Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

Sunny said:
I haven't been able to find an answer to this question: What if the court rules against the baker? What would be the result in this case? Would he be compelled to bake a cake for them? (Which they obviously don't really want; this whole case is symbolic.) If so, would there be a judge or a committee as to whether the cake was "good enough?"

What if he still refuses to bake the cake? Is he subject to imprisonment, fines, or what? How on earth could any of this be enforeced, no matter which way the ruling goes?
Click to expand...

He will be sued if he refuses if the case goes against him. He will simply shut the store down or just sell no theme plain cakes like everyone else.

Maybe just put a flag on them?
 

I think our system of a Human Rights Commission to take care of these sorts of complaints is a good one.
The aim is to sort it out by conciliation, without lawyers.
 
This thoughtful article does not give a definitive answer but it does provide a different perspective when considering the apparently conflicting right of the cake maker and the same sex client.

Legislation is no substitute for respect

Support for human rights often depends on the issue under discussion. When the Human Rights Commission defended the human rights of asylum seekers, government supporters vilified the commissioner.

Many of these supporters defended the right of bakers to deny cake-service at gay marriages. At the same time many defenders of the rights of asylum seekers denied the rights of the bakers to act according to their conscience. The right to freedom from discrimination has been set in opposition to the right to religious freedom.

The government has appointed a panel to report whether and what legislation may be necessary to safeguard religious rights in the light of the redefinition of marriage. Given the conflictual nature of much public conversation about human rights, it may be helpful to step back from this particular issue and to reflect on human rights more generally.

Human rights are often seen as a list of individual rights that are self-contained and unconditional. In this view rights are individual entitlements that you have fully or not at all. So you must defend your rights tooth and nail against people who wish to excise part of them on the grounds that you are contravening their rights.

From this perspective the claim to rights is always competitive because other individuals will make conflicting claims. The conflict must be resolved by the assertion of power, either the power of government or the power of the majority. The corollary of this view is that you do not have a right until someone concedes it to you. Perhaps that is why governments behave so vituperatively when any critic accuses them of abusing human rights. The criticism supposes that rights are not the government's to give and to remove.

It is better to see human rights as expressions of what it means to flourish as human beings. Like health, flourishing can be named in various dimensions. We do not flourish unless we have sufficient food, sleep, shelter, access to medical care, education and work, the freedom to associate with others, to marry and form a family, to publicly state our political and religious opinions, to express our thoughts freely and to associate in groups of like-minded people.

We can then name these dimensions of flourishing rights. We shall not thereby offer a complete listing of the things on which our flourishing as human beings depends. This analysis, however, does show that we have rights because we are human beings, not because of our religion, nationality, productivity etc.

We cannot flourish as human beings unaided. We do so through our relationships to other people and to our world. So we do not enjoy human rights as isolated individuals but through our relationships. In fact our rights give expression to the respect that we owe to one another by virtue of being human. So the implications of each right and of their intersection need constantly to be negotiated in the business of daily life from childhood onwards.
In this understanding, human rights cannot be given or taken away by government action or majority opinion. We have rights because we are human beings. Nor are they given to us as individuals. They are possessed and negotiated in our relationships to one another, relationships that are naturally cooperative rather than conflictual.

Nor do rights disappear when we cannot access them because of tyranny, poverty or discrimination. People starving in Yemen because of war have a right to food even if they cannot force it to be met. Asylum seekers on Nauru have a right to security and the protection of the law, even if these things are denied them.

Laws do not give citizens rights, but they do recognise them and can protect them and regulate relationships when different aspects of human flourishing intersect.

https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=54402
Click to expand...
 
So if I guy comes in your bakery and you know he's committed adultery or something else that you don't approve of, you don't bake him a cake??
 
That is very unlikely to happen so to refuse the gay couple or the woman of colour is just plain discrimination tather than an exercise of rights. IMO and in the opinion of our anti discrimination lawyers.
 
You are all forgetting the key issue here which you wont find in a lot of other countries. All laws must obey the constitution of the United States.
So what might seem on the surface simple is not simple when a ruling comes from the Supreme Court and referencing the Constitution. In my humble amateur opinion this will all come down to artistic expression. The justices will have to determine if creating cakes are "art" and if that "artist" can refuse to perform that art because it violates his rights under the Constitution. The Constitution doesnt like to force anyone to do anything. The final ruling will be some sort of compromise.Buy a plain cake and get someone else to decorate it. If I am selling art I can sell it to whoever I want to.
D. Final answer! :confused:
 
I doubt we will see any of this fuss in Australia. For one thing we do not have a bill of rights attached to our constitution. Secondly the wedding cake makers have already altered their order forms asking all clients to specify a bride/groom, bride/bride or groom/groom combination on the cake. They are in fierce competition for customers. Apparently we are about to have a wedding led boost to the economy.
 
Warrigal said:
I doubt we will see any of this fuss in Australia. For one thing we do not have a bill of rights attached to our constitution. Secondly the wedding cake makers have already altered their order forms asking all clients to specify a bride/groom, bride/bride or groom/groom combination on the cake. They are in fierce competition for customers. Apparently we are about to have a wedding led boost to the economy.
Click to expand...

So it's all money in Australia and morals and religious convictions are out the window?

Question. Did the U.S. have a Revolutionary War and overthrow the British Government who was ruling them and made their own Constitution to avoid the nonsense and give individual freedoms?

If a customer is a devil worshipper and wants to celebrate Lucifer and the cake maker is a staunch Catholic, does he have to make the cake for him or can he refuse on religious grounds in Australia.

Can a Catholic be forced to make a cake celebrating abortion?

In the U.S. can a Republican be forced to make a cake celebrating abortion?

Can a barber refuse to give a mohawk cut if he is indigenous because he believes it is racist and demeans his race?
 
Because you did not address my post but went off one some fanciful tangent. There is no way I want to follow you.

Here is my post

I doubt we will see any of this fuss in Australia. For one thing we do not have a bill of rights attached to our constitution. Secondly the wedding cake makers have already altered their order forms asking all clients to specify a bride/groom, bride/bride or groom/groom combination on the cake. They are in fierce competition for customers. Apparently we are about to have a wedding led boost to the economy.
Click to expand...

and this is how you responded

So it's all money in Australia and morals and religious convictions are out the window?

Question. Did the U.S. have a Revolutionary War and overthrow the British Government who was ruling them and made their own Constitution to avoid the nonsense and give individual freedoms?
If a customer is a devil worshipper and wants to celebrate Lucifer and the cake maker is a staunch Catholic, does he have to make the cake for him or can he refuse on religious grounds in Australia.
Can a Catholic be forced to make a cake celebrating abortion?
In the U.S. can a Republican be forced to make a cake celebrating abortion?
Can a barber refuse to give a mohawk cut if he is indigenous because he believes it is racist and demeans his race?
Click to expand...

I spoke about a current reality. You left the planet altogether.
 
The point, I believe, is as I said above -- you can bake or not bake whatever you want in your personal capacity. BUT, when you are operating as a business offering services to the public, you don't get to pick and choose a portion of the public to whom you refuse services. Otherwise, we are back to deciding who can and cannot sit at a lunch counter or the front of the bus or use which drinking fountain. It's really a pretty simple concept. If a businessperson in a public business doesn't think he can provide services to any member of the public because of some personal feeling, he should not be in that public business.
 
Butterfly said:
The point, I believe, is as I said above -- you can bake or not bake whatever you want in your personal capacity. BUT, when you are operating as a business offering services to the public, you don't get to pick and choose a portion of the public to whom you refuse services.
Click to expand...
That's the way I feel about it too
 
Stormy said:
That's the way I feel about it too
Click to expand...

Sure. And the store owner offered to sell anything in the store except his artistic talents.

Does a portrait painter or a photographer have to accept every client that comes to him?

I do think you get to pick and choose if that is the case.

The bakery isn't refusing to sell cakes to anyone.

What if you asked for a obscene motif.?

Now I got you. Obscenity is unique in being the only type of speech to which the Supreme Court has denied First Amendment protection without regard to whether it is harmful to individuals.
 
Last edited:
Butterfly said:
The point, I believe, is as I said above -- you can bake or not bake whatever you want in your personal capacity. BUT, when you are operating as a business offering services to the public, you don't get to pick and choose a portion of the public to whom you refuse services. Otherwise, we are back to deciding who can and cannot sit at a lunch counter or the front of the bus or use which drinking fountain. It's really a pretty simple concept. If a businessperson in a public business doesn't think he can provide services to any member of the public because of some personal feeling, he should not be in that public business.
Click to expand...


I disagree completely....a business owner puts his/her blood & sweat into a business...he or she should be permitted to do business with whom they choose. And yes this goes all the way back to the lunch counter . If I as a business owner choose not to accept your money in return for my service/product....how is that wrong ? You are not being denied any essential service or need.

The drinking fountain & the bus are two entirely different scenarios / issues.

They are public , tax-payer funded . As such no one should be denied them.

My money, my business.

In America, some folks believe that they can 'force' other folks to like everyone. That fly's in the face of human nature, and it is never going to happen. Why people just can't accept that is beyond me.

I would never harm anyone except in the need for self defense. I would never vote to legislate against anyone , for any reason. But there are those I avoid if possible , just because i do not care for them for reasons that are my own..... that is my right, and i will never relinquish it.
 
Just wondering: What if an "artist" selling custom-decorated cakes simply turns down a customer because the cake they are requesting is beyond his artistic talents?

What if the customer suspects that artistic talents have nothing to do with it, the baker just doesn't like them, or their race, religion, sexual preference, political beliefs, etc.?

But what if it really is about artistic talents at times, other times not?

Gadzooks.
 
Sunny said:
Just wondering: What if an "artist" selling custom-decorated cakes simply turns down a customer because the cake they are requesting is beyond his artistic talents?

What if the customer suspects that artistic talents have nothing to do with it, the baker just doesn't like them, or their race, religion, sexual preference, political beliefs, etc.?

But what if it really is about artistic talents at times, other times not?

Gadzooks.
Click to expand...

Well this is all about artistic talents. He has offerered to sell any cake in the store other than the ones he claims that if he creates it it violates his rights due to his religion. Now it's going to the Supreme Court for a decision.

What's your opinion on it?

If the customer suspects that artistic talents have nothing to do with it? Well then that's what this case is all about.

When you ask for a 'theme' cake and tell the artist what you want on it. Then I think he has the option of accepting or refusing, don't you if it's a privately owned business?

For instance what if he wanted a Nazi swastika on it and he is Jewish?
 
Warrigal said:
Because you did not address my post but went off one some fanciful tangent. There is no way I want to follow you.

Here is my post



and this is how you responded



I spoke about a current reality. You left the planet altogether.
Click to expand...

I asked a series of worldly questions which you refused to answer and pulled the strawman out of your bottomless bag of tricks.
 
Not absolutely sure about how I feel about this, Camper; as I said before, this is a real can of worms. I've seen religion misused too many times to get all misty eyed when someone tries to justify something on "religious" grounds. But I also don't like the idea of someone being forced to create a work of art when he doesn't want to, for whatever reason.

I guess the best solution would be to allow him to refuse to create the cake. Word of mouth would get out quickly, his reputation would suffer, and he would obviously lose a certain amount of business. That may really be the only "solution" available in a case such as this. Unfortunately, King Solomon is long gone.
 
Sunny said:
Not absolutely sure about how I feel about this, Camper; as I said before, this is a real can of worms. I've seen religion misused too many times to get all misty eyed when someone tries to justify something on "religious" grounds. But I also don't like the idea of someone being forced to create a work of art when he doesn't want to, for whatever reason.

I guess the best solution would be to allow him to refuse to create the cake. Word of mouth would get out quickly, his reputation would suffer, and he would obviously lose a certain amount of business. That may really be the only "solution" available in a case such as this. Unfortunately, King Solomon is long gone.
Click to expand...

He doesn't care if he loses business. Why are you hoping he will? Terrible to see a self employed business suffer.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top