Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

Warrigal, lots of good common sense in your post.

Bighorn,
The last is easy. Just find the person who is forced to do what he doesn't wish to do.
Click to expand...

Um - what if he/she is a bus driver forced to allow the black person to sit wherever he wants on the bus?
What if he/she is a teacher forced to teach an integrated class? (He doesn't wish to).

Although I would personally find for the baker if I were the judge, mainly because this issue really is a moral stalemate, I think your solution would not work at all.

Why the difference? Well, the baker is not committing an atrocious insult against the gay couple by quietly declining to design the cake. They can always go to another baker, and if they feel the need to punish the guy, let word of mouth in the marketplace take care of it.

In the case of the bus driver and the teacher, they are committing inexcusable and public insults, which of course cannot be tolerated. So yes, sometimes people are forced to do what they do not wish to do.
 

Sunny said:
Warrigal, lots of good common sense in your post.

Bighorn,

Um - what if he/she is a bus driver forced to allow the black person to sit wherever he wants on the bus?
What if he/she is a teacher forced to teach an integrated class? (He doesn't wish to).

Although I would personally find for the baker if I were the judge, mainly because this issue really is a moral stalemate, I think your solution would not work at all.

Why the difference? Well, the baker is not committing an atrocious insult against the gay couple by quietly declining to design the cake. They can always go to another baker, and if they feel the need to punish the guy, let word of mouth in the marketplace take care of it.

In the case of the bus driver and the teacher, they are committing inexcusable and public insults, which of course cannot be tolerated. So yes, sometimes people are forced to do what they do not wish to do.
Click to expand...
Have those offering "atrocious insults" had their unalienable rights alienated?

Suppose that what you call an atrocious insult is what I call sound judgement?
 
To me, the issue boils down to whether a business that puts itself out there to serve the public in general -- and is subject to business licensing, labor rules, civil rights rules, etc. -- should be allowed to refuse to serve a particular group of people. To me, the answer is a resounding "NO." This isn't a question of a person's faith, it's a question of whether a business can legitimately exclude certain persons from its clientele. I strongly believe that in America, the answer has to be no, or what precludes businesses from suddenly deciding to exclude Catholics, or people of whatever color, or people from certain areas in the world.

If a person is acting as a private person, he can serve whomever he wishes, but once he opens a legitimate business purporting to offer services to all, he is no longer acting in a personal capacity. I believe that a businessman/woman must leave his/her prejudices at the door or we are headed back to the 1950s lunch counter or 1930s Germany.

The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than others.
 

Butterfly said:
To me, the issue boils down to whether a business that puts itself out there to serve the public in general -- and is subject to business licensing, labor rules, civil rights rules, etc. -- should be allowed to refuse to serve a particular group of people. To me, the answer is a resounding "NO." This isn't a question of a person's faith, it's a question of whether a business can legitimately exclude certain persons from its clientele. I strongly believe that in America, the answer has to be no, or what precludes businesses from suddenly deciding to exclude Catholics, or people of whatever color, or people from certain areas in the world.

If a person is acting as a private person, he can serve whomever he wishes, but once he opens a legitimate business purporting to offer services to all, he is no longer acting in a personal capacity. I believe that a businessman/woman must leave his/her prejudices at the door or we are headed back to the 1950s lunch counter or 1930s Germany.

The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than others.
Click to expand...

QFT - It really is that simple. Thank you.
 
The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than others.
Click to expand...

Well actually it does. The objection to making a cake from the baker is that it violates his moral standards as an artistic expression.

That's what the Supreme Court is going to decide.
 
Artist? Phooey!!

Does this imply that every cake he produces is a unique artistic creation commissioned by the client?
Or do people just order a cake from his catalog of different versions?

Methinks the baker is guilty of sinful pride.
 
Ah but you are not reading properly.

He specializes in 'theme' cakes like wedding cakes while selling all kinds of cakes.

He will sell any cake in the store to anyone regardless of faith or color.

So what he is challenging is being forced to design a special cake for a special occasion .

He doesn't want to.

Should he be forced to because it would violate someone's rights under the Constitiuion of the United States?

Should he be forced to design a cake that says 'child pornography is o.k.'?

I picked that because you can look it up.
 
The appeals court has up held the decision against the Oregon bakers and awarded the lesbian couple $135,000 for damages. Most likely that will be used us in legal costs.

These are the reasons for the latest decision:


  • The bakery, Sweetcakes by Melissa, violated a law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in places that serve the public.
  • A panel of state appeals court judges agreed that the bakers did, in fact, deny the couple because they were lesbians. The justices also rejected the argument that the previous ruling violated state and federal free speech protections.
  • In the ruling, Judge Chris Garrett wrote that the previous court order does not violate the baker's free speech rights because it simply "requires their compliance with a neutral law."
  • Also the bakers "have made no showing that the state targeted them for enforcement because of their religious beliefs."

A similar case in Colorado is still to be resolved.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/appeals_court_upholds_fine_aga.html
 
Butterfly said:
To me, the issue boils down to whether a business that puts itself out there to serve the public in general -- and is subject to business licensing, labor rules, civil rights rules, etc. -- should be allowed to refuse to serve a particular group of people. To me, the answer is a resounding "NO." This isn't a question of a person's faith, it's a question of whether a business can legitimately exclude certain persons from its clientele. I strongly believe that in America, the answer has to be no, or what precludes businesses from suddenly deciding to exclude Catholics, or people of whatever color, or people from certain areas in the world.

If a person is acting as a private person, he can serve whomever he wishes, but once he opens a legitimate business purporting to offer services to all, he is no longer acting in a personal capacity. I believe that a businessman/woman must leave his/her prejudices at the door or we are headed back to the 1950s lunch counter or 1930s Germany.

The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than others.
Click to expand...

Once again. You are being asked to design a cake to fit a specific function. Therefore there is artistic license involved.

That's the difference. You can have any cake on the shelf in the store. Just don't ask me to design one for you if I don't feel like it.
 
And the "it's against my religion" defense was the same " defense" used by restaurant owners, who refused to serve Black patrons. While the owners gave Biblical passages as proof, the judges upheld that passages of the Constitution were the Law of the Land. No one's religion is above the law.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
And the "it's against my religion" defense was the same " defense" used by restaurant owners, who refused to serve Black patrons. While the owners gave Biblical passages as proof, the judges upheld that passages of the Constitution were the Law of the Land. No one's religion is above the law.
Click to expand...

Big difference between black patrons. The Consitituion changed all that.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this one.

It's not a question of refusing to serve. The offer is there to buy any cake in the store.

It's the creation of a cake for a theme that is in question. Am I forced to create a theme I am not in favor of?
 
Hopefully gay people will begin to only patronize businesses that support them. That won't be hard to figure out. I've noticed an uptick in advertising businesses as being gay friendly and I'm sure baking will be part of that. I don't support people who don't support me, simple as that.
 
Here in coastal BC, these homophobic attitudes won’t fly. Canada has had same sex marriage for over a decade, most people could care less. Those that do, tend to be older. Like the legalising pot question, opinions often stack up re age demographic.
Perhaps living in a very secular country affects this also. Allies of the queer community, such as myself, would never patronise such establishments.
 
Camper6 said:
Big difference between black patrons. The Consitituion changed all that.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this one.

It's not a question of refusing to serve. The offer is there to buy any cake in the store.

It's the creation of a cake for a theme that is in question. Am I forced to create a theme I am not in favor of?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why we need to wait for the Supreme Court to rule when it comes down to a simple question of how we treat each other, very sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top