second day talking about SSM.

They don't have the right or freedom to refuse custom based on sexuality, so it cannot be taken away from them based on the referendum.

eviltwin

anonyanony wrote: »

Cause the CP act and the way a lot of authoritarian sjw types think to benefit the greater good is to remove freedoms and rights to make things equal, I am asking questions here to make sure SSM does not have that effect, it's my second day talking about SSM.

This is not about taking freedom away, it's about granting freedom to gay couples to marry. Will everyone be happy about that? Of course not but the business owner who has a problem with homosexuals, foreign nationals, the disabled etc should not be allowed to dictate the law. Business owners aren't stupid, they'll be in the most part only to happy to take a booking if it helps their bottom line. Owning a business does not give you the right to pick and choose what laws you follow.

anonyanony

eviltwin wrote: »

This is not about taking freedom away, it's about granting freedom to gay couples to marry. Will everyone be happy about that? Of course not but the business owner who has a problem with homosexuals, foreign nationals, the disabled etc should not be allowed to dictate the law. Business owners aren't stupid, they'll be in the most part only to happy to take a booking if it helps their bottom line. Owning a business does not give you the right to pick and choose what laws you follow.

What about curves?

Ok I am going to leave this till I hear the no side points if they have something I think is warrant of debate I will bring it here for the yes side to debate.

Ave Sodalis

anonyanony wrote: »

What about curves?

Ok I am going to leave this till I hear the no side points if they have something I think is warrant of debate I will bring it here for the yes side to debate.

I don't get what you mean by curves

anonyanony

sup_dude wrote: »

I don't get what you mean by curves

Curves is a women's only gym is it not, why can they discriminate based on sex as it's also illegal, to me it's a private business so would not interfere but why are they allowed to break the law? This is no related to SSM so don't want to really debate it here so only if there is a clear reason post it.

Daith

anonyanony wrote: »

Curves is a women's only gym is it not, why can they discriminate based on sex as it's also illegal

It's a sports club.

anonyanony

So loopholes, how would a white only gym club be treated? A gym is a business if others are forced to follow the law they should too even if I think that law is misguided. But not going to say more on this as it's nothing to do with SSM might create a thread on it in politics or somewhere else.

NuMarvel

Daith wrote: »

I do wonder what the actual referendum question is going to be.

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

The current bar is based on a person's sex, so the amendment will probably be something along those lines. My current thinking is a new subsection to Article 41 saying "All laws enacted by the State on a person’s eligibility to marry shall be made without distinction of sex or gender." Or words to those effect.

That would allow the Government to draft new laws removing the legislative bar on the marriage of same sex couples, and amend whatever other legislation needs to be amended.

Daith

NuMarvel wrote: »

The current bar is based on a person's sex, so the amendment will probably be something along those lines. My current thinking is a new subsection to Article 41 saying "All laws enacted by the State on a person’s eligibility to marry shall be made without distinction of sex or gender." Or words to those effect.

That would allow the Government to draft new laws removing the legislative bar on the marriage of same sex couples, and amend whatever other legislation needs to be amended.

Yeah that sounds better that what I was thinking. The only thing is regarding "sex" though. Wouldn't that lead to "floodgate" arguments. Could it not just be left at "All laws enacted by the State on a person’s eligibility to marry shall be made without distinction of gender."

Actually the legislation mentions same sex so yeah could work.

Annasopra

Daith wrote: »

I do wonder what the actual referendum question is going to be.

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

No. There has to be a constitutional amendment.

eviltwin

anonyanony wrote: »

What about curves?

Ok I am going to leave this till I hear the no side points if they have something I think is warrant of debate I will bring it here for the yes side to debate.

Curves gym? I don't know how the law works tbh. I imagine they get around it the same way Burtons don't have to stock women's wear and my local barber only deals with male clients. Obviously its not illegal as so many businesses do cater for particular clients. Its not that big a deal to specialise imo. I can always get my clothes and haircut elsewhere. What choice does a gay couple have?

Annasopra

anonyanony wrote: »

Curves is a women's only gym is it not, why can they discriminate based on sex as it's also illegal, to me it's a private business so would not interfere but why are they allowed to break the law? This is no related to SSM so don't want to really debate it here so only if there is a clear reason post it.

anonyanony wrote: »

So loopholes, how would a white only gym club be treated? A gym is a business if others are forced to follow the law they should too even if I think that law is misguided. But not going to say more on this as it's nothing to do with SSM might create a thread on it in politics or somewhere else.

eviltwin wrote: »

Curves gym? I don't know how the law works tbh. I imagine they get around it the same way Burtons don't have to stock women's wear and my local barber only deals with male clients. Obviously its not illegal as so many businesses do cater for particular clients. Its not that big a deal to specialise imo. I can always get my clothes and haircut elsewhere. What choice does a gay couple have?

I'm failing to see how this is on topic. Please stick to the topic.