|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAlso, really, is it that difficult to have a measured and polite discussion about something? Surely you can have a discussion on the internet without resorting to insulting my intelligence/being condescending/calling me a troll. This is why ET has gone to shit. This. And posters like the gent above who I'm sure must be the least empathetic person in Australia. Is the empathy comment directed at me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
A baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it.
That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to.
If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected.
I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect. That bloke would be sacked from Subway. I'm talking about business owners, and it's perfectly reasonable to me. That is your opinion about religious beliefs. You can't make someone go against their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect. That bloke would be sacked from Subway. I'm talking about business owners, and it's perfectly reasonable to me. What's the difference? Business owner or representative of the business owner, they're the company face regardless of standing in the company. They're both accountable for being indifferent to race, religion, creed or sexual preference. I respect the right to have religious beliefs but I do not respect the beliefs themselves without question.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect. That bloke would be sacked from Subway. I'm talking about business owners, and it's perfectly reasonable to me. What's the difference? Business owner or representative of the business owner, they're the company face regardless of standing in the company. They're both accountable for being indifferent to race, religion, creed or sexual preference. I respect the right to have religious beliefs but I do not respect the beliefs themselves without question. Big difference is it can be a matter conscious and people's views and opinions also need to be respected. If they feel so powerful about things, then the customers should do the right thing and go elsewhere and they get their cake and everyone is happy at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect. That bloke would be sacked from Subway. I'm talking about business owners, and it's perfectly reasonable to me. What's the difference? Business owner or representative of the business owner, they're the company face regardless of standing in the company. They're both accountable for being indifferent to race, religion, creed or sexual preference. I respect the right to have religious beliefs but I do not respect the beliefs themselves without question. Big difference is it can be a matter conscious and people's views and opinions also need to be respected. If they feel so powerful about things, then the customers should do the right thing and go elsewhere. I respectfully disagree. In a place of business your personal beliefs are irrelevant and the strength of your convictions doesn't change the fact. I could come up with millions of examples here. People who hold certain views need to respect others who do not hold such views and also respect the right people have not to be given a sermon for trying to order a bloody cake. Assuming the gay couple didn't do it for publicity, they just needed a wedding cake. They should not be subject to a religious debate over the morality of their union for simply ordering a cake.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect. That bloke would be sacked from Subway. I'm talking about business owners, and it's perfectly reasonable to me. What's the difference? Business owner or representative of the business owner, they're the company face regardless of standing in the company. They're both accountable for being indifferent to race, religion, creed or sexual preference. I respect the right to have religious beliefs but I do not respect the beliefs themselves without question. Big difference is it can be a matter conscious and people's views and opinions also need to be respected. If they feel so powerful about things, then the customers should do the right thing and go elsewhere. I respectfully disagree. In a place of business your personal beliefs are irrelevant and the strength of your convictions doesn't change the fact. I could come up with millions of examples here. People who hold certain views need to respect others who do not hold such views and also respect the right people have not to be given a sermon for trying to order a bloody cake. Assuming the gay couple didn't do it for publicity, they just needed a wedding cake. They should not be subject to a religious debate over the morality of their union for simply ordering a cake. It's irrelevant to you. But it isn't irrelevant to everyone. We are not all the same, and we don't all share the same values, principles and beliefs. There are always shades of grey and if you go into a shop owned by a deeply religious person (it could be a Muslim, Jew or Christian) then it is incumbent to proceed with respect. If a Muslim asks me to take off my shoes before entering the threshold of their house, then I will do so. If it's an issue to not bring alcohol or eat pork, then that is what i would do out of respect.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect. That bloke would be sacked from Subway. I'm talking about business owners, and it's perfectly reasonable to me. What's the difference? Business owner or representative of the business owner, they're the company face regardless of standing in the company. They're both accountable for being indifferent to race, religion, creed or sexual preference. I respect the right to have religious beliefs but I do not respect the beliefs themselves without question. Big difference is it can be a matter conscious and people's views and opinions also need to be respected. If they feel so powerful about things, then the customers should do the right thing and go elsewhere. I respectfully disagree. In a place of business your personal beliefs are irrelevant and the strength of your convictions doesn't change the fact. I could come up with millions of examples here. People who hold certain views need to respect others who do not hold such views and also respect the right people have not to be given a sermon for trying to order a bloody cake. Assuming the gay couple didn't do it for publicity, they just needed a wedding cake. They should not be subject to a religious debate over the morality of their union for simply ordering a cake. It's irrelevant to you. But it isn't irrelevant to everyone. We are not all the same, and we don't all share the same values, principles and values. There are always shades of grey and if you go into a shop owned by a deeply religious person (it could be a Muslim, Jew or Christian) then it is incumbent to proceed with respect. If a Muslim asks me to take off my shoes before entering the threshold of their house, then I will do so. If it's an issue to not bring alcohol or eat pork, then that is what i would do out of respect. It should be irrelevant if we're a secular society. Of course we share different beliefs and morals which is why it's important to keep those beliefs for home/place of worship rather than throwing them at customers. In a place of work I do not care if the bloke 3m away from me doesn't drink or eat pork, it's not important within a business/working environment. Deeply religious people shouldn't be exempt from criticism for their handling of customers based on the strength of convictions. Home life is different. Going to a mates place who is muslim, we do not bring alcohol into the house nor swear. But that's at home.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xA baker refused to bake a cake with pro gay marriage writing on top of it. Well, I think they chose that Baker because they knew they would refuse and they wanted to make a big issue about it. That's fair enough. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If it's their business, and they don't want to be making cakes like that because it's against their moral compass, then fine. Same should apply if someone came in and wanted pro abortion cake. Some people are deeply against this stuff and that should be respected. I would have refused too in that situation. They can go elsewhere. no offence intended either. What you're saying is that a bloke at subway could refuse to serve a muslim because they disagree with many of the barbaric practices in their religion. How is that reasonable? Religious beliefs do not and should never command automatic respect. That bloke would be sacked from Subway. I'm talking about business owners, and it's perfectly reasonable to me. What's the difference? Business owner or representative of the business owner, they're the company face regardless of standing in the company. They're both accountable for being indifferent to race, religion, creed or sexual preference. I respect the right to have religious beliefs but I do not respect the beliefs themselves without question. Big difference is it can be a matter conscious and people's views and opinions also need to be respected. If they feel so powerful about things, then the customers should do the right thing and go elsewhere. I respectfully disagree. In a place of business your personal beliefs are irrelevant and the strength of your convictions doesn't change the fact. I could come up with millions of examples here. People who hold certain views need to respect others who do not hold such views and also respect the right people have not to be given a sermon for trying to order a bloody cake. Assuming the gay couple didn't do it for publicity, they just needed a wedding cake. They should not be subject to a religious debate over the morality of their union for simply ordering a cake. It's irrelevant to you. But it isn't irrelevant to everyone. We are not all the same, and we don't all share the same values, principles and values. There are always shades of grey and if you go into a shop owned by a deeply religious person (it could be a Muslim, Jew or Christian) then it is incumbent to proceed with respect. If a Muslim asks me to take off my shoes before entering the threshold of their house, then I will do so. If it's an issue to not bring alcohol or eat pork, then that is what i would do out of respect. It should be irrelevant if we're a secular society. Of course we share different beliefs and morals which is why it's important to keep those beliefs for home/place of worship rather than throwing them at customers. In a place of work I do not care if the bloke 3m away from me doesn't drink or eat pork, it's not important within a business/working environment. Deeply religious people shouldn't be exempt from criticism for their handling of customers based on the strength of convictions. Home life is different. Going to a mates place who is muslim, we do not bring alcohol into the house nor swear. But that's at home. We are never a secular society. We are a secular country. Big difference. There are families which are practicing and have been doing so for thousands of years. Church and State are separated.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI actually like Trump a lot.... Lot's of straight talk At around 1:45 (although the whole lot is a very clever)
What's dumb is a non Trump supporter calling a Trump supporter "Dumb as Shit". That only makes it better for Trump and the reason why all the "Dumb as Shit" people voted for someone that is just different because all the other establishment shit that has been dished out since WW2 has been even more Dumb as Shit, and corrupt too. Trump is draining the swamp. People won't like it, because the establishment control the media, but soon all the leeches will be flushed through the Washington Sewerage works. it's gonna pong like all hell, so just hold your noses but it will all come to pass. Hang on...are some people still spouting the "drain the swamp" slogan like it ever meant anything? A line Trump himself admitted he thought was ridiculous when he was told to say it. Yep, that's my browsing ET done again for a few weeks aha
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI actually like Trump a lot.... Lot's of straight talk At around 1:45 (although the whole lot is a very clever)
What's dumb is a non Trump supporter calling a Trump supporter "Dumb as Shit". That only makes it better for Trump and the reason why all the "Dumb as Shit" people voted for someone that is just different because all the other establishment shit that has been dished out since WW2 has been even more Dumb as Shit, and corrupt too. Trump is draining the swamp. People won't like it, because the establishment control the media, but soon all the leeches will be flushed through the Washington Sewerage works. it's gonna pong like all hell, so just hold your noses but it will all come to pass. Hang on...are some people still spouting the "drain the swamp" slogan like it ever meant anything? A line Trump himself admitted he thought was ridiculous when he was told to say it. Yep, that's my browsing ET done again for a few weeks aha Yes, I am a big believer in draining the swamp. It will happen here too one day. Lake Burley Griffin will be drained one day. It's the power of the people. Everyone having their say. Democracy in action.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI actually like Trump a lot.... Lot's of straight talk At around 1:45 (although the whole lot is a very clever)
What's dumb is a non Trump supporter calling a Trump supporter "Dumb as Shit". That only makes it better for Trump and the reason why all the "Dumb as Shit" people voted for someone that is just different because all the other establishment shit that has been dished out since WW2 has been even more Dumb as Shit, and corrupt too. Trump is draining the swamp. People won't like it, because the establishment control the media, but soon all the leeches will be flushed through the Washington Sewerage works. it's gonna pong like all hell, so just hold your noses but it will all come to pass. Hang on...are some people still spouting the "drain the swamp" slogan like it ever meant anything? A line Trump himself admitted he thought was ridiculous when he was told to say it. Yep, that's my browsing ET done again for a few weeks aha "LOCK HER UP, LOCK HER UP" :laugh"
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI actually like Trump a lot.... Lot's of straight talk At around 1:45 (although the whole lot is a very clever)
What's dumb is a non Trump supporter calling a Trump supporter "Dumb as Shit". That only makes it better for Trump and the reason why all the "Dumb as Shit" people voted for someone that is just different because all the other establishment shit that has been dished out since WW2 has been even more Dumb as Shit, and corrupt too. Trump is draining the swamp. People won't like it, because the establishment control the media, but soon all the leeches will be flushed through the Washington Sewerage works. it's gonna pong like all hell, so just hold your noses but it will all come to pass. Hang on...are some people still spouting the "drain the swamp" slogan like it ever meant anything? A line Trump himself admitted he thought was ridiculous when he was told to say it. Yep, that's my browsing ET done again for a few weeks aha Yes, I am a big believer in draining the swamp. It will happen here too one day. Lake Burley Griffin will be drained one day. It's the power of the people. Everyone having their say. Democracy in action. That's not what I meant at all, but have a good day mate.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI actually like Trump a lot.... Lot's of straight talk At around 1:45 (although the whole lot is a very clever)
What's dumb is a non Trump supporter calling a Trump supporter "Dumb as Shit". That only makes it better for Trump and the reason why all the "Dumb as Shit" people voted for someone that is just different because all the other establishment shit that has been dished out since WW2 has been even more Dumb as Shit, and corrupt too. Trump is draining the swamp. People won't like it, because the establishment control the media, but soon all the leeches will be flushed through the Washington Sewerage works. it's gonna pong like all hell, so just hold your noses but it will all come to pass. Hang on...are some people still spouting the "drain the swamp" slogan like it ever meant anything? A line Trump himself admitted he thought was ridiculous when he was told to say it. Yep, that's my browsing ET done again for a few weeks aha Yes, I am a big believer in draining the swamp. It will happen here too one day. Lake Burley Griffin will be drained one day. It's the power of the people. Everyone having their say. Democracy in action. That's not what I meant at all, but have a good day mate. You too. Have a good one. That's the second time I heard anything about ET. Is Trump announcing appointments on Entertainment Tonight now like The Apprentice? lol
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
So he's picked his new SCOTUS judge, be interesting how this plays out in the next 5+ years. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Gee, I feel silly. ET is this forum section...
I get it now.
Extra Time.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES
|
|
|
|
|
Cappuccino
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 683,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappuccino
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 683,
Visits: 0
|
Also lol I'm amazed that this needs to be explained, but -
Smoking weed is a recreational activity, marrying the person you love is one of the most important things you'll do in your entire life.
Kinda different.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Where does discrimination come into it though? The bakers literally discriminated based on sexual preference. Wearing a burqa provokes my extreme hatred for the Islamic religion and it's treatment of women. Should a business be able to refuse service to people on this basis too?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappuccino
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 683,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone? Very well said.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't even know where to begin here, but it's pretty clear they have no idea who Douglass is or that he's been dead for 120+ years  It's somehow even worse in video form
|
|
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
.
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhat this conversation is about? What did Donald Trump ban for gays? Please post links. thanks guys A Christian Bakery refused to decorate a cake in a specific way requested by a gay couple for their wedding as they deemed it offensive and people here (and around the world) compare it to the holocaust.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone? You are the master of the obvious. What if I want a gay wedding cake with a penis on it? Am I being discriminated against if they refuse?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
How bout these emergency law changes in Romania that's got people protesting? Making it ok for people to not go to jail if the corruption is less than 48k lol Why the fark did they think that was a good idea? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Cappuccino
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 683,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone? You are the master of the obvious. What if I want a gay wedding cake with a penis on it? Am I being discriminated against if they refuse? If they were happy to bake a straight couple a wedding cake with a penis on it, but not the same kind of cake for a gay couple, then that's discrimination. If the objection is that the cake would have a penis on it (not that the couple making the request were gay) then that's obviously fine.
|
|
|
|