The Israel Folau Bill

[Wahesh]

If Christianity doesn't claim marriage as its own, then how can Christians be against gay marriage?

I can fully understand that the Christian culture disagrees with homosexual acts. But actually opposing gay marriage is taking a step further and saying, "no, marriage belongs to us"

It's not marriage, it's the act of homosexuality.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Ah.

No. The vast majority of Christians (and for that matter, the catholic church) recognize other marriages from other religions, as they do with civil marriages.

You could argue about the false god element, but that would need to come down to the individual.

It's pretty much black and white in the bible. Don't accept false gods, it's a sin.

If anything you're showing me how much religious institutions cannot be trusted because they pick and choose what they do believe in and what they don't believe in.

Mind you this just doesn't apply to christians, pretty much applies to all abrahamic religions. Technically they should not accept any marriage, outside of their own religion, if that marriage is completed in the name of another god/prophet/etc. It's straight out aiding in others worshipping a false god.

But the mere fact that this "choice of belief", when it suits, is again glaring evidence of choosing to ostracize homosexuals only.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Not if they were annulled or widowed.

And not with some denominations of Christianity. I cannot comment on other major sects.

And it's okay - you can feel free to call us cuckoo. Ill pray for you anyway

Yes you say this dude, but the actions of religious people don't suggest that in anyway, shape or form.

The fact is this religious discrimination bill has only seen the light of day because your side lost the SSM plebiscite. The same plebiscite that YOUR side wanted, so that your side could spout discriminatory garbage about the LGBT community. And yes there was a lot of garbage and lies spouted by the likes of Tony abbot (who could've been a priest), Lyle shelton (ACL), George Pell (convicted pedo), etc

Not forgetting that another religious, evil fruitcake John Howard changed the original law without any consultation of others or putting it to a public vote. I think hypocrisy is the word with this plebiscite.

Again the SSM plebiscite was LOST and now the religious right are throwing their toys out of the pram and DEMANDING that they be allowed to discriminate. It's also no surprise that the Hillsong cult in parliament are the main pushers of this bill.

Mind you to this date, since SSM was passed as law, I have not heard of ANY CHURCH BEING FORCED TO MARRY A SAME SEX COUPLE. But let's not let facts get in the way. Let's just give rights to discriminate and completely shit all over our current discrimination laws. Let's all be arseholes to each other, it will make for a fantastic society.

 

[Wahesh]

Good and Evil are perspective and subjective. One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

So you're saying that it's a matter of opinion?

Well we'll put it in this way then.

40 years ago in this country, Christianity was the majority religion, and homosexuality was not just a sin, but it was a crime.

Then the pendulum swings the other way. In 1985, homosexuality was no longer considered a crime (and yes, I agree with this), however it is still a sin.

While Christianity is still be the majority religion in this nation (49.9%), there are plenty who do not practice the religion.

It is now considered cool to embrace homosexuality. The fact is the Church and it's teachings do not evolve, therefore we do not adapt to things despite the fact that society does. The Church is looked at as being evil simply because have traditional views.

What's changed? The perception.

 

[JayBee]

We will agree to disagree, and the cows will never come home.

I will say this though to your original statement.

If a Christian baker provides goods and service to a LBGT+ person, and if they where aware of the persons lifestyle and still served them- no issue. You cannot claim they are bigoted. They served them as any regular customer. Fair? Awesome

Same situation - but the customer is requesting a cake for their SSM. And they respectfully decline on the grounds of their faith. Is this then okay, given they were okay to serve them up top? Because they can't be bigotted if they served them as any other, but hold their ground when it comes to a matter of their beliefs? Conscientious objecting.

Also - what if it were a BLACK baker and a WHITE man asked him to make him a cake for welcoming him to the KKK?

How would that be?

 

[KambahOne]

So you're saying that it's a matter of opinion?

Well we'll put it in this way then.

40 years ago in this country, Christianity was the majority religion, and homosexuality was not just a sin, but it was a crime.

Then the pendulum swings the other way. In 1985, homosexuality was no longer considered a crime (and yes, I agree with this), however it is still a sin.

While Christianity is still be the majority religion in this nation (49.9%), there are plenty who do not practice the religion.

It is now considered cool to embrace homosexuality. The fact is the Church and it's teachings do not evolve, therefore we do not adapt to things despite the fact that society does. The Church is looked at as being evil simply because have traditional views.

What's changed? The perception.

Lot's has changed. The education of people today is higher than that of people 40 years ago and as a result the dogma of the church is no longer as relevant in their lives as it was 40 years ago. The Church has also lost an enormous amount of credibility in that time. Where it was once the bastion of conservative values and a pillar of ethics and morals for the community, it has been exposed as a self-serving cess pit of dirty old men intent on retaining their waning power, influence and most importantly money.

If you proof of that move away from religion check out the latest census results from 2016 - https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/7E65A144540551D7CA258148000E2B85

The results of the latest national Census today reveal we’re a religiously diverse nation, with Christianity remaining the most common religion (52 per cent of the population).

Islam (2.6 per cent) and Buddhism (2.4 per cent) were the next most common religions reported. Nearly a third of Australians (30 per cent) reported in the Census that they had no religion in 2016.

The religious makeup of Australia has changed gradually over the past 50 years. In 1966, Christianity (88 per cent) was the main religion. By 1991, this figure had fallen to 74 per cent, and further to the 2016 figure. Catholicism is the largest Christian grouping in Australia, accounting for almost a quarter (22.6 per cent) of the Australian population.

Australia is increasingly a story of religious diversity, with Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, and Buddhism all increasingly common religious beliefs. Hinduism had the most significant growth between 2006 and 2016, driven by immigration from South Asia.

The growing percentage of Australia’s population reporting no religion has been a trend for decades, and is accelerating. Those reporting no religion increased noticeably from 19 per cent in 2006 to 30 per cent in 2016. The largest change was between 2011 (22 per cent) and 2016, when an additional 2.2 million people reported having no religion.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It's not marriage, it's the act of homosexuality.

So you have no issue with gay marriage then?

Cool

 

[Wahesh]

So you have no issue with gay marriage then?

Cool

gay marriage = homosexuality.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

gay marriage = homosexuality.

You said you were against the act of homosexual sex. Not against homosexuality in general.

 

[Wahesh]

You said you were against the act of homosexual sex. Not against homosexuality in general.

By that I meant they I have nothing against people who are homosexual. Their decisions however...

 

[CaptainJackson]

We will agree to disagree, and the cows will never come home.

I will say this though to your original statement.

If a Christian baker provides goods and service to a LBGT+ person, and if they where aware of the persons lifestyle and still served them- no issue. You cannot claim they are bigoted. They served them as any regular customer. Fair? Awesome

Same situation - but the customer is requesting a cake for their SSM. And they respectfully decline on the grounds of their faith. Is this then okay, given they were okay to serve them up top? Because they can't be bigotted if they served them as any other, but hold their ground when it comes to a matter of their beliefs? Conscientious objecting.

Also - what if it were a BLACK baker and a WHITE man asked him to make him a cake for welcoming him to the KKK?

How would that be?

Usually when you're employed you're not allowed to refuse service based on moral grounds. I've personally had this situation, where I was asked to provide a solution for News Ltd. Morally, I am absolutely against it, I wouldn't want to help News Ltd in any way, shape or form. However, my employer runs on the basis of providing a service, full stop. It's not about morals, its about providing a professional service. My employer hasn't hired me based on my morals, they've hired me based on fulfilling a job requirement. It's much the same as the baker example. We can alternatively also use the example of african americans not being allowed into some establishments in southern USA in the 1950s. It was CLEARLY a discriminatory stance by those establishments and as such discrimination laws made this illegal. So in much the same way, a case of a baker for SSM and the case of white establishments banning african Americans, this has already seen the light of day in a jurisdiction sense. The case is SETTLED. It's classified as discrimination and is illegal. Now we are at the point where a certain part of the population want to make exemptions to be discriminatory assholes. END OF. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. It is what it is.

And lastly, read the example you've put forward to me. You're going to obscene great lengths to prove your point, are you actually comfortable with that?

A KKK person going to to a black bakers shop (not likely to happen in the first place) and the baker choosing to refuse service.

In your obscene, outlandish example, no they do not have right to refuse service, (see my morals do not change with the wind). However the example you have given is EXTREMELY unlikely, as a KKK person would never want that cake baked by them and would never want to give them money and place them on an equal footing with themselves.

By the way the general rule of thumb when it comes to intolerance, is that there is a paradox of tolerance. Look it up. Tolerance stops when the initiator is intolerant in the first place. The initiator of intolerance being religious people in this case.

 

[wendog33]

Gay bakers should now set up wedding cake businesses and will make a killing.

Here is what you need to understand.

The cake will be part of a ceremony, of which as Christians/Muslims/Jews, this is against their respective faiths. By you involving yourself with it (ie - making a cake), you are condoning the action, of which they believe is a sin. You may not understand religion, you may detest it - but they believe it. For example - I may disagree with ones stance that they, even though born a man, they believe that they are a woman. But they can choose to believe so, and I will continue to disagree - but I am not stopping them from living there life. We can all be against someones lifestyle choices (and I am not saying sexual preference is a choice - but the freedom to marry is a choice), and that also means we do not need to celebrate them.

If you are morally against something, and you stand to lose from it (these people are losing sales), then they have every right to conscientiously object. At the end of the day, either someones' feelings will be hurt, or one's morals trampled. I will never allow my morals to be trampled if it is something I am passionate about.

I hope that clarifies if to for you

 

[TwinTurbo]

Usually when you're employed you're not allowed to refuse service based on moral grounds.

I would never prevent an employee of mine refusing service based on genuine moral, legal or ethical grounds. I have done it myself many times. But refusing service to a business because you don't agree with their politics doesn't qualify as being genuine to me.

Crikey, we sell stuff to Wabbits supporters every day, for sure I don't like it, but they don't fail on moral grounds.

Go Dogs

 

[CaptainJackson]

I would never prevent an employee of mine refusing service based on genuine moral, legal or ethical grounds. I have done it myself many times. But refusing service to a business because you don't agree with their politics doesn't qualify as being genuine to me.

Crikey, we sell stuff to Wabbits supporters every day, for sure I don't like it, but they don't fail on moral grounds.

Go Dogs

1. You're comparing selling supporter gear/merchandise to an annual $5 million service to a corporation
2. My politics reflect my morals. I find news ltd to be racist, misogynist, homophobic and to propagate these things on an extreme level. Because they propagate this shit there's extreme injustice in our society.

So it is GENUINE morals!

 

[The DoggFather]

Some stupid left fucks on here forget or ignore that a business can refuse serving anyone without any fucking reason.

If Folau was a Muslim or Jew, you ***** wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[The_Chimpster]

Some stupid left fucks on here forget or ignore that a business can refuse serving anyone without any fucking reason.

If Folau was a Muslim or Jew, you ***** wouldn't be talking about it.

The thread is getting a bit ridiculous imo.

But hey, if people wanna keep bleating on about it, who am I to judge

 

[The DoggFather]

The thread is getting a bit ridiculous imo.

But hey, if people wanna keep bleating on about it, who am I to judge

It's the same bunch of leftist fucks have a fucking whinge like usual.

PS massive fucking lol at the ***** thinking their fucked up comparisons are better than others.

Bored, moronic, hypocritical demon *****....

You can tell when a few members post in any thread, it will turn into an agenda driven left v right pissing contest.

 

[The_Chimpster]

It's the same bunch of leftist fucks have a fucking whinge like usual.

PS massive fucking lol at the ***** thinking their fucked up comparisons are better than others.

Bored, moronic, hypocritical demon *****....

I just read through the comments laugh, shake my head and move on

 

[The DoggFather]

I just read through the comments laugh, shake my head and move on

Lol sometimes you don't have to read the comments, just look at who posted it and you know the dribble already.

 

[The_Chimpster]

Lol sometimes you don't have to read the comments, just look at who posted it and you know the dribble already.

Haha, true.

But makes for some funny reading while squeezing out a lemon