SSM postal vote

[ken777]

Only if:

a) they offer the kind of service where discrimination law applies
b) they actually are discriminatory in the way they offer their services
c) someone challenges them on that
d) when challenged, that's taken to the point of a legal case
e) the legal case is won.

Each of those things has a small probability. Multiplied together, the probability is vanishingly small. Posting this as if half the country is going to be in and out of court is just misleading.

Honestly, if you're a photographer or florist or whatever and you don't want to do same-sex marriages, it's not that hard to specialise in baby photos or funeral flowers rather than weddings (for example). The only reason people are going to be prosecuted and fined is if they insist on putting themselves in that situation to make a point.



But what are charities and schools even going to be doing that is going to attract this kind of action? Schools aren't marrying people. Charities aren't marrying people. Of course we'll have the right to say ssm is wrong; what we don't have the right to do is indulge in hate speech. But as I've said before... we shouldn't be indulging in hate speech anyway.

The bottom line is that you support the legal punishment of people in business with a religious objection to ssm who are unwilling to violate their faith by involvement in a ss wedding.. You also support this threat hanging over the head of all people in business with a religious objection to ssm.

It matters not whether you think this is right or wrong. These are the facts. To deny this is the situation is either ignorant or deceitful.

You should make yourself more familiar with what has occurred in other countries. Start with the deregistration of the Family First charity in NZ.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I support the legal requirement for people in business to conduct their business in a non-discriminatory way. If you're in the "wedding industry" and you can't do that without violating your conscience, you're in the wrong industry.

They don't have to have a threat hanging over their head; they don't have to put themselves in that position.

 

[AntiCow]

Only if:

a) they offer the kind of service where discrimination law applies
b) they actually are discriminatory in the way they offer their services
c) someone challenges them on that
d) when challenged, that's taken to the point of a legal case
e) the legal case is won.

Each of those things has a small probability. Multiplied together, the probability is vanishingly small. Posting this as if half the country is going to be in and out of court is just misleading.

Honestly, if you're a photographer or florist or whatever and you don't want to do same-sex marriages, it's not that hard to specialise in baby photos or funeral flowers rather than weddings (for example). The only reason people are going to be prosecuted and fined is if they insist on putting themselves in that situation to make a point.

If discrimination is wrong, that does not mean that anti-discrimination law should be used against it. Plenty of things are wrong but legal.

Anti-discrimination laws were first introduced against systemic discrimination- the kind of situation where absolutely every business would racially discriminate against black people , and the ones who didn't were themselves targeted by the KKK or whoever. Back then such laws were necessary. I don't see how they are necessary now, when perhaps 1 in 1000 bakers don't want to make gay wedding cakes.

What is the practical need for such laws? When 999 out of 1000 bakers will give you the wedding cake, just go to one of those.

No practical need means no need. The law is not for virtue signaling.

Additionally it should be remembered there is a cost of such laws. Imagine this scenario: a gay couple wants you to make a cake. You have a legitimate reason not to make one and tell them so. But then you hear from their lawyer: they are taking you to court for discrimination. You know you are in the right, but will the court agree?

Now you have a choice: settle for $20,000 or go to court and risk financial ruin. So you settle.

Whenever it is easy for consumers to sue businesses, these types of shakedowns happen. For this reason I am against anti-discrimination law for business-consumer relations.

 

[ken777]

No, I support the legal requirement for people in business to conduct their business in a non-discriminatory way. If you're in the "wedding industry" and you can't do that without violating your conscience, you're in the wrong industry.

They don't have to have a threat hanging over their head; they don't have to put themselves in that position.

They do have the threat hanging over their heads because for most they have been in the same business without any problem for many years, sometimes generations.

Now with the introduction of a new law they are being asked to violate their religious conscience or close down their business. And you support the prosecution of those who do not not comply. Then you say their fears are groundless!

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, good grief. You make it all sound so dramatic and awful, when in reality it's a very small thing. Nobody has to close, they just have to either treat people equally or not do weddings.

For what it's worth, I don't think baking a cake or providing flowers are conscience issues - neither are material to the marriage - but even if they do, they just have to stick to birthday cakes or the like instead of weddings.

Less profit in it, of course, but shouldn't they be willing to make that sacrifice for Jesus?

 

[ken777]

We cannot even be sure whether saying ssm is wrong will not lead to legal action. The booklet "Don't Mess with Marriage" distributed by Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania resulted in the case going before the Antidiscrimination Commission.

 

[ken777]

You don't think that prosecution, or threat of prosecution, is 'dramatic' or 'awful'? Oh, good grief!

 

[Paidiske]

And the case was lost, and the Church was free to continue distributing the booklet.

Basically, what the law is calling us to do is treat others decently and fairly. We should do that anyway. If the law calls us to account for failing to do so, we should recognise our failings, not complain about the law!

 

[ken777]

And the case was lost, and the Church was free to continue distributing the booklet.

Often process is the punishment. The case was withdrawn but could have proceeded further.

Basically, what the law is calling us to do is treat others decently and fairly. We should do that anyway. If the law calls us to account for failing to do so, we should recognise our failings, not complain about the law!

You are free to moralize about what treating people decently & fairly means to you but you do not have the right to dictate to another's conscience.

Conservative Christians are being told they have three options:
1. Violate their religious conscience
2. Close their business
3. Limit their source of income

If they fail to choose one of these they can be prosecuted & fined ... evidently with the blessing of many in the Anglican Church.

 

[Paidiske]

Conservative Christians are being told they have three options:
1. Violate their religious conscience
2. Close their business
3. Limit their source of income

Because the option some of them seem to want - discriminate illegally against gay people in the provision of services* - is not okay. It's up to them which way they want to avoid doing that, but our society doesn't have to tolerate discriminatory behaviour.

*I'm talking here about services which are not material to the marriage. If we're talking about services which actually make the marriage happen (like celebrants) I think there's a fair conscience case. But services which are just part of the wedding fluff but not actually material to the marriage, I think the conscience objection is misplaced. They're not being asked to do anything wrong.

 

[ken777]

Because the option some of them seem to want - discriminate illegally against gay people in the provision of services* - is not okay. It's up to them which way they want to avoid doing that, but our society doesn't have to tolerate discriminatory behaviour.

*I'm talking here about services which are not material to the marriage. If we're talking about services which actually make the marriage happen (like celebrants) I think there's a fair conscience case. But services which are just part of the wedding fluff but not actually material to the marriage, I think the conscience objection is misplaced. They're not being asked to do anything wrong.

You continue to try to justify your pov and in the process continue to confirm the point I have been making - conservative Christians have much to fear from people who reason as you do when you begin to talk about what you will not tolerate.

 

[Paidiske]

They only have anything to fear if they treat others badly. That's on them.

 

[ken777]

In their self-righteous defence of sinful behaviour in the name of “discrimination”, the religious Left opposes those who faithfully serve God according to His Word, and support imposing punishment on those who are unwilling to violate their Christian conscience.

 

[Paidiske]

It's not a matter of being self-righteous. It's a matter of saying, we have to exist in society along with people who are not like us.

I'm not opposed to anyone faithfully serving God. I'm opposed to people expanding God's word to make sins of things which are not sins (it's not a sin to make and sell a cake, regardless of what the people who buy it do with it).

And I'm opposed to Christians claiming that we should be able to treat others badly because we disapprove of them.

 

[ken777]

It amazes me that people who carry on about treating others badly, give their support to the prosecution, fining & possibly ruining of the livelihood of Christians who ask to be excused from involvement in an event that is contrary to their Christian conscience. Talk about treating people badly!!!

 

[Paidiske]

Here's the thing, though; they wouldn't have to "ask to be excused" if they hadn't put themselves in the position of possibly being involved in the first place.

You run a business, you serve the public without discrimination; that's basic human decency that our society finds non-negotiable. If you feel you have to discriminate, you don't provide that product or service. You bear the cost of conscience, not the people seeking to buy.

 

[ken777]

In the name of a new discrimination law let's ruin the lives of people who have been in business for generations.

Biblical Christians expect persecution, they just don't expect it to come from churches.

 

[Paidiske]

But don't you see the point behind the law - and that it protects you, too?

In a society where Christians are becoming a hated minority, anti-discrimination law may be more important for us than for GLBTIQA folks within a generation.

 

[ken777]

It is fatuous & disingenuous for Leftists to make a religious objection to ssm by Christians about discrimination. Businesses that gladly welcome homosexual clients, do not attempt to impose their views on others. All they want is to be able to refer requests for service for a ss wedding to another vendor. For this the vengeful Left would happily see their business ruined. That such Leftist attitudes have infected our churches, leaves me appalled.

 

[Paidiske]

This isn't a matter of left and right. If you will make a cake for one couple, but not make an identical cake for another couple, that's discrimination. It is treating the couple for whom you will not make the cake unfairly. The reason why is irrelevant; selling someone a cake doesn't make you complicit in anything they do with the cake.

And nobody wants to see businesses ruined! They want to see businesses treat their clients fairly. I'm sorry, but I simply can't see that as an unreasonable demand.