Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

Because he deserves to lose business when he is throwing his bigotry around. What would you suggest, Camper? A baker refuses to sell a cake to black people, or Jewish people, or whoever he chooses not to do business with,
and he is supposed to be honored for it?
 

My reaction is that this is a squabble that should have been sorted out long before being elevated to the highest court of the land.
It has become a lawyers' picnic. How would King Solomon have handled this dispute, I wonder.

I know how my mother would have dealt with it.

She would have said to one, "You need to find another cake maker" and to the other, "You need a lesson in humility. You make cakes but you are not as special as you think you are. Now both of you go away and have a good think about your own behaviours."
 
Sunny said:
Because he deserves to lose business when he is throwing his bigotry around. What would you suggest, Camper? A baker refuses to sell a cake to black people, or Jewish people, or whoever he chooses not to do business with,
and he is supposed to be honored for it?
Click to expand...

I love individual freedoms. This is not Walmart or Safeway.
 
Sunny said:
Because he deserves to lose business when he is throwing his bigotry around. What would you suggest, Camper? A baker refuses to sell a cake to black people, or Jewish people, or whoever he chooses not to do business with,
and he is supposed to be honored for it?
Click to expand...

No one 'deserves' anything. It's not a nationality thing or a racist thing. It's a religious thing or we wouldn't be talking about it.

If I am not comfortable with doing something that is against my religion I should have the freedom to express it.

For instance. In wartime there are conscientous objectors who will not fight because of their religion.
 
And there are some people who claim to be religious but if they found themselves in ancient Rome would avoid being thrown to the lions for lack of evidence.

Conscientious objectors in war time were never given an easy ride. They had to establish themselves to be members of a faith or sect that was implacably pacifist. Only a sects like the Quakers have the clear track record to prove that. Larger Christian churches, while preaching peace, do not have the consistency to allow blanket covering of all members as pacifists. They even have theologies of "just war". Then the adherent must prove himself using his own history, with witnesses etc or suffer the consequences such as time in a military prison as a draft dodger.

If the cake maker is a long time member of a Biblical fundamentalist church he might be successful but it can't be a pick and choose situation. If a Christian fundamentalist, this should be apparent in all of his moral choices including his marriage, religious observances, and business hours. For example, does he close for the Sabbath? Does he tithe? In other words, can he justify his decision to refuse service based on a religious belief? An observant Jew might have a good chance of establishing his bona fides. How about the cake maker? Do we know anything about his religious affiliations?
 
No Warrigal. This is the United States. The Bill of Rights. This is not Australia.

Prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You guys are leaning toward the litigants. Well most of you.

I'm looking at the law and favor Phillips.

The Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of Phillips. I can't see it going any other way in the United States.

No shoes, no service. Constitutional?

Can a same sex couple insist on getting married in a church that doesn't want them?
 
My responses in blue

Camper6 said:
No Warrigal. This is the United States. The Bill of Rights. This is not Australia.
I am aware of the difference. Our rights are clarified in legislation, not in our constitution.
However Section 116 does address the issue of religion.

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. However, Section 116 is more narrowly drafted than its US counterpart, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.

Section 116 has been interpreted narrowly by the High Court of Australia: while the definition of "religion" adopted by the court is broad and flexible, the scope of the protection of religions is circumscribed. The result of the court's approach has been that no court has ever ruled a law to be in contravention of Section 116, and the provision has played only a minor role in Australian constitutional history. Among the laws that the High Court has ruled not to be in contravention of Section 116 are laws that provided government funding to religious schools, that authorised the dissolution of a branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that enabled the forcible removal of Indigenous Australian children from their families.

Federal Governments have twice proposed the amendment of Section 116, principally to apply its provisions to laws made by the states. On each occasion—in 1944 and 1988—the proposal failed in a referendum.
Click to expand...

Prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See above for a comparison.

You guys are leaning toward the litigants. Well most of you.
I'm not. I think both are at fault but that is not based on any law.
It is based on the sense of a "reasonable common person" such as me, perhaps (?)

I'm looking at the law and favor Phillips.

The Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of Phillips. I can't see it going any other way in the United States.
We will soon see whether you prescience is accurate.

No shoes, no service. Constitutional?
It is unless the Constitution rules otherwise. Does it?
Ours is silent on this matter.

Can a same sex couple insist on getting married in a church that doesn't want them?
Not over here, they can't. Our new marriage act gives the churches latitude to only perform marriages that conform to their interpretation of marriage. Other religions have the same latitude. Actually the marriage act forbids clergy from performing marriages unless at least one of them is an adherent of that particular faith. This is why some churches require proof of baptism before agreeing to marry a couple.
Click to expand...
 
Sunny said:
Good point, Aunt Bea. I don't think this case has been decided yet, but just in case Kennedy goes along with the religious conservatives (not too likely) and the bigots "win" this one, the public still has the power of the marketplace. There should be well-publicized notices listing those bakers, and any other providers of products or services, who refuse to do business with particular groups.

Of course, this could be a tricky issue. What if a prominent white supremicist wants to order a cake with a swastika from a Jewish baker? In these crazy times, it could happen.
Click to expand...

Yes. Well what about it? Finish the analogy. Can the baker refuse?
 
This thread has drifted way past the original topic. But, it seems to me that if you give the baker the right to refuse to bake said cake, then the young punk working at McDs will have the same right to not sell a burger to a police officer, because it offends him to do so.

Commercial activity is not covered by BofR, etc. Jeebus. Just bake the f'ing cake.
 
Hoot N Annie said:
This thread has drifted way past the original topic. But, it seems to me that if you give the baker the right to refuse to bake said cake, then the young punk working at McDs will have the same right to not sell a burger to a police officer, because it offends him to do so.

Commercial activity is not covered by BofR, etc. Jeebus. Just bake the f'ing cake.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that analogy is not quite accurate.

Number one. Mc D's is a public corporation, not a private one. The laws are applied differently.

Number two. There is no religion connotation for the police officer. What would he base his refusal on quoting the Bill of Rights?

Take any old cake in the store. Take it home and decorate it yourself. It's not rocket science.

They need to tone down the high pitched whine. The world is not obligated to convert to your way of thinking.
 
Yes. Well what about it? Finish the analogy. Can the baker refuse?
Click to expand...

Yes, Camper, I believe the baker can refuse. But that should not be the end of the story. As I've said several times already, if he refuses he has to be prepared to pay the price for it, in having his refusal known far and wide.
This could mean anything from quiet word-of-mouth discussions to widespread internet publicity. It could cut many different ways, either harming or helping his business, depending on the inclinations of the prospective customers:

a. We'll just give our business to the other baker a few blocks away, who will make the cake with his blessings.
b. We agree with the baker, our religion teaches us that it's sinful, so when my (opposite gender) fiance and I hire the people for our wedding, we will go out of our way to use this guy.
c. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I wouldn't dream of giving this sanctimonious SOB any of my business.
d. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I admire this baker's sincerity about his religion, and will deliberately use him for my next cake.

That is the only outcome I can see to this mess of a situation. There is no way to force the baker to bake a cake for them. And it would be horrifying for this country to lurch into a dark ages mentality and have religion-imposed
sanctions on a legal marriage that is harming no one. So the only solution is to let the marketplace be the ultimate court of appeal.
 
Yes, Camper, I believe the baker can refuse. But that should not be the end of the story. As I've said several times already, if he refuses he has to be prepared to pay the price for it, in having his refusal known far and wide.
This could mean anything from quiet word-of-mouth discussions to widespread internet publicity. It could cut many different ways, either harming or helping his business, depending on the inclinations of the prospective customers:
Click to expand...
He has already stated he is prepared to pay the price. That's not an issue with him.

a. We'll just give our business to the other baker a few blocks away, who will make the cake with his blessings.
b. We agree with the baker, our religion teaches us that it's sinful, so when my (opposite gender) fiance and I hire the people for our wedding, we will go out of our way to use this guy.
c. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I wouldn't dream of giving this sanctimonious SOB any of my business.
d. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I admire this baker's sincerity about his religion, and will deliberately use him for my next cake.
Click to expand...

That is the only outcome I can see to this mess of a situation. There is no way to force the baker to bake a cake for them. And it would be horrifying for this country to lurch into a dark ages mentality and have religion-imposed
sanctions on a legal marriage that is harming no one. So the only solution is to let the marketplace be the ultimate court of appeal.
Click to expand...

And for all this we have to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling?
 
Sunny said:
Yes, Camper, I believe the baker can refuse. But that should not be the end of the story. As I've said several times already, if he refuses he has to be prepared to pay the price for it, in having his refusal known far and wide.
This could mean anything from quiet word-of-mouth discussions to widespread internet publicity. It could cut many different ways, either harming or helping his business, depending on the inclinations of the prospective customers...
Click to expand...
Most people won't care if he refuses. Of those who do, most will agree with the baker. Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.
 
Big Horn said:
Most people won't care if he refuses. Of those who do, most will agree with the baker. Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.
Click to expand...

As Shalimar indicated, times have changed as recent events in Australia have demonstrated. If anything, Australia lags many other countries, including US in this regard. As our generation dies off, so will most of the despising that remains.
 
Big Horn said:
Most people won't care if he refuses. Of those who do, most will agree with the baker. Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.
Click to expand...

The generally despised minority all have family, friends and coworkers that will at some point want to purchase a cake so it is my thought that each time a merchant refuses he stands to lose many, many, transactions and will eventually put himself out of business.
 
Aunt Bea said:
The generally despised minority all have family, friends and coworkers that will at some point want to purchase a cake so it is my thought that each time a merchant refuses he stands to lose many, many, transactions and will eventually put himself out of business.
Click to expand...

I doubt that would be a major part of his business. Never wish Ill on anyone for revenge.
 
Most people won't care if he refuses. Of those who do, most will agree with the baker. Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Camper6 said:
Unfortunately that analogy is not quite accurate.

Number one. Mc D's is a public corporation, not a private one. The laws are applied differently.

Number two. There is no religion connotation for the police officer. What would he base his refusal on quoting the Bill of Rights?

Take any old cake in the store. Take it home and decorate it yourself. It's not rocket science.

They need to tone down the high pitched whine. The world is not obligated to convert to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...

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
 
Aunt Bea said:
Including people who just want a nice cake for a very special event.
Click to expand...

Think about it. This guy runs a business and probably hires employees.

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

This isn't all about a cake and you know it.

Its the Colorado Rights People trying to force their will on others.

When you enter a privately owned business you are an invited guest. I f I tell you to leave you have to go. But these guys weren't told to leave. They stormed out of the store.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top