Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Commonsense to strengthen religious protections (Read 1832 times)
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79579
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #15 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:59pm
 
"If a law conflicts with the Constitution, then the law is repugnant to the extent of the inconsistency."

Follow through on your thinking.......

If the High Court is 'empowered to make distinctions between church and state' - where then is the safeguard against that court determining that it may arbitrarily reverse a long-standing tenet of that separation, in the hands of a group of ideologues and party flunkeys?

People are carefully pre-positioned when some change is being implemented......

"Nothing happens in politics by accident - if it happens at all, it was planned that way." - FDR.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:19pm by Grappler Truth Teller Feller »  

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #16 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:04pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:59pm:
"If a law conflicts with the Constitution, then the law is repugnant to the extent of the inconsistency."

Follow through on your thinking.......


Grap, the Constitution does not contain a Bill of Rights, nor should it. I am not making a proscription, but a description of the Constitution as it stands.

You want the court to have review on all legislation. I don't.

What would actually be the better thing would be to not have that provision in the Constitution and allow the Parliament to protect religious institutions by legislation (although section 51 gives the Parliament no power to make such laws anyway).

Besides, the States can force religious institutions to marry same-sex couples against their will, but they won't do it. It would be political suicide.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:13pm by Auggie »  

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #17 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:11pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
To the Stalinists, there are no 'good, honest folk' - only revolutionists, party members, and good socialists or serfs under absolute control ....... or dead weight.


And do you consider me to be a Stalinist just because I support the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, a doctrine which has been in continual existence for over 300 years; and proved to be the best form of government even devised?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79579
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #18 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:25pm
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:11pm:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
To the Stalinists, there are no 'good, honest folk' - only revolutionists, party members, and good socialists or serfs under absolute control ....... or dead weight.


And do you consider me to be a Stalinist just because I support the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, a doctrine which has been in continual existence for over 300 years; and proved to be the best form of government even devised?


Parliamentary sovereignty is not the same as absolute control - nor should it be.  Parliamentary sovereignty, like royal prerogative, is bounded by Law, and the only difference between having a Bill of Rights and not having one is that the fundamental tenets of Law as required are laid down formally in a Bill, rather than being a free-for-all.

Even then, those tenets and rights are still open to interpretation, and then to precedence, which can be a dire situation once any legislation has been falsely permitted to pass through by a lower and "less" qualified court.  In this state, it is not uncommon for some JP from a local real estate agency to sit for a day in a court - you can just imagine the kinds of decisions such a person would make, and I can give you examples of how out of their depth they are.

I was responding to bogarde's comment.... not referring to you, you narcissist.  Wink
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #19 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:35pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:59pm:
where then is the safeguard against that court determining that it may arbitrarily reverse a long-standing tenet of that separation, in the hands of a group of ideologues and party flunkeys?


You're making my point. That's why I don't want an American-style judiciary because there's no recourse for bad decision, whereas in a system of parliamentary sovereignty, the decision can undone the next day, or with newly elected leadership.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:59pm:
"Nothing happens in politics by accident - if it happens at all, it was planned that way." - FDR.


You're quoting a man who had complete disregard for the Constitution, and who threatened to pack the court if the Supreme Court didn't go his way.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13988
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #20 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:41pm
 
bogarde73 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:51pm:
buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:22pm:
bogarde73 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 9:55am:
Turnbull says he'll vote for them even though he doesn't think they're necessary.




... and he's 100% CORRECT

Currently the church can refuse to marry any couple they choose to
Look no further than the catholic church and divorcees
A self employed marriage celebrant has the same right to refuse
As does a wedding cake baker
The latter are retail contracts - and require two parties in agreement to be binding

If a government employed registry office celebrant can't perform his job - as determined by Australian law - it's time he found a new career



What are you afraid of Buzz? You got your vote didn't you?
So what's wrong with ensuring some other citizens see their rights enshrined in black letter law.



As it's already been established, those legal protections ALREADY exist
I'm more concerned at what EXTRA law to legally discriminate and vilify the far right christian fundamentalists will be pushing for - to force equality legislation back to the senate


Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #21 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:42pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
Parliamentary sovereignty is not the same as absolute control - nor should it be.  Parliamentary sovereignty, like royal prerogative, is bounded by Law, and the only difference between having a Bill of Rights and not having one is that the fundamental tenets of Law as required are laid down formally in a Bill, rather than being a free-for-all.


It is bound by convention - unspoken rules mainly, but yes it is governed by rules.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
Even then, those tenets and rights are still open to interpretation, and then to precedence, which can be a dire situation once any legislation has been falsely permitted to pass through by a lower and "less" qualified court.  In this state, it is not uncommon for some JP from a local real estate agency to sit for a day in a court - you can just imagine the kinds of decisions such a person would make, and I can give you examples of how out of their depth they are.


No legislation is perfect, and no legislation can cover every tenet.

I understand your point of view: you want to ensure that all legislation is good, so do I; but any attempt to impose additional checks to legislation will invariably make it harder for a good government to pass good legislation (as you or I might define it). The key feature of the Westminster is its efficiency.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
I was responding to bogarde's comment.... not referring to you, you narcissist. 


So, you sill resort to name-calling.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #22 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:42pm
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:23pm:
Grendel wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:11pm:
LOL
You are such a neophyte Auggie.
What happens when laws and rules contradict each other?


I'm not sure where the contradiction is. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, then the law is repugnant to the extent of the inconsistency.

See....  Neophyte.
What about tribunals and other Non-Constitutional rules and laws like Discrimination.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Armchair_Politician
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25115
Gender: male
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #23 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 4:48pm
 
buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:22pm:
bogarde73 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 9:55am:
Turnbull says he'll vote for them even though he doesn't think they're necessary.




... and he's 100% CORRECT

Currently the church can refuse to marry any couple they choose to
Look no further than the catholic church and divorcees
A self employed marriage celebrant has the same right to refuse
As does a wedding cake baker
The latter are retail contracts - and require two parties in agreement to be binding

If a government employed registry office celebrant can't perform his job - as determined by Australian law - it's time he found a new career



Yeah, you're wrong...

https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-coupl...
Back to top
 

Scott Morrison DID wipe the floor with Bull Shitten!!! Smiley Smiley Smiley
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #24 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 5:39pm
 
Grendel wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
Auggie wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:23pm:
Grendel wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:11pm:
LOL
You are such a neophyte Auggie.
What happens when laws and rules contradict each other?


I'm not sure where the contradiction is. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, then the law is repugnant to the extent of the inconsistency.

See....  Neophyte.
What about tribunals and other Non-Constitutional rules and laws like Discrimination.


They don’t apply to religion, do they?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13988
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #25 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:58pm
 
Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 4:48pm:
buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:22pm:
bogarde73 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 9:55am:
Turnbull says he'll vote for them even though he doesn't think they're necessary.




... and he's 100% CORRECT

Currently the church can refuse to marry any couple they choose to
Look no further than the catholic church and divorcees
A self employed marriage celebrant has the same right to refuse
As does a wedding cake baker
The latter are retail contracts - and require two parties in agreement to be binding

If a government employed registry office celebrant can't perform his job - as determined by Australian law - it's time he found a new career



Yeah, you're wrong...

https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-coupl...




You're confusing Colorado law, with Australian law
I worked in retail for close to forty years
And as a representative of the company I exercised my legal right NOT to enter into a retail sale contact on many occasions - with many people
I'm sure you've had times when your local publican has applied this right, also ?



Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #26 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:59pm
 
Apparently they do.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #27 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:01pm
 
Grendel wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:59pm:
Apparently they do.


Example?

Just to be clear: I broadly don't support discrimination legislation. I believe that religious institutions should be able to deny whomever they wish.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #28 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:02pm
 
Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 4:48pm:
buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:22pm:
bogarde73 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 9:55am:
Turnbull says he'll vote for them even though he doesn't think they're necessary.




... and he's 100% CORRECT

Currently the church can refuse to marry any couple they choose to
Look no further than the catholic church and divorcees
A self employed marriage celebrant has the same right to refuse
As does a wedding cake baker
The latter are retail contracts - and require two parties in agreement to be binding

If a government employed registry office celebrant can't perform his job - as determined by Australian law - it's time he found a new career



Yeah, you're wrong...

https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-coupl...


What a stupid example! You're citing an American law...
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Its time
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female
Re: Commonsense to strengthen religious protections
Reply #29 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:03pm
 
What wankers even give religion any consideration whatsoever given the drama it's caused , it's only drama .
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print