Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

Here is how the chamber voted

DQbWQ8kUEAAa4xp.jpg
 

Good for you!! I've supported gay marriage (in all of it's various forms) for a long time, because, hey, why shouldn't they have to suffer like the rest of us... :cool:
 
I wonder about this whole "against his religion" thing, anyway. "Religion" has been used as an excuse to commit every level of atrocity down through history. Horrifying crimes have been committed supposedly in the name of religion. Maybe it's time for this country to grow up and keep religion within the sphere of our private lives, but adhere to a set of laws requiring common decency in the public sector?

Having said that, I do think this issue is a real can of worms. Maybe the best solution is to just let the marketplace deal with it. Someone refuses to provide their goods to a certain segment of the population? Fine. There's always boycotting, adverse publicity, picketing the business, etc.

Even that isn't foolproof. What is to stop someone from lying about some act of discrimination that never actually happened?
 
We have a Human Rights Commission that people can complain to if they feel they have been discriminated on the grounds of race, sex and sexual preference, disability or age. The process aims for conciliation before resorting to the courts.

What can I complain about?

The Australian Human Rights Commission can investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment and bullying based on a person’s:

  • sex, including pregnancy, marital or relationship status (including same-sex de facto couples) status, breastfeeding, family responsibilities, sexual harassment, gender identity, intersex status and sexual orientation
  • disability, including temporary and permanent disabilities; physical, intellectual, sensory, psychiatric disabilities, diseases or illnesses; medical conditions; work related injuries; past, present and future disabilities; and association with a person with a disability
  • race, including colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, immigrant status and racial hatred
  • age, covering young people and older people
  • sexual preference, criminal record, trade union activity, political opinion, religion or social origin (in employment only)

It is against the law to be discriminated against in many areas of public life, including employment, education, the provision of goods, services and facilities, accommodation, sport and the administration of Commonwealth laws and services.

The Commission can also investigate and resolve complaints about alleged breaches of human rights against the Commonwealth and its agencies.

How are complaints resolved?

Complaints to the Commission are resolved through a process known as conciliation. This is where the people involved in a complaint talk through the issues with the help of someone impartial and settle the matter on their own terms.

Conciliation is a very successful way of resolving complaints. Feedback shows that most people find our process fair, informal and easy to understand. It also helps them to better understand the issues and come up with solutions that are appropriate to their circumstances.

Complaint outcomes can include an apology, reinstatement to a job, compensation for lost wages, changes to a policy or developing and promoting anti-discrimination policies.
Click to expand...
 
Sunny said:
I wonder about this whole "against his religion" thing, anyway. "Religion" has been used as an excuse to commit every level of atrocity down through history. Horrifying crimes have been committed supposedly in the name of religion. Maybe it's time for this country to grow up and keep religion within the sphere of our private lives, but adhere to a set of laws requiring common decency in the public sector?

Having said that, I do think this issue is a real can of worms. Maybe the best solution is to just let the marketplace deal with it. Someone refuses to provide their goods to a certain segment of the population? Fine. There's always boycotting, adverse publicity, picketing the business, etc.

Even that isn't foolproof. What is to stop someone from lying about some act of discrimination that never actually happened?
Click to expand...



Depending on what "stat" ya read & who compiled it, the homosexual community is somewhere between 1 & 4 % of the population.
So, even if ALL , homosexuals & those compassionate to their cause boycott him....he'll do just fine.
 
One of the many photos showing rejoicing in the parliament after the marriage equality vote
The woman is Linda Burney, an indigenous MP. I listened to her speech and it was awesome.
The man who swung her off her feet is Warren Entsch, a conservative politician from north Queensland.
Neither is gay.

DQbbbT4UMAA_ZWR.jpg
 
Sunny said:
So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.

Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me.

And my comment that he'll do just fine with the bigot clientele was a response to YOUR comment that in the marketplace, "he'll do just fine." Depends on your definition of fine, it would seem. If losing half of his potential customers is "just fine," that's a very strange business model.

Seems to me all the "insult slinging" is coming from you. Why are you personally so incensed about this, anyway?
Click to expand...

If he is going to lose half of his potential customers as you put it, he is willing to take that risk.

He does artistic themes on his wedding cakes. I have no idea what they asked for but apparently he didn't want any part of it.

I remember one barber refusing to cut hair one day. He was in the barber shop. Just told everybody that walked in "I'm not cutting hair today because I just don't feel like it".

That was in the days when there were no appointments. You just walked in and waited.
 
Smiling Jane said:
We've had lots of divorces in the U.S., including the first legal gay marriage.
Click to expand...

When this first started out I saw it as a great huge financial advantage.

For instance. Tax breaks as a couple. Pension plans. Medical coverage from employers for both.

Even if I wasn't in love with a guy or gal I lived with I would marry for the financial benefit.

What have I got to lose?

What I don't like about the whole thing is this "in your face" stuff. Do as you wish but do I have to accept it or am I free to disagree?

I really don't get 'gay parades' and if the mayor doesn't show up he's discriminated against? And must I fly the 'rainbow flag" next to the Union Jack or I am being discriminatory?
 
And I hope that decision is that each has a right to their own way. I hope the baker retains the right to say no. And not participate in the wedding in any way. And the couple retains the right to go to any other baker....{there are thousands} and obtain their wedding cake.
Click to expand...

Yes. I listened to a fairly long discussion on this topic recently. It really is far more complex than people think. Many of us support equal rights, but that is the question: What is equal so that both parties retain their freedoms? I am one of those people who is 'anti-fundamentalist', but I understand (at least intellectually, not at a gut level), their religious beliefs. The 'rights' issue is just so complex. It's individual rights on both sides with religious freedom as part of the mix. Can the fed mandate behavior that goes against religious beliefs when we're supposed to have separation of church and state?

And, many people may not understand a fundamental part of the baker's argument. He stated he would sell the couple anything in the store. But he considers his custom cake design as artistic expression. And he believes he should not contribute his artistry to celebrate something he considers an affront to his religion. That is what makes the case so difficult. He didn't kick these people out of the store --- he just would not customize something for their ceremony which he believes is an affront to God.

The thought process, along with the legal process, that the court has to go through, is above my pay grade.....
 
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?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top