The Israel Folau Bill

[Wahesh]

I'd suggest you have a read of a proper analysis of what the proposed bill ACTUALLY means for all. Because it's not really about gays and fucking cake.

And I'd suggest you read that my post was an EXAMPLE of what the bill is there to prevent.

 

[Alan79]

I'll give you an example.

Prior to the SSM vote, a gay bloke wanted a cake for his wedding. Now as gay marriage wasn't legal at the time, he couldn't get married, so therefore, he couldn't' get a cake. He was even asking a devout Catholic baker about a wedding cake knowing full well that she didn't (and refused) to make one. When the results of the vote came through, the first thing he did was contact her about his wedding cake.

This bill is to protect people like her from people like him!

That doesn't exactly reinforce your point in my opinion. The Baker seems to have discriminated just a touch there to me. Watch some old westerns and it's akin to seeing Indians, Chinese people or black people refused service. It might have been accepted at the time, but it doesn't necessarily mean that refusing service is right. Would you be pleased if these same social standards were in place in Australia and you were denied service at several restaurants because you appeared to be of Mediterranean appearance?

 

[CroydonDog]

That doesn't exactly reinforce your point in my opinion. The Baker seems to have discriminated just a touch there to me. Watch some old westerns and it's akin to seeing Indians, Chinese people or black people refused service. It might have been accepted at the time, but it doesn't necessarily mean that refusing service is right. Would you be pleased if these same social standards were in place in Australia and you were denied service at several restaurants because you appeared to be of Mediterranean appearance?

The new laws will mean I can refuse to give service to or employ a Catholic, just because. We easily see the return of the old "no blacks. no Irish" signs that shopkeepers and employers put up, not that long ago either.

Can't really see how this is progress or creates a better world, which is what i'd prefer TBH.

 

[TwinTurbo]

The new laws will mean I can refuse to give service to or employ a Catholic, just because. We easily see the return of the old "no blacks. no Irish" signs that shopkeepers and employers put up, not that long ago either.
Can't really see how this is progress or creates a better world, which is what i'd prefer TBH.

My guess is you won't understand, or agree but I'll give it one more try. At the moment the "minorities" (of many kinds) are protected against discrimination, particularly when it comes to legal matters. But the "majorities" are not similarly protected. In simple terms, more than 50% of the population identifies to some religion or other, but they have no protection from discrimination when following their religious beliefs. Framing the wording to provide "protection" for a minority is relatively easy when compared to the wording required to provide similar levels of protection to a majority.

Go Dogs

 

[Alan79]

The new laws will mean I can refuse to give service to or employ a Catholic, just because. We easily see the return of the old "no blacks. no Irish" signs that shopkeepers and employers put up, not that long ago either.

Can't really see how this is progress or creates a better world, which is what i'd prefer TBH.

It's not progress and I don't think it will make the world any better. The wedding cake example is a very soft example of how these laws may be applied. There are numerous articles explaining how these laws may be applied to refusal of medical treatment, education and as you mentioned employment.

 

[Alan79]

My guess is you won't understand, or agree but I'll give it one more try. At the moment the "minorities" (of many kinds) are protected against discrimination, particularly when it comes to legal matters. But the "majorities" are not similarly protected. In simple terms, more than 50% of the population identifies to some religion or other, but they have no protection from discrimination when following their religious beliefs. Framing the wording to provide "protection" for a minority is relatively easy when compared to the wording required to provide similar levels of protection to a majority.

Go Dogs

The current laws regarding discrimination are there to cover the population as a whole, I don't see widespread discrimination against religious people. That isn't to say that examples don't exist. The religious freedom laws will open a loophole for discrimination against minorities though. We should be heading towards a world where people are accepting of every belief and lifestyle. I see this bill as a step away from that.

 

[MatstaDogg]

The new laws will mean I can refuse to give service to or employ a Catholic, just because. We easily see the return of the old "no blacks. no Irish" signs that shopkeepers and employers put up, not that long ago either.

Can't really see how this is progress or creates a better world, which is what i'd prefer TBH.

The world is going backwards and we as people are getting more segregated from eachother instead of coming together.

 

[Lov_Dog]

Protect her from discrimination FFS.

Respectfully, @Wahesh, I'm interested to know how the baker is discriminated in your scenario.

 

[Wahesh]

Respectfully, @Wahesh, I'm interested to know how the baker is discriminated in your scenario.

Firstly (even though I'm sure you already know this) I like you and I respect you

The scenario is that the baker in NZ refused to make a cake for a gay couple. She said they are good people, but her faith doesn't support what they are proceeding with, so she will not be baking the cake. As you would expect, this caused a debate on social media. In Australia with no freedom of religion bills, this would be viewed as discrimination because she's refusing to serve someone based on religious grounds (her religious grounds), however as NZ has this bill, the baker faces no discrimination allegations because her refusal to serve them is based on the bill, meaning she did was she was legally entitled to do.

 

[Lov_Dog]

Firstly (even though I'm sure you already know this) I like you and I respect you

The scenario is that the baker in NZ refused to make a cake for a gay couple. She said they are good people, but her faith doesn't support what they are proceeding with, so she will not be baking the cake. As you would expect, this caused a debate on social media. In Australia with no freedom of religion bills, this would be viewed as discrimination because she's refusing to serve someone based on religious grounds (her religious grounds), however as NZ has this bill, the baker faces no discrimination allegations because her refusal to serve them is based on the bill, meaning she did was she was legally entitled to do.

Firstly (even though I'm sure you already know this) I like you and I respect you
>>DITTO my friend.

I misunderstood you!
What you're saying is the baker was protected from being prosecuted for discrimination because of the religious freedoms bill.

I thought you had implied that the baker was being discriminated, my bad!

 

[Wahesh]

Firstly (even though I'm sure you already know this) I like you and I respect you
>>DITTO my friend.

I misunderstood you!
What you're saying is the baker was protected from being prosecuted for discrimination because of the religious freedoms bill.

I thought you had implied that the baker was being discriminated, my bad!

That's ok - I thought that's what it was

 

[JayBee]

Can someone please tell me what crime Israel Folau committed?

Because we have proof he did not infringe on his contract.

So.... Hello? Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

 

[GoTheDoggies]

Another reminder: Folau did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[Freakzilla]

That doesn't exactly reinforce your point in my opinion. The Baker seems to have discriminated just a touch there to me. Watch some old westerns and it's akin to seeing Indians, Chinese people or black people refused service. It might have been accepted at the time, but it doesn't necessarily mean that refusing service is right. Would you be pleased if these same social standards were in place in Australia and you were denied service at several restaurants because you appeared to be of Mediterranean appearance?

Comparing sexual preference to race is idiotic. You can change your sexual preference, you can't change your race.

 

[TwinTurbo]

The current laws regarding discrimination are there to cover the population as a whole, I don't see widespread discrimination against religious people. That isn't to say that examples don't exist. The religious freedom laws will open a loophole for discrimination against minorities though. We should be heading towards a world where people are accepting of every belief and lifestyle. I see this bill as a step away from that.

I don't , I see the bill as a much needed step towards it.

Go Dogs

 

[Flanagun]

[QUOTE="Freakzilla, post: 3695748, member: 15388]You can change your sexual preference, you can't change your race.[/QUOTE]

Let’s have a demonstration then. Go ahead and change yours.

 

[The_Chimpster]

[QUOTE="Freakzilla, post: 3695748, member: 15388]You can change your sexual preference, you can't change your race.

Let’s have a demonstration then. Go ahead and change yours.[/QUOTE]

Just don't ask for pics

 

[Freakzilla]

[QUOTE="Freakzilla, post: 3695748, member: 15388]You can change your sexual preference, you can't change your race.

Let’s have a demonstration then. Go ahead and change yours.[/QUOTE]

I said you can, I didn't say I want too. All gay people have changed. Everyone is born straight.

 

[Rodzilla]

Can someone please tell me what crime Israel Folau committed?

Because we have proof he did not infringe on his contract.

So.... Hello? Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

he worked on sunday and should be put to death

 

[Lov_Dog]

Comparing sexual preference to race is idiotic. You can change your sexual preference, you can't change your race.

Hi @Freakzilla, respectfully, define "race" for us.