Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

Hoot N Annie said:
Camper, God bless your heart, you are wrong on all accounts. I am surprised that a Canadian is licensed to practice law in the US. And the only "high pitch whine" I hear is coming from north of the US border.

Peace and love
Hoot
Click to expand...

Uh oh? What do we have here. Wrong on all counts? Hmmn? Talk is cheap. Evidence and facts are not.

And now what else do we have. Someone is cheesed off so decides to play the 'foreigner' card?

I have news for you. This is an international forum. I don't need a license to post.

Peace and love?

:yeahright:
 

Sunny said:
Not at all, Big Horn. You are generalizing from the point of view of your own locality, I suspect. And I don't exactly know how many gay people there are, but I get the feeling that they are anything but a tiny minority. Most educated people do not "despise" them at all.
Click to expand...
I lived in Colorado for thirty-five years. People discussed it continually. Homosexuals kept pushing and pushing. Others kept resisting. It was really unpleasant.

During my fifteen years in Wyoming I don't recall a single conversation with or about homosexuals. That's far better.
 
Camper6 said:
Uh oh? What do we have here. Wrong on all counts? Hmmn? Talk is cheap. Evidence and facts are not.

And now what else do we have. Someone is cheesed off so decides to play the 'foreigner' card?

I have news for you. This is an international forum. I don't need a license to post.

Peace and love?

:yeahright:
Click to expand...

Nice try to deflect, but fact is most Americans and most Australians support same sex marriage, and the right for LGBT folks to be treated like everybody else. SCOTUS will soon confirm that right. Why is that so much to ask?

Next.

Peace and love
Hoot
 

Hoot N Annie said:
Nice try to deflect, but fact is most Americans and most Australians support same sex marriage, and the right for LGBT folks to be treated like everybody else. SCOTUS will soon confirm that right. Why is that so much to ask?

Next.

Peace and love
Hoot
Click to expand...

Well I'm not against same sex marriages. It's none of my business. I am against forcing someone to have to bake a cake for the wedding under the Constitution which I am a fan of. Even though I am not a citizen of the U.S. I study the Constitution every chance I get because my family lives in the U.S.

To be treated like everybody else? Well under the Constitution I don't have to treat anyone like everybody else.



There are some that come here with a rational argument supported by the facts. Others come here to attack the poster for having their own opinion and then fake it with a Peace and Love signature.

Businesses are within their rights to establish their own rules for admitting or banning people from their property.

No shoes, no shirt, no service.
 
Camper6 said:
Well I'm not against same sex marriages. It's none of my business. I am against forcing someone to have to bake a cake for the wedding under the Constitution which I am a fan of. Even though I am not a citizen of the U.S. I study the Constitution every chance I get because my family lives in the U.S.

To be treated like everybody else? Well under the Constitution I don't have to treat anyone like everybody else.



There are some that come here with a rational argument supported by the facts. Others come here to attack the poster for having their own opinion and then fake it with a Peace and Love signature.

Businesses are within their rights to establish their own rules for admitting or banning people from their property.

No shoes, no shirt, no service.
Click to expand...



^5+1
 
Think about it. This guy runs a business and probably hires employees.

Your wishes that he suffers makes others suffer. Over a lousy cake?
Click to expand...

Well, that argument is so absurd that it's hard to take it seriously enough to even answer it. And it smacks of desperation.

Following your logic shown above, no business owner should ever be accountable for anything he does, because if his business suffers as a result, some innocent people working for him might lose their jobs or suffer a loss of income?

What if (hypothetically) he was actually committing a crime? Should that be overlooked also, to preserve his employees' jobs?

Of course that would be unfortunate, especially if the employees had no knowledge of his attitudes. Or even if they did; many of us have had bosses who were outright [fill in the epithet], but hey, the job was OK anyway and it provided a living. But that would be part of the "collateral damage," to use a favorite expression of the military. Life is hard sometimes.

If their boss is being offensive enough to antagonize a substantial number of people and lose business as a result, they just might be hurt by it.

BTW, I have no desire to see anyone "suffer." I do believe that actions have consequences. Since there is probably no way that the courts can satisfactorily solve this tangled mess, the marketplace results are probably the only outcome. And this will happen, inevitably, whether you think it's fair to the employees or not.
 
Well, that argument is so absurd that it's hard to take it seriously enough to even answer it. And it smacks of desperation.
Click to expand...

Hardly. A poster is wishing the business ill and closing down. The business is defending themselves at the Supreme Court. So why not wait for the Supreme Court decision?

Following your logic shown above, no business owner should ever be accountable for anything he does, because if his business suffers as a result, some innocent people working for him might lose their jobs or suffer a loss of income?
Click to expand...

Well no. Let's talk legal rights here. Yes if he is innocent and people will lose their jobs then it's a tragedy.

What if (hypothetically) he was actually committing a crime? Should that be overlooked also, to preserve his employees' jobs?
Click to expand...

Nope. Once again. Let's talk legality and the law.

Of course that would be unfortunate, especially if the employees had no knowledge of his attitudes. Or even if they did; many of us have had bosses who were outright [fill in the epithet], but hey, the job was OK anyway and it provided a living. But that would be part of the "collateral damage," to use a favorite expression of the military. Life is hard sometimes.
Click to expand...

You are going too far afield in your argument. You are assuming the baker is wrong in this case. That has yet to be determined and you are making purely theoretical arguments.

If their boss is being offensive enough to antagonize a substantial number of people and lose business as a result, they just might be hurt by it.
Click to expand...

Of course. But is that the case here?

BTW, I have no desire to see anyone "suffer." I do believe that actions have consequences. Since there is probably no way that the courts can satisfactorily solve this tangled mess, the marketplace results are probably the only outcome. And this will happen, inevitably, whether you think it's fair to the employees or not.
Click to expand...

But that's what one poster stated here. That they wish him ill and to suffer because of his stance. Maybe his employees agree with him and don't want to lose their jobs. That's allowed under the Constitution is it not?
 
Sunny said:
Well, that argument is so absurd that it's hard to take it seriously enough to even answer it. And it smacks of desperation.

Following your logic shown above, no business owner should ever be accountable for anything he does, because if his business suffers as a result, some innocent people working for him might lose their jobs or suffer a loss of income?

What if (hypothetically) he was actually committing a crime? Should that be overlooked also, to preserve his employees' jobs?

Of course that would be unfortunate, especially if the employees had no knowledge of his attitudes. Or even if they did; many of us have had bosses who were outright [fill in the epithet], but hey, the job was OK anyway and it provided a living. But that would be part of the "collateral damage," to use a favorite expression of the military. Life is hard sometimes.

If their boss is being offensive enough to antagonize a substantial number of people and lose business as a result, they just might be hurt by it.

BTW, I have no desire to see anyone "suffer." I do believe that actions have consequences. Since there is probably no way that the courts can satisfactorily solve this tangled mess, the marketplace results are probably the only outcome. And this will happen, inevitably, whether you think it's fair to the employees or not.
Click to expand...


He covered all this with......

"Over a lousy cake?"
 
It's not over a "lousy cake," rgp, and you know it.

Camper, as I've said, but you are choosing to ignore, the rules of the marketplace could go either way. If enough local people agree with the baker, this could boost his business. It could go either way.
 
Sunny said:
It's not over a "lousy cake," rgp, and you know it.

Camper, as I've said, but you are choosing to ignore, the rules of the marketplace could go either way. If enough local people agree with the baker, this could boost his business. It could go either way.
Click to expand...

He's willing to take the chance. He obviously knows the marketplace. I admire people who start and maintain their own businesses. It takes guts to meet all the challenges and the competition. Statistically the odds are in his favor.
 
Sunny said:
It's not over a "lousy cake," rgp, and you know it.

Camper, as I've said, but you are choosing to ignore, the rules of the marketplace could go either way. If enough local people agree with the baker, this could boost his business. It could go either way.
Click to expand...

Ah but it is...they wanted a cake, & he said no....It's just that simple...now if one chooses to make more out of it, as it appears you do, then it becomes a whole new issue.
 
Camper6 said:
Well I'm not against same sex marriages. It's none of my business. I am against forcing someone to have to bake a cake for the wedding under the Constitution which I am a fan of. Even though I am not a citizen of the U.S. I study the Constitution every chance I get because my family lives in the U.S.

To be treated like everybody else? Well under the Constitution I don't have to treat anyone like everybody else.



There are some that come here with a rational argument supported by the facts. Others come here to attack the poster for having their own opinion and then fake it with a Peace and Love signature.

Businesses are within their rights to establish their own rules for admitting or banning people from their property.

No shoes, no shirt, no service.
Click to expand...

lol - more "high pitched whine". You are still wrong on all accounts. Try running a small business here in the States, cause it ain't that simple. No shoes, no service?? Try putting a "Whites Only" sign in your shop window. Really.

You keep trying to make this about me, but it isn't.

Peace and love
Hoot
 
Hoot N Annie said:
lol - more "high pitched whine". You are still wrong on all accounts. Try running a small business here in the States, cause it ain't that simple. No shoes, no service?? Try putting a "Whites Only" sign in your shop window. Really.

You keep trying to make this about me, but it isn't.

Peace and love
Hoot
Click to expand...

No you can't put whites only. Because the Supreme Court ruled on it. It's against the Constitution.

Your constant wrong on all counts is your opinion but not based with facts and evidence.

No shoes, no service does not violate the constitution. I can put that sign up. Businesses can set standards for their premises that don't violate the Constitution.


I just copy over your posts and reply to them. You can't see where you are the one that is wrong.
 
So anyway, getting back to the wedding cake issue, which we appear to have forgotten about for the moment, today's paper had an article about the long lines of people outside of the Supreme Court, hoping to get in to hear the arguments in this case. There are actually two lines, one for lawyers and one for everyone else. The lawyers are not allowed to engage in paid line holders, but in the everything else line, that still prevails. People are paid thousands of dollars to hold a place. Many of the people in line have been out there for 4 days! They've formed a sort of community, and help each other out by holding each other's place in line while they go to a nearby Walmart to get bedrolls, food, etc., and in the case of one guy, to go to a friend's home for a shower. It didn't say which side of the issue they are on, so I imagine it's mixed.

The reason for this silliness is that the Supreme Court does not allow televised broadcasts of their proceedings, and not even tapes of their sessions until days later. They say the media's presence would affect the court's goings on.
 
I happened to see these two questions asked by someone at https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ece-cake-case-will-be-difficult-decision.html

What happens if a Jewish baker is asked to do a cake symbolizing Nazi symbols and beliefs?
What about a black baker is asked to do a cake decked out with KKK symbols and lynching pictures?

I don't have much to say about the gay wedding cake except I personally would have baked it because my customer's sex life is none of my concern, even though it's not for me.

If I were the customer and the cake was refused to me because of the baker's religious beliefs, it would annoy me as would dropping an egg on the floor. I would go elsewhere, what's the big deal?

Could the big deal possibly be money won in a lawsuit?
 
I'm with the cake guy. He has the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason just as every business owner does in a constitutional republic. It's time to stand up to get our rights recognized again.
 
Big Horn said:
I'm with the cake guy. He has the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason just as every business owner does in a constitutional republic. It's time to stand up to get our rights recognized again.
Click to expand...

So, Big....just to be clear, you would protect the right of a black baker to refuse to create a cake featuring a figure of a Klansman standing over a kneeling black slave?

You would also protect the right of a Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake and decorate it with figures of Hitler standing over kneeling Jewish prisoners ?

The person who asked those questions in the link I provided went on to say-

"As we wade into restrictions of our daily conducts, we find that we are giving away our liberties to satisfy the designated behavior of the day. The gay couple could have gone to another bakery. But as they want to force their right on another person's right, we are in this situation. The High Courts will never satisfy everyone."

It does seem a stalemate; each side has their rights. Maybe the only way to resolve this is to find for the party who sustains the biggest injury?
 
RadishRose said:
So, Big....just to be clear, you would protect the right of a black baker to refuse to create a cake featuring a figure of a Klansman standing over a kneeling black slave?

You would also protect the right of a Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake and decorate it with figures of Hitler standing over kneeling Jewish prisoners ?

The person who asked those questions in the link I provided went on to say-

"As we wade into restrictions of our daily conducts, we find that we are giving away our liberties to satisfy the designated behavior of the day. The gay couple could have gone to another bakery. But as they want to force their right on another person's right, we are in this situation. The High Courts will never satisfy everyone."

It does seem a stalemate; each side has their rights. Maybe the only way to resolve this is to find for the party who sustains the biggest injury?
Click to expand...
The last is easy. Just find the person who is forced to do what he doesn't wish to do.
 
Here is why the baker is going to win.

The case:

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

See it's not just an ordinary cakeshop. This baker designs and creates a work of art. A masterpiece.

As such he can refuse as he sees fit. It doesn't have to be a same sex couple. It could be anyone wanting something he doesn't want to do because he is not comfortable with it.

Anyway, that's the way I see it. As long as it's not against the constitution he is perfectly within his rights.
 
The Supreme Court is split 4-4 between constitutionalists and statists. The other justice, Anthony Kennedy, tends to be a constitutionalist, but one never knows in his case.
 
rgp, you make common sense. No bigotry from you that I could see. That cake baker, being the owner of his business, has every right to say no to decorating a wedding cake decorated with words that represent marriage between two men. If I was he, I couldn't/wouldn't -- I'd have a sad feeling deep inside me that I would be ignoring, letting down God's(I AM) Word if I did.

I've recently come to think being homosexual/Lesbian is not a sin, however homosexual sexual acts definitely are. Celibacy can be tough, but that's one of the difficult consequences.
 
Sex between couples who are not married to each other is also a sin but no-one is allowed to refuse them services because they have a moral objection.

I have enough trouble curbing my own sinful nature, an example of which is a tendency to judge others. My moral code is for me to follow and I am not supposed to impose my code onto others. We have laws that apply to all but private morality is just that, private.

Personally, I detest the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras because I disapprove of the blatant public display. For that reason I do not watch it. Paul was onto something when he said, "It is better to marry than to burn," because he recognised that celibacy is too hard for some.

I have recently come to believe that these words are true for gay and lesbians too. A committed marriage relationship is much better than a life of promiscuity and casual sex. For this reason I now approve of same sex marriage. Some of the couples who will be marrying soon have been faithfully together for 40 years. Society needs to recognise stable, loving relationships such as these.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top