Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
Send Topic Print
The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court. (Read 2606 times)
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13614
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #105 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:38pm
 
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:19pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:03pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:11pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:59am:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:05pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Phil are you saying that Churches can be forced to hold gay weddings?


No....Are you saying it is ok for any business to discriminate and withhold services against someone based on their religious views???

Huh Huh Huh


I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. Consider, for example, the scenario where employees of a catering firm are forced to attend an orgy to serve people sushi. I think it's more about the type of service being offered than the religious views of the people offering it.


For me it is a slippery slope to prejudice....Do you still have an all white bar in your local country pub Freediver???

Wink Wink Wink


Pretty much. The aborigines tend to hang out in the one bar. By choice, I would expect. But you see less of them in the pub these days so it is not as noticeable.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't draw the line, then shift it way over there just in case it slips in the wrong direction. Otherwise you are saying one groups rights are more important than another's. If you cannot see the rights problem for both sides here, you have already abandoned human rights.


IMO human rights should extend to everyone equally....Why would religious people want to discriminate against gay people anyway considering their violent history of trying to find acceptance and relevance....IMO laws should not be made to give any special treatment to religious discrimination....Let them eat cake!!!

Wink Wink Wink


You are not getting it Phil. Whichever side wins this one, the same rights will apply to everyone.


Lets say someone has a problem with blacks, Muslims or Asians (any minority) for what ever reason....Should they be allowed to withhold services from these individuals....Remember the same right to discriminate will apply to everyone....Or is it just gay people who can be discriminated against???

Huh Huh Huh 


As far as I know, the people in this case were prepared to serve the gay couple. It was a specific product they were not willing to sell.

Do you consider it a fundamental human right to compel people to do something they do not want to do? If not, why do you keep banging on about the rights of one side?

Should we be allowed to compel a halal butcher to serve bacon at a pagan wedding?

Should we be allowed to compel a catering company and its employees to turn up and serve food at an orgy?

Why are you unable to appreciate the rights implications for both groups of people?


Phil, have you changed your mind, or just run away?


Na just busy at work (lunch break now)....

Firstly a Halal butcher would not sell pork so the service would not be offered....It is not up to a business to supply something they do not sell....I thought you would have worked that out for yourself!!!

About the orgy I am not sure....One would expect a court would accept a decency defence towards the company and its employees if it was taken to court!!!

The law states you cannot withhold services based on race, religion or sexuality....If you offer services you cannot deny it based on those criteria....By the way I did not write the law???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes




What about if a Muslim catering company knocks back a Christian wedding job? Is that allowed?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 69869
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #106 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:40pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:38pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:19pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:03pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:11pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:59am:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:05pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Phil are you saying that Churches can be forced to hold gay weddings?


No....Are you saying it is ok for any business to discriminate and withhold services against someone based on their religious views???

Huh Huh Huh


I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. Consider, for example, the scenario where employees of a catering firm are forced to attend an orgy to serve people sushi. I think it's more about the type of service being offered than the religious views of the people offering it.


For me it is a slippery slope to prejudice....Do you still have an all white bar in your local country pub Freediver???

Wink Wink Wink


Pretty much. The aborigines tend to hang out in the one bar. By choice, I would expect. But you see less of them in the pub these days so it is not as noticeable.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't draw the line, then shift it way over there just in case it slips in the wrong direction. Otherwise you are saying one groups rights are more important than another's. If you cannot see the rights problem for both sides here, you have already abandoned human rights.


IMO human rights should extend to everyone equally....Why would religious people want to discriminate against gay people anyway considering their violent history of trying to find acceptance and relevance....IMO laws should not be made to give any special treatment to religious discrimination....Let them eat cake!!!

Wink Wink Wink


You are not getting it Phil. Whichever side wins this one, the same rights will apply to everyone.


Lets say someone has a problem with blacks, Muslims or Asians (any minority) for what ever reason....Should they be allowed to withhold services from these individuals....Remember the same right to discriminate will apply to everyone....Or is it just gay people who can be discriminated against???

Huh Huh Huh 


As far as I know, the people in this case were prepared to serve the gay couple. It was a specific product they were not willing to sell.

Do you consider it a fundamental human right to compel people to do something they do not want to do? If not, why do you keep banging on about the rights of one side?

Should we be allowed to compel a halal butcher to serve bacon at a pagan wedding?

Should we be allowed to compel a catering company and its employees to turn up and serve food at an orgy?

Why are you unable to appreciate the rights implications for both groups of people?


Phil, have you changed your mind, or just run away?


Na just busy at work (lunch break now)....

Firstly a Halal butcher would not sell pork so the service would not be offered....It is not up to a business to supply something they do not sell....I thought you would have worked that out for yourself!!!

About the orgy I am not sure....One would expect a court would accept a decency defence towards the company and its employees if it was taken to court!!!

The law states you cannot withhold services based on race, religion or sexuality....If you offer services you cannot deny it based on those criteria....By the way I did not write the law???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes




What about if a Muslim catering company knocks back a Christian wedding job? Is that allowed?


What's their reason for knocking it back?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13614
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #107 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:50pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:38pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:19pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:03pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:11pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:59am:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:05pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Phil are you saying that Churches can be forced to hold gay weddings?


No....Are you saying it is ok for any business to discriminate and withhold services against someone based on their religious views???

Huh Huh Huh


I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. Consider, for example, the scenario where employees of a catering firm are forced to attend an orgy to serve people sushi. I think it's more about the type of service being offered than the religious views of the people offering it.


For me it is a slippery slope to prejudice....Do you still have an all white bar in your local country pub Freediver???

Wink Wink Wink


Pretty much. The aborigines tend to hang out in the one bar. By choice, I would expect. But you see less of them in the pub these days so it is not as noticeable.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't draw the line, then shift it way over there just in case it slips in the wrong direction. Otherwise you are saying one groups rights are more important than another's. If you cannot see the rights problem for both sides here, you have already abandoned human rights.


IMO human rights should extend to everyone equally....Why would religious people want to discriminate against gay people anyway considering their violent history of trying to find acceptance and relevance....IMO laws should not be made to give any special treatment to religious discrimination....Let them eat cake!!!

Wink Wink Wink


You are not getting it Phil. Whichever side wins this one, the same rights will apply to everyone.


Lets say someone has a problem with blacks, Muslims or Asians (any minority) for what ever reason....Should they be allowed to withhold services from these individuals....Remember the same right to discriminate will apply to everyone....Or is it just gay people who can be discriminated against???

Huh Huh Huh 


As far as I know, the people in this case were prepared to serve the gay couple. It was a specific product they were not willing to sell.

Do you consider it a fundamental human right to compel people to do something they do not want to do? If not, why do you keep banging on about the rights of one side?

Should we be allowed to compel a halal butcher to serve bacon at a pagan wedding?

Should we be allowed to compel a catering company and its employees to turn up and serve food at an orgy?

Why are you unable to appreciate the rights implications for both groups of people?


Phil, have you changed your mind, or just run away?


Na just busy at work (lunch break now)....

Firstly a Halal butcher would not sell pork so the service would not be offered....It is not up to a business to supply something they do not sell....I thought you would have worked that out for yourself!!!

About the orgy I am not sure....One would expect a court would accept a decency defence towards the company and its employees if it was taken to court!!!

The law states you cannot withhold services based on race, religion or sexuality....If you offer services you cannot deny it based on those criteria....By the way I did not write the law???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes




What about if a Muslim catering company knocks back a Christian wedding job? Is that allowed?


What's their reason for knocking it back?


Religious reasons. What about if a Christian cross wearing woman gets sacked from a Islamic  school because of her religion. It's happened here.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 69869
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #108 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:51pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:50pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:38pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:19pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:03pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:11pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:59am:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:05pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Phil are you saying that Churches can be forced to hold gay weddings?


No....Are you saying it is ok for any business to discriminate and withhold services against someone based on their religious views???

Huh Huh Huh


I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. Consider, for example, the scenario where employees of a catering firm are forced to attend an orgy to serve people sushi. I think it's more about the type of service being offered than the religious views of the people offering it.


For me it is a slippery slope to prejudice....Do you still have an all white bar in your local country pub Freediver???

Wink Wink Wink


Pretty much. The aborigines tend to hang out in the one bar. By choice, I would expect. But you see less of them in the pub these days so it is not as noticeable.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't draw the line, then shift it way over there just in case it slips in the wrong direction. Otherwise you are saying one groups rights are more important than another's. If you cannot see the rights problem for both sides here, you have already abandoned human rights.


IMO human rights should extend to everyone equally....Why would religious people want to discriminate against gay people anyway considering their violent history of trying to find acceptance and relevance....IMO laws should not be made to give any special treatment to religious discrimination....Let them eat cake!!!

Wink Wink Wink


You are not getting it Phil. Whichever side wins this one, the same rights will apply to everyone.


Lets say someone has a problem with blacks, Muslims or Asians (any minority) for what ever reason....Should they be allowed to withhold services from these individuals....Remember the same right to discriminate will apply to everyone....Or is it just gay people who can be discriminated against???

Huh Huh Huh 


As far as I know, the people in this case were prepared to serve the gay couple. It was a specific product they were not willing to sell.

Do you consider it a fundamental human right to compel people to do something they do not want to do? If not, why do you keep banging on about the rights of one side?

Should we be allowed to compel a halal butcher to serve bacon at a pagan wedding?

Should we be allowed to compel a catering company and its employees to turn up and serve food at an orgy?

Why are you unable to appreciate the rights implications for both groups of people?


Phil, have you changed your mind, or just run away?


Na just busy at work (lunch break now)....

Firstly a Halal butcher would not sell pork so the service would not be offered....It is not up to a business to supply something they do not sell....I thought you would have worked that out for yourself!!!

About the orgy I am not sure....One would expect a court would accept a decency defence towards the company and its employees if it was taken to court!!!

The law states you cannot withhold services based on race, religion or sexuality....If you offer services you cannot deny it based on those criteria....By the way I did not write the law???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes




What about if a Muslim catering company knocks back a Christian wedding job? Is that allowed?


What's their reason for knocking it back?


Religious reasons. What about if a Christian cross wearing woman gets sacked from a Islamic  school because of her religion. It's happened here.


Link?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13614
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #109 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:00pm
 
what about this-

School principal sacked over female exclusion
Updated: 9:12 am, Friday, 3 March 2017



The principal and deputy principal of Punchbowl Boys High School in Sydney have been dumped after it was revealed female teachers were excluded from taking part in official events at the largely Muslim public school.
The NSW Education Department confirmed Principal Chris Griffiths and deputy principal Joumana Dennaoiu were removed from their roles after an investigation into the school.
The Australian reports a decision was made at the school to exclude female teachers from taking official roles in the Year 12 graduation ceremony and annual presentation day at the end of last year.
Mr Griffiths took over the role as principal from Jihad Dib, who is now the now the state Labor MP for Lakemba, in 2015.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13614
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #110 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:05pm
 
Non-Muslim staff told to wear headscarves in Adelaide
5

An Islamic College in Adelaide has threatened to dismiss its non-Muslim female staff if they don't wear headscarves, as critics say it's wrong to compel women to identify with a religion they don't practice.
Updated
Updated 26 August 2013
An Adelaide school's dress policy has exposed a grey area in Australia's discrimination laws.

The Adelaide Islamic College has long had an unwritten rule that female staff would wear hijab or if they weren't Muslim, headscarves.

The last principal had relaxed that rule. Now the board has reinforced the dress code policy in writing.
The school has been told by its lawyers not to comment. SBS understands one staffer was warned of dismissal if she didn't abide by the new code.

The union says this is plainly wrong.
"People who've been employed at that school for many years have been able to dress modestly without any particular problem, but this redefining under the threat of sacking is quite extreme and we don't agree with it", says Glen Seidel from the Independent Education Union.
"People who have been quite openly employed as not Muslim are being forced to identify within the community as if they are," added Mr Seidel. "There has to be a more sensible way of getting the modesty requirement sorted without the religious identity".
Minister for Education and Multicultural Affairs Jennifer Rankin says this situation highlights a grey area in the legislation.
"Our ambulance officers wear uniforms, our nurses wear uniforms, this is slightly different as in this is a religious school and obviously they have standards they want upheld, so it's an unusual circumstance where we've got a situation allegedly where someone is being asked to wear hijab rather than remove the hijab".
"Whether it's the equal opportunity act in terms of discrimination or the Fair Work Act, I think it's premature to say," said Ms Rankin. "I think it could be a test case in one or two jurisdictions and yet to be clear about which or both".
There are also implications for the school's funding.
"We provide them with something like 23 per cent of their funding, and in that contract obviously it is an obligation to abide by the laws of South Australia," said Minister Rankin.
The school is facing a tricky task, balancing its religious ideals with the individual's right to choose what, if any, religious identity they display.

Source: SBS
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 69869
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #111 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:07pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:00pm:
what about this-


Hang on a minute.

Let's tackle the one about the Christian cross wearing woman was sacked from a Islamic school because of her religion first.

Link?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Hero of the Soviet Union

Posts: 4270
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #112 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:38pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:05pm:
Non-Muslim staff told to wear headscarves in Adelaide
5

An Islamic College in Adelaide has threatened to dismiss its non-Muslim female staff if they don't wear headscarves, as critics say it's wrong to compel women to identify with a religion they don't practice.
Updated
Updated 26 August 2013
An Adelaide school's dress policy has exposed a grey area in Australia's discrimination laws.

The Adelaide Islamic College has long had an unwritten rule that female staff would wear hijab or if they weren't Muslim, headscarves.

The last principal had relaxed that rule. Now the board has reinforced the dress code policy in writing.
The school has been told by its lawyers not to comment. SBS understands one staffer was warned of dismissal if she didn't abide by the new code.

The union says this is plainly wrong.
"People who've been employed at that school for many years have been able to dress modestly without any particular problem, but this redefining under the threat of sacking is quite extreme and we don't agree with it", says Glen Seidel from the Independent Education Union.
"People who have been quite openly employed as not Muslim are being forced to identify within the community as if they are," added Mr Seidel. "There has to be a more sensible way of getting the modesty requirement sorted without the religious identity".
Minister for Education and Multicultural Affairs Jennifer Rankin says this situation highlights a grey area in the legislation.
"Our ambulance officers wear uniforms, our nurses wear uniforms, this is slightly different as in this is a religious school and obviously they have standards they want upheld, so it's an unusual circumstance where we've got a situation allegedly where someone is being asked to wear hijab rather than remove the hijab".
"Whether it's the equal opportunity act in terms of discrimination or the Fair Work Act, I think it's premature to say," said Ms Rankin. "I think it could be a test case in one or two jurisdictions and yet to be clear about which or both".
There are also implications for the school's funding.
"We provide them with something like 23 per cent of their funding, and in that contract obviously it is an obligation to abide by the laws of South Australia," said Minister Rankin.
The school is facing a tricky task, balancing its religious ideals with the individual's right to choose what, if any, religious identity they display.

Source: SBS


They're a private school; they can set whatever rules they want for their staff.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11532
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #113 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 5:33pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:50pm:
Religious reasons. What about if a Christian cross wearing woman gets sacked from a Islamic  school because of her religion. It's happened here.



I noticed on last night's news, a young male teacher was sacked from a tax-payer funded 'christian' school
- when the board discovered he didn't f*ck women on his days off

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/youre-gay-youre-out-gay-teacher-sacked-due-to-...



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
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 65046
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #114 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 5:39pm
 
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:11pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:06pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 9:13am:
All seafood is Halal and is allowed to be consumed by Muslims....All fruit and vegetables are Halal and is allowed to be consumed by Muslims....There is no need to label these products but if you have a problem eating Halal perhaps you should avoid fish and chips in future???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

So Christians have no choice?


No....If you eat a prawn with chilli it is Halal....It does not matter how the prawn or chilli was killed!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



well mothra isnt here at this time phil.. but I think she would beg to differ on the prawn issue.....

I am more interested in who of our members is goin g to be the first to wed??>. Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

come on guys and gals fez up time...wedding bells at ozpol.. Kiss Kiss..

we love love and weddings dont we all????>.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38377
I like fish
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #115 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 8:30pm
 
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:19pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:03pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:11pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:59am:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:05pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Phil are you saying that Churches can be forced to hold gay weddings?


No....Are you saying it is ok for any business to discriminate and withhold services against someone based on their religious views???

Huh Huh Huh


I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. Consider, for example, the scenario where employees of a catering firm are forced to attend an orgy to serve people sushi. I think it's more about the type of service being offered than the religious views of the people offering it.


For me it is a slippery slope to prejudice....Do you still have an all white bar in your local country pub Freediver???

Wink Wink Wink


Pretty much. The aborigines tend to hang out in the one bar. By choice, I would expect. But you see less of them in the pub these days so it is not as noticeable.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't draw the line, then shift it way over there just in case it slips in the wrong direction. Otherwise you are saying one groups rights are more important than another's. If you cannot see the rights problem for both sides here, you have already abandoned human rights.


IMO human rights should extend to everyone equally....Why would religious people want to discriminate against gay people anyway considering their violent history of trying to find acceptance and relevance....IMO laws should not be made to give any special treatment to religious discrimination....Let them eat cake!!!

Wink Wink Wink


You are not getting it Phil. Whichever side wins this one, the same rights will apply to everyone.


Lets say someone has a problem with blacks, Muslims or Asians (any minority) for what ever reason....Should they be allowed to withhold services from these individuals....Remember the same right to discriminate will apply to everyone....Or is it just gay people who can be discriminated against???

Huh Huh Huh 


As far as I know, the people in this case were prepared to serve the gay couple. It was a specific product they were not willing to sell.

Do you consider it a fundamental human right to compel people to do something they do not want to do? If not, why do you keep banging on about the rights of one side?

Should we be allowed to compel a halal butcher to serve bacon at a pagan wedding?

Should we be allowed to compel a catering company and its employees to turn up and serve food at an orgy?

Why are you unable to appreciate the rights implications for both groups of people?


Phil, have you changed your mind, or just run away?


Na just busy at work (lunch break now)....

Firstly a Halal butcher would not sell pork so the service would not be offered....It is not up to a business to supply something they do not sell....I thought you would have worked that out for yourself!!!

About the orgy I am not sure....One would expect a court would accept a decency defence towards the company and its employees if it was taken to court!!!

The law states you cannot withhold services based on race, religion or sexuality....If you offer services you cannot deny it based on those criteria....By the way I did not write the law???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes





I have never heard of the decency defence. Is that what they used to use for lynching gays? Do you think orgies might have something to do with sexuality?

Can a cake shop refuse to sell gay cakes, so long as they refuse to sell them to straight couples also?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Bobby
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 47796
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #116 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 8:52pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
I have never heard of the decency defence. Is that what they used to use for lynching gays? Do you think orgies might have something to do with sexuality?

Can a cake shop refuse to sell gay cakes, so long as they refuse to sell them to straight couples also?



dear FD,
it's all nonsense.
gays can just buy a homosexual cake from a gay baker -
it's that simple -
it's all getting too ridiculous for words.
Back to top
 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Carl Sagan   रति
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11444
Perth
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #117 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 9:13pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 3:05pm:
Non-Muslim staff told to wear headscarves in Adelaide
5

An Islamic College in Adelaide has threatened to dismiss its non-Muslim female staff if they don't wear headscarves, as critics say it's wrong to compel women to identify with a religion they don't practice.
Updated
Updated 26 August 2013
An Adelaide school's dress policy has exposed a grey area in Australia's discrimination laws.

The Adelaide Islamic College has long had an unwritten rule that female staff would wear hijab or if they weren't Muslim, headscarves.

The last principal had relaxed that rule. Now the board has reinforced the dress code policy in writing.
The school has been told by its lawyers not to comment. SBS understands one staffer was warned of dismissal if she didn't abide by the new code.

The union says this is plainly wrong.
"People who've been employed at that school for many years have been able to dress modestly without any particular problem, but this redefining under the threat of sacking is quite extreme and we don't agree with it", says Glen Seidel from the Independent Education Union.
"People who have been quite openly employed as not Muslim are being forced to identify within the community as if they are," added Mr Seidel. "There has to be a more sensible way of getting the modesty requirement sorted without the religious identity".
Minister for Education and Multicultural Affairs Jennifer Rankin says this situation highlights a grey area in the legislation.
"Our ambulance officers wear uniforms, our nurses wear uniforms, this is slightly different as in this is a religious school and obviously they have standards they want upheld, so it's an unusual circumstance where we've got a situation allegedly where someone is being asked to wear hijab rather than remove the hijab".
"Whether it's the equal opportunity act in terms of discrimination or the Fair Work Act, I think it's premature to say," said Ms Rankin. "I think it could be a test case in one or two jurisdictions and yet to be clear about which or both".
There are also implications for the school's funding.
"We provide them with something like 23 per cent of their funding, and in that contract obviously it is an obligation to abide by the laws of South Australia," said Minister Rankin.
The school is facing a tricky task, balancing its religious ideals with the individual's right to choose what, if any, religious identity they display.

Source: SBS


They're a private school; they can set whatever rules they want for their staff.


Isn't religious freedom to discriminate what some people want???

Huh Huh Huh
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11444
Perth
Gender: male
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #118 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 9:32pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:19pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:03pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:11pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:59am:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:05pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Phil are you saying that Churches can be forced to hold gay weddings?


No....Are you saying it is ok for any business to discriminate and withhold services against someone based on their religious views???

Huh Huh Huh


I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. Consider, for example, the scenario where employees of a catering firm are forced to attend an orgy to serve people sushi. I think it's more about the type of service being offered than the religious views of the people offering it.


For me it is a slippery slope to prejudice....Do you still have an all white bar in your local country pub Freediver???

Wink Wink Wink


Pretty much. The aborigines tend to hang out in the one bar. By choice, I would expect. But you see less of them in the pub these days so it is not as noticeable.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't draw the line, then shift it way over there just in case it slips in the wrong direction. Otherwise you are saying one groups rights are more important than another's. If you cannot see the rights problem for both sides here, you have already abandoned human rights.


IMO human rights should extend to everyone equally....Why would religious people want to discriminate against gay people anyway considering their violent history of trying to find acceptance and relevance....IMO laws should not be made to give any special treatment to religious discrimination....Let them eat cake!!!

Wink Wink Wink


You are not getting it Phil. Whichever side wins this one, the same rights will apply to everyone.


Lets say someone has a problem with blacks, Muslims or Asians (any minority) for what ever reason....Should they be allowed to withhold services from these individuals....Remember the same right to discriminate will apply to everyone....Or is it just gay people who can be discriminated against???

Huh Huh Huh 


As far as I know, the people in this case were prepared to serve the gay couple. It was a specific product they were not willing to sell.

Do you consider it a fundamental human right to compel people to do something they do not want to do? If not, why do you keep banging on about the rights of one side?

Should we be allowed to compel a halal butcher to serve bacon at a pagan wedding?

Should we be allowed to compel a catering company and its employees to turn up and serve food at an orgy?

Why are you unable to appreciate the rights implications for both groups of people?


Phil, have you changed your mind, or just run away?


Na just busy at work (lunch break now)....

Firstly a Halal butcher would not sell pork so the service would not be offered....It is not up to a business to supply something they do not sell....I thought you would have worked that out for yourself!!!

About the orgy I am not sure....One would expect a court would accept a decency defence towards the company and its employees if it was taken to court!!!

The law states you cannot withhold services based on race, religion or sexuality....If you offer services you cannot deny it based on those criteria....By the way I did not write the law???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes





I have never heard of the decency defence. Is that what they used to use for lynching gays? Do you think orgies might have something to do with sexuality?

Can a cake shop refuse to sell gay cakes, so long as they refuse to sell them to straight couples also?


Let me explain it this way....If your spear fishing business only caters for spear fishing tours spearing dolphins and stuff and some people want to charter your dingi for some whale watching you could refuse because you do not offer that service....If you refuse because someone is gay and you tell them you don't service queers you could be in trouble!!!

Wink Wink Wink
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38377
I like fish
Re: The gay wedding cake has hit the US supreme court.
Reply #119 - Dec 7th, 2017 at 10:30pm
 
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 8:30pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 2:19pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2017 at 1:03pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:11pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 6:59am:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:36pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:05pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
Phil are you saying that Churches can be forced to hold gay weddings?


No....Are you saying it is ok for any business to discriminate and withhold services against someone based on their religious views???

Huh Huh Huh


I haven't made up my mind on this one yet. Consider, for example, the scenario where employees of a catering firm are forced to attend an orgy to serve people sushi. I think it's more about the type of service being offered than the religious views of the people offering it.


For me it is a slippery slope to prejudice....Do you still have an all white bar in your local country pub Freediver???

Wink Wink Wink


Pretty much. The aborigines tend to hang out in the one bar. By choice, I would expect. But you see less of them in the pub these days so it is not as noticeable.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't draw the line, then shift it way over there just in case it slips in the wrong direction. Otherwise you are saying one groups rights are more important than another's. If you cannot see the rights problem for both sides here, you have already abandoned human rights.


IMO human rights should extend to everyone equally....Why would religious people want to discriminate against gay people anyway considering their violent history of trying to find acceptance and relevance....IMO laws should not be made to give any special treatment to religious discrimination....Let them eat cake!!!

Wink Wink Wink


You are not getting it Phil. Whichever side wins this one, the same rights will apply to everyone.


Lets say someone has a problem with blacks, Muslims or Asians (any minority) for what ever reason....Should they be allowed to withhold services from these individuals....Remember the same right to discriminate will apply to everyone....Or is it just gay people who can be discriminated against???

Huh Huh Huh 


As far as I know, the people in this case were prepared to serve the gay couple. It was a specific product they were not willing to sell.

Do you consider it a fundamental human right to compel people to do something they do not want to do? If not, why do you keep banging on about the rights of one side?

Should we be allowed to compel a halal butcher to serve bacon at a pagan wedding?

Should we be allowed to compel a catering company and its employees to turn up and serve food at an orgy?

Why are you unable to appreciate the rights implications for both groups of people?


Phil, have you changed your mind, or just run away?


Na just busy at work (lunch break now)....

Firstly a Halal butcher would not sell pork so the service would not be offered....It is not up to a business to supply something they do not sell....I thought you would have worked that out for yourself!!!

About the orgy I am not sure....One would expect a court would accept a decency defence towards the company and its employees if it was taken to court!!!

The law states you cannot withhold services based on race, religion or sexuality....If you offer services you cannot deny it based on those criteria....By the way I did not write the law???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes





I have never heard of the decency defence. Is that what they used to use for lynching gays? Do you think orgies might have something to do with sexuality?

Can a cake shop refuse to sell gay cakes, so long as they refuse to sell them to straight couples also?


Let me explain it this way....If your spear fishing business only caters for spear fishing tours spearing dolphins and stuff and some people want to charter your dingi for some whale watching you could refuse because you do not offer that service....If you refuse because someone is gay and you tell them you don't service queers you could be in trouble!!!

Wink Wink Wink


But I would be fine if I refused on the grounds that I consider anal sex indecent?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
Send Topic Print