Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

Shalimar said:
Post of the day.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. The Supreme Court has to rule on how much we have to tolerate people forcing themselves on your freedom to run your own business .

This case should never have gone to the Supreme Court without people trying to force their beliefs on you.

If I'm a barber and someone wants a Mohawk haircut can I refuse?
 
Camper6 said:
The odds that most of his customers where same sex are remote.

Since the invention and use of digital cameras you don't see photography studios much anymore.
Click to expand...
Given that you don’t live in that town, your statement is conjecture. Besides, it is not necessary for the individual to have a predominantly gay clientele, there are many heterosexuals who are staunch allies of the queer community.
 

Shalimar said:
Given that you don’t live in that town, your statement is conjecture. Besides, it is not necessary for the individual to have a predominantly gay clientele, there are many heterosexuals who are staunch allies of the queer community.
Click to expand...

Not conjecture. I was in the photography business part time. It has changed drastically and mostly for the better.

Now you can take myriads of pictures and have them printed out at Walmart or a drug store in just about any size you want.

I just printed out some 4 x 6 prints at 19 cents each while I waited for them.

Queer? That's a term I never heard for a long time.

Isn't that a derogatory insult?
 
Ah how the term "LOVE" is used to make dandy homosexual sexual acts in homosexual "marriage". My girl friend was in LOVE with a married man & so I guess because LOVE makes everything beautiful and right, she was free to have an affair with him without criticism against it.

Imo, homophobia, homophobic are two misnomers that are ridiculous and childish and ignorant to use against anyone who thinks of homosexuality/lesbianism acts are a perversion of human nature. Shees, you disagree with that lifestyle and you're accused of being a bigot or one of the above, even though you're not but just have a different view on the subject.
 
Camper6 said:
Not conjecture. I was in the photography business part time. It has changed drastically and mostly for the better.

Now you can take myriads of pictures and have them printed out at Walmart or a drug store in just about any size you want.

I just printed out some 4 x 6 prints at 19 cents each while I waited for them.

Queer? That's a term I never heard for a long time.

Isn't that a derogatory insult?
Click to expand...
No. It is the term of choice for many non heterosexuals. LGBTQI
 
Elsie said:
Ah how the term "LOVE" is used to make dandy homosexual sexual acts in homosexual "marriage". My girl friend was in LOVE with a married man & so I guess because LOVE makes everything beautiful and right, she was free to have an affair with him without criticism against it.

Imo, homophobia, homophobic are two misnomers that are ridiculous and childish and ignorant to use against anyone who thinks of homosexuality/lesbianism acts are a perversion of human nature. Shees, you disagree with that lifestyle and you're accused of being a bigot or one of the above, even though you're not but just have a different view on the subject.
Click to expand...


I fail to see the causal link between adultery, and a monogamous marriage between two people of the same sex. As for being targeted with the bigoted label for calling loving intimacy between these married couples perverse, well that is quite likely to stick. By the way, many of these acts are also enjoyed by heterosexual spouses.
 
Camper6 said:
The odds that most of his customers where same sex are remote.

Since the invention and use of digital cameras you don't see photography studios much anymore.
Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with the kind of photography equipment he used. The story was heavily publicized and he said a number of regrettable things, all of which are likely to have hurt his cause.

People decided they would prefer not to do business with a bigot. Obviously there weren't enough like-minded customers to keep his business afloat. It doesn't help that he was at best a mediocre photographer.

You can keep throwing weird analogies around but it accomplishes nothing. If your business relies on the public, it's probably a good idea to keep the public happy. Remember, it's not all about you and what you want.
 
LOVE is the causal link. Because you love another does not turn committing sin with the other not a sin. You're correct, from what I've read some homosexual sexual acts are done by heterosexual spouses. Yes, bigotry, name calling/opinions come from both sides of the issue to the other. And only fires up excuses to blast one another.
 
Smiling Jane said:
It had nothing to do with the kind of photography equipment he used. The story was heavily publicized and he said a number of regrettable things, all of which are likely to have hurt his cause.

People decided they would prefer not to do business with a bigot. Obviously there weren't enough like-minded customers to keep his business afloat. It doesn't help that he was at best a mediocre photographer.

You can keep throwing weird analogies around but it accomplishes nothing. If your business relies on the public, it's probably a good idea to keep the public happy. Remember, it's not all about you and what you want.
Click to expand...

Well not really if you own your own business. You pay for the dishes, you say how they are going to be washed.

If I don't feel like cutting hair today and it's my own business, I'm not cutting hair.

It's different if I work for magicuts and I am an employee.

Photography studios are passe now. It has nothing to to with the type of clientele. I has everything to do with being outdated.

I mean you would like to see it as a type of revenge but that's not the case at all.

Big funerals are passe now as well. It's the sign of the times.
 
How is it any different to give Biblical verses that allowed restaurants to not serve Blacks, and give Biblical verses that allow bakers to not bake for Gays. Same Bible. And while you may believe the Bible is a law for you, it has no authority over those of another religion.
 
Fuzzy Buddy, your take on religious beliefs is fuzzy. There is nothing "fuzzy" about Christianity -- God's Word. Huh....Bible verses that allow restaurants to not serve blacks? Which Bible scripture is that found in??? Screwy interpretation of some
'religion' has been going on from the beginning of human's creation. I don't consider Christianity a religion, but a way to live one's life once one has excepted Christ Jesus--God's Word -- the holy Son of God(IAM), and followed as best as possible. However humanity is fallible, and Christians sometimes misinterpret some of God's Word. Very tragic.
 
A gentle old man who had spent the majority of his life in the East as a missionary once said something to me which still resonates after thirty years. “As Christians, we are commanded to love one another, if we do that, the rest will take care of itself.” I am not a Christian, but I incorporated that statement into a mantra which became the benchmark my belief system. He was the most loving and compassionate person I have ever met, and my life was blessed by his presence.
 
Some details about the court decision might be enlightening.
  • Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer sought a cake for their impending nuptials, and when owner Aaron Klein refused to sell them a wedding cake for their ceremony –before any discussion about the design of the cake could even take place — the couple filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)..

  • …nder the distinction proposed by the Kleins, owners and operators of businesses could continue to oppress and humiliate black people simply by recasting their bias in terms of conduct rather than race. For instance, a restaurant could refuse to serve an interracial couple, not on account of the race of either customer, but on account of the conduct — interracial dating — to which the proprietor objected...


  • The court did wrestle with the question of whether cakes constitute expression in a way that would protect the Kleins’ refusal, noting that it “would be a different case if BOLI’s order had awarded damages against the Kleins for refusing to decorate a cake with a specific message requested by a customer (‘God Bless This Marriage,’ for example) that they found offensive or contrary to their beliefs.”

  • …[T]he Kleins’ argument that their products entail artistic expression is entitled to be taken seriously. That being said, we are not persuaded that the Kleins’ wedding cakes are entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as pure speech or traditional forms of artistic expression. In order to establish that their wedding cakes are fundamentally pieces of art, it is not enough that the Kleins believe them to be pieces of art… For First Amendment purposes, the expressive character of a thing must turn not only on how it is subjectively perceived by its maker, but also on how it will be perceived and experienced by others… Here, although we accept that the Kleins imbue each wedding cake with their own aesthetic choices, they have made no showing that other people will necessarily experience any wedding cake that the Kleins create predominantly as “expression” rather than as food.

https://thinkprogress.org/oregon-baker-appeal-loss-32b4bfabbc77/
Click to expand...


I can't find the source right now but I have read that the Kleins had no objection to making cakes celebrating divorce. There is a similar case now before a District Court that will rule on the constitutional aspect of situations like this.
 
The court's reasoning for the ruling: Oh puh-lease. All that talk and it still ends up lacking realistic common sense justice.

Only my opinion, obviously. :)
 
For the record, Elsie, what would you consider a common sense outcome?

Mine would be that this matter should have been resolved by mediation rather than going to court but is that an option in US for issues relating to discrimination complaints?
 
Aren't these court cases tests to see that religion is above the secular law? If God's law is above secular law, and as such, one can adversely effect others; because of a 'religious belief". For centuries, slavery was condoned, because verses in the Bible proved God accepted slavery. Those same verses are still in the Bible, so why can't I have slaves?
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Aren't these court cases tests to see that religion is above the secular law? If God's law is above secular law, and as such, one can adversely effect others; because of a 'religious belief". For centuries, slavery was condoned, because verses in the Bible proved God accepted slavery. Those same verses are still in the Bible, so why can't I have slaves?
Click to expand...
Wow. Makes excellent sense. Men had multiple wives also.
 
Read the New Testament, it tells of Christ Jesus birth and how laws of the Old Testament were ended by Him. Slavery was mans' chosen sin. God only allowed it, and other sins, while sending out apostles to teach His Word to all people of living in accordance to what would be the best way for them. I haven't read the scripture verses on slavery for years so have forgotten most of what He said against it.

One verse that comes to mind is "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's." In another words, follow human leaders' set laws. Some of the laws may not be according to God's Word, but we, whatever "religion", are to follow those laws. None of us are to go by our own laws--God knows if we did, we'd destroy society.
 
Without questioning anyones beliefs, we have four people, A B,C,D. B is the only female. A&B decide to live together, in a legal way, called civil "marriage". They receive tax breaks, lower insurance rates, etc., etc. etc. C & D decide to live together in the same way as A & B. They do not receive tax breaks, lower insurance rates,etc., etc., etc. C & D are denied the civil perks of marriage, because of their sex. The Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination due to sex is unconstitutional. Thus, gay civil marriage.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top