Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

SirRumpole · 10 April 2018

bellenuit said:
then they cannot refuse to do civil marriages based on their religious beliefs.

If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?

satanoperca · 10 April 2018

That is a sound and logical argument.......
So on the very basis of that, you are saying that everyone out their loves their employers, because if they didn't they would just leave......
Thinks of 7Eleven

SirRumpole · 10 April 2018

satanoperca said:
So on the very basis of that, you are saying that everyone out their loves their employers, because if they didn't they would just leave......

I'm sure a lot have left their employment for that very reason.

Value Collector · 10 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?

It's about serving customers, do we really want to live in a country where customers are regularly refused service because of race, sexuality or creed?

If you offer a service to the public, just provide that service to all.

It's not about forcing them to do anything, its just about getting them to provide the service they have chosen to provide without discrimination.

SirRumpole · 10 April 2018

Value Collector said:
It's not about forcing them to do anything, its just about getting them to provide the service they have chosen to provide without discrimination.

If you ask a plumber to fix a tap for you and he doesn't like you he can just say he's busy. Is that discrimination ? How would you prove it ?

Value Collector · 10 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
If you ask a plumber to fix a tap for you and he doesn't like you he can just say he's busy. Is that discrimination ?

If he blatantly says I am not fixing your tap because you are white, then yes that discrimination.

Of course if you lie you have a better chance of getting away with breaking the law, but that in no way means you didn't break the law, or that we should abandon having laws.

its a simple fact that society operates better if businesses open to the public serve all people without discriminating, if you really, really, really want to discriminate, start a club and limit your services to club members, but don't act like you are open to the public and then routinely turn people just because you don't like the colour of their skin or sexuality etc, that just causes to much unnecessary awkwardness and humiliation for people that have done nothing wrong.

wayneL · 10 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
If you ask a plumber to fix a tap for you and he doesn't like you he can just say he's busy. Is that discrimination ? How would you prove it ?

I just tell people i don't want to work for to go $@€# themselves.

Call me a temperamentist if you like, but I ride to work for a55holes.

wayneL · 10 April 2018

Okay, we've established that our resident post modernists are agin discrimination in any form.

What to you think of discrimatination against whites in the employment market?

satanoperca · 10 April 2018

White people suck, they have small d---ks and cannot get laid.
They also cannot cook.
They are old, fusion colour is the way to go.
White is so last century

bellenuit · 10 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?

The celebrants are not employed by the gay couple. They are agents of the state providing a state service under terms set by the state. The gay couple is engaging the celebrant to provide the service. You are right, if they don’t want to do the job under those terms, they can resign their position.

SirRumpole · 10 April 2018

bellenuit said:
They are agents of the state providing a state service under terms set by the state.

They are still self employed , only registered by the State like plumbers and electricians. If they have a heavy workload they have to decide who they can serve and who they can't.

The celebrants are not employed by the gay couple.

Well , actually they are. The couple pay fees to the celebrant.

wayneL · 10 April 2018

satanoperca said:
White people suck, they have small d---ks and cannot get laid.
They also cannot cook.
They are old, fusion colour is the way to go.
White is so last century

Trolling is more entertaining when subtle and not quite so transparent.

Poor effort Komrade.

satanoperca · 10 April 2018

Not trolling, you asked a question, I answered it.
I like to keep things simple and transparent, it makes for a happy life

wayneL · 10 April 2018

Right, okay.

Nice try all the same.

bellenuit · 10 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
They are still self employed , only registered by the State like plumbers and electricians. If they have a heavy workload they have to decide who they can serve and who they can't.

You said "If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?". As I said they are not employed by the gay couple. Now you say they are self-employed. OK, but as agents for the state they have to work within the terms of their agency. Yes, they may schedule their workloads, but we are talking about refusing to marry certain couples because they do not want to for religious purposes. They do not have that choice and if they do not like it, then they can quit, just as you said.

Well , actually they are. The couple pay fees to the celebrant.

Actually they are not. They are service providers, not employees. Is your local butcher your employee?

SirRumpole · 10 April 2018

bellenuit said:
but we are talking about refusing to marry certain couples because they do not want to for religious purposes. They do not have that choice and if they do not like it, then they can quit, just as you said.

I don't believe that the mere registration by the State of certain service providers mean the State can dictate to those providers how they manage their workload. But anyway, wasn't there supposed to be protection for "conscientious objectors" in this legislation ?. That seems to have been kicked down the road.

satanoperca · 10 April 2018

"Conscientious Objectors" WTF, that would be mean anyone could discriminate.

Do some of the people posting on this thread live in a bubble and while I am at it, why is it that when pollies don't eliver on their commitments, if it is religious related, it is such an issue.

SirRumpole · 10 April 2018

satanoperca said:
"Conscientious Objectors" WTF, that would be mean anyone could discriminate.

We were assured that people who objected on the grounds of religion would be protected. But now that seems to have gone by the board, so the public was lied to by the pro GM lobby.

But anyway, the number of people objecting on religious grounds would be minimal, so the LGB's can just find someone else instead of trying to persecute a minority.

bellenuit · 10 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
We were assured that people who objected on the grounds of religion would be protected.

They are protected. They are under no obligation to marry gay people. They can simply relinquish their authority as celebrants for civil marriages if they have conscientious objections to such marriages. They can continue as celebrants for church endorsed marriages. No one is forcing them to marry gay couples.

If gay marriage was legislated, then the state would not interfere in the carrying out of religious duties and would not force the churches to marry gay couples in churches or under religious rites. That was what was promised.

They were not promised that they could deny people who are legally entitled to marry the right to marry. That is now a legal right in this country and if they wish to act as a civil celebrant then they cannot deny others their legal rights. That was not the deal, just as no other public office holder has the right to deny gay people their rights in other spheres, such as unemployment assistance or medical treatment.

SirRumpole · 10 April 2018

bellenuit said:
They were not promised that they could deny people who are legally entitled to marry the right to marry.

I don't think "they" as in churches are denying anyone's rights. There are civil celebrants that will marry gay couples if the churches or 'religious' celebrants won't. The gay couples have the choice to go to someone who will serve them, they don't have the right to force people to marry them.

As for registrars, I have to agree that they have to conform to the law. If they don't carry out their duties as required then they may pay a price.

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?