|
Post by Isapop on Dec 7, 2017 14:40:50 GMT
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11955433 OK, kudos to them for doing the right thing. But I couldn't help but laugh at an observation made by one of their lawmakers. When the question came up of adding amendments to protect people like bakers so to avoid court battles that they see in the U.S. (Masterpiece Cakeshop), lawmaker Trevor Evans explained that there is just no need: "Let's be honest here, for a case like that to arise in Australia, it would require a gay couple who care more about activism than about the success of their own wedding, to find a business operator who cares more about religious doctrine than the commercial success of their own small business, and for both of them to commit to having a fight," Evans told Parliament.
In other words, "C'mon we Aussies don't take civil rights or religion all THAT seriously to worry about stuff like that! So chill!" I don't know Australians, so I don't know how much truth there is in his assessment, but I found it funny.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Dec 7, 2017 15:47:51 GMT
Yay for Australia! They are laid back and encourage being out. Must be the out-back. SCNR
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 7, 2017 18:22:43 GMT
I don't know much about Australia, but it's pretty true in the States.
It takes a special amount of religious conviction and LGBT outrage to cause an issue regarding wedding cakes to actually be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 7, 2017 18:32:52 GMT
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11955433 OK, kudos to them for doing the right thing. But I couldn't help but laugh at an observation made by one of their lawmakers. When the question came up of adding amendments to protect people like bakers so to avoid court battles that they see in the U.S. (Masterpiece Cakeshop), lawmaker Trevor Evans explained that there is just no need: "Let's be honest here, for a case like that to arise in Australia, it would require a gay couple who care more about activism than about the success of their own wedding, to find a business operator who cares more about religious doctrine than the commercial success of their own small business, and for both of them to commit to having a fight," Evans told Parliament.
In other words, "C'mon we Aussies don't take civil rights or religion all THAT seriously to worry about stuff like that! So chill!" I don't know Australians, so I don't know how much truth there is in his assessment, but I found it funny. Sounds a but like the unarmed combat argument in the military.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 7, 2017 18:59:16 GMT
tpfkar I don't know much about Australia, but it's pretty true in the States. It takes a special amount of religious conviction and LGBT outrage to cause an issue regarding wedding cakes to actually be an issue. Or religious outrage and nondiscrimination conviction. Surprise!
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Dec 7, 2017 22:11:57 GMT
how will the church in australia survive?
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 7, 2017 22:26:09 GMT
Australia does not support religious freedom, that much is clear. Every major church called for exemptions to be granted to business people, and they were ignored. If you ignore the requests of every major religious grouping....what kind of religious "freedom" are you offering? It's like if you claim you respect women's rights when every woman in your group tells you that you do not. Obviously that should tell you there is something wrong there.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Dec 8, 2017 0:14:08 GMT
"Let's be honest here, for a case like that to arise in Australia, it would require a gay couple who care more about activism than about the success of their own wedding, to find a business operator who cares more about religious doctrine than the commercial success of their own small business, and for both of them to commit to having a fight," Evans told Parliament.
I don't think that's true. In the U.S. case, the gay couple presumably turned around, got their cake somewhere else, had a successful wedding, and THEN decided to pursue the legal case. This legislator presents it as an either/or decision, but it wasn't -- they did BOTH. I think he's wrong about the business owners too. Turning away a customer or three isn't going to put somebody out of business, and if the concern is the additional loss of business due to negative publicity on the left (er .. I mean gay facist communist librul purgresiv gay homo gay MSM fake news gay scum ), it's balanced by positive publicity on the right (which is to say right-thinking god-fearing patriots ... 'murica, f*ck yeah!). So again, it's not an either/or proposition.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 8, 2017 2:04:42 GMT
tpfkar Australia does not support religious freedom, that much is clear. Every major church called for exemptions to be granted to business people, and they were ignored. If you ignore the requests of every major religious grouping....what kind of religious "freedom" are you offering? It's like if you claim you respect women's rights when every woman in your group tells you that you do not. Obviously that should tell you there is something wrong there. Women don't have the right to exclude gays from marriage either, silly. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Dec 8, 2017 11:19:17 GMT
Don't know why anyone would want to support a business that wants to discriminate against them.
If you're forcing someone legally to provide you with a cake (or other product/service) against their will, do you really think you're going to get the best cake their capable of.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Dec 8, 2017 11:40:58 GMT
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11955433 OK, kudos to them for doing the right thing. But I couldn't help but laugh at an observation made by one of their lawmakers. When the question came up of adding amendments to protect people like bakers so to avoid court battles that they see in the U.S. (Masterpiece Cakeshop), lawmaker Trevor Evans explained that there is just no need: "Let's be honest here, for a case like that to arise in Australia, it would require a gay couple who care more about activism than about the success of their own wedding, to find a business operator who cares more about religious doctrine than the commercial success of their own small business, and for both of them to commit to having a fight," Evans told Parliament.
In other words, "C'mon we Aussies don't take civil rights or religion all THAT seriously to worry about stuff like that! So chill!" I don't know Australians, so I don't know how much truth there is in his assessment, but I found it funny. Assuming that scenario is actually possible (I can imagine a gay couple looking for a hapless religious baker to try it out on, but being unable to find one), they wouldn't go to court for a civil lawsuit. A Human Rights Commissioner would be appointed to negotiate a solution, which could be that the cake shop supply a generic wedding cake and somebody else put the offending message on it. i can't understand why the scenario of a right wing stooge wanting a cake with a swastika and models of starving Jews behind a wire fence, and asking a Jewish baker to make it, hasn't been suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 8, 2017 11:53:02 GMT
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11955433 OK, kudos to them for doing the right thing. But I couldn't help but laugh at an observation made by one of their lawmakers. When the question came up of adding amendments to protect people like bakers so to avoid court battles that they see in the U.S. (Masterpiece Cakeshop), lawmaker Trevor Evans explained that there is just no need: "Let's be honest here, for a case like that to arise in Australia, it would require a gay couple who care more about activism than about the success of their own wedding, to find a business operator who cares more about religious doctrine than the commercial success of their own small business, and for both of them to commit to having a fight," Evans told Parliament.
In other words, "C'mon we Aussies don't take civil rights or religion all THAT seriously to worry about stuff like that! So chill!" I don't know Australians, so I don't know how much truth there is in his assessment, but I found it funny. i can't understand why the scenario of a right wing stooge wanting a cake with a swastika and models of starving Jews behind a wire fence, and asking a Jewish baker to make it, hasn't been suggested. In the U.S. a baker wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to make such a cake. A swastika would be considered symbolic speech, and speech cannot be compelled. A court would side with the baker.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 8, 2017 15:16:25 GMT
i can't understand why the scenario of a right wing stooge wanting a cake with a swastika and models of starving Jews behind a wire fence, and asking a Jewish baker to make it, hasn't been suggested. In the U.S. a baker wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to make such a cake. A swastika would be considered symbolic speech, and speech cannot be compelled. A court would side with the baker. Not necessarily. The difference is in class protection. That's what most discrimination cases are about as opposed to speech. After all, a gay couple getting married for speech purposes are the worst example to present for equality and only becomes reality in the rare instances that they sue for the right to have their cake baked by a person that doesn't want to bake it. A better comparison would be a Jewish baker being required to make Xmas cupcakes.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 8, 2017 16:36:14 GMT
In the U.S. a baker wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to make such a cake. A swastika would be considered symbolic speech, and speech cannot be compelled. A court would side with the baker. Not necessarily. The difference is in class protection. Oh yes, necessarily. A vendor can legally refuse to create speech (slogan on a t-shirt, swastika on a cake) that he objects to regardless of who the customer is. Class protection is irrelevant here.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 8, 2017 18:10:05 GMT
tpfkar Don't know why anyone would want to support a business that wants to discriminate against them. If you're forcing someone legally to provide you with a cake (or other product/service) against their will, do you really think you're going to get the best cake their capable of. What if it's heat (or cold drinks)? Or anything in a remote town? We don't take kindly to panda bears
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 8, 2017 18:17:52 GMT
Australia does not support religious freedom, that much is clear. Every major church called for exemptions to be granted to business people, and they were ignored. If you ignore the requests of every major religious grouping....what kind of religious "freedom" are you offering? It's like if you claim you respect women's rights when every woman in your group tells you that you do not. Obviously that should tell you there is something wrong there. Well, it's pretty difficult to be concrete and absolute, when dealing with an institution that is supposed to represent love and compassion and understanding, which is what they promote Jesus as representing, and then fall into their own stagnant quagmire of bigoted hypocrisy and condemnation. Religious freedoms are just giving them a pass to say "no", which is only really endorsing their own bias and prejudice. How can we have anti-discrimination laws and apply them effectively, when one of the biggest and semi-controlling organizations in the world, are promoting their own ignorance and hate, and then demanding a free pass for it? When a government then panders to this, it then becomes a very grey and dangerous area and buying into prejudiced attitudes and based on a belief in something that they can't even prove, or be absolute about themselves. That is part of living in a Democratic society, however, which I guess Australia is not that interested in. You certainly don't have to agree or support such ideas, but you have to offer people who subscribe to them the freedom to live by those convictions, no matter how wrong you find them. Anti-discrimination laws need to be practical and be able to differentiate between protecting people from legitimate harm and forcing people to comply (the cakes issue is the latter) and legitimate hate and sincerely held religious beliefs. While it may be tricky, it is not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Dec 8, 2017 20:01:34 GMT
i can't understand why the scenario of a right wing stooge wanting a cake with a swastika and models of starving Jews behind a wire fence, and asking a Jewish baker to make it, hasn't been suggested. In the U.S. a baker wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to make such a cake. A swastika would be considered symbolic speech, and speech cannot be compelled. A court would side with the baker. Yes, bad analogy. The baker could throw the fat neonazi out of his shop here.. The antidiscrimination laws here say something like discrimination on service delivery for religion, race, sexual orientation reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Dec 9, 2017 3:16:47 GMT
tpfkar Don't know why anyone would want to support a business that wants to discriminate against them. If you're forcing someone legally to provide you with a cake (or other product/service) against their will, do you really think you're going to get the best cake their capable of. What if it's heat (or cold drinks)? Or anything in a remote town? We don't take kindly to panda bearsI see the point, the cake example just seems a little like "cutting of your nose to spite your face".
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Dec 9, 2017 12:22:34 GMT
That guy is being very naive.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 9, 2017 20:00:12 GMT
tpfkar I see the point, the cake example just seems a little like "cutting of your nose to spite your face". Personally I'd prefer they pursue it aggressively so that anybody considering it gets thoroughly disabused of the idea. Price Tag
|
|