Darkness becoming more and more accepted, and not exposed

[Cearbhall]

One. I will address what I want to address, not what you want me to address.

Yes, and your silence speaks volumes.

 

[Episaw]

Perhaps they used it to commit property damage. Would you be responsible for that?

And perhaps the sun shines out of his backside. Would I be responsible for that?

 

[Episaw]

Yes, and your silence speaks volumes.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Your next joke is......

 

[Cearbhall]

I have a file on my computer that details the number of times a person has been described as hateful, intolerant, bigoted or homophobic because they disagreed with another person. Nothing more and nothing less.

I find it much more likely that you chose to ignore the real reasons. You agreed with someone's hateful/intolerant/bigoted view, and you got mad because someone held them accountable for it and dared to suggest that a view you share could possibly be ill-informed or immoral.

 

[Episaw]

Perhaps they used it to commit property damage. Would you be responsible for that?

That's not how religious freedom works. His religious freedom is protected because he has the right to not own a business. He is free because he is free to choose his profession and do what he needs to do to avoid selling to same-sex weddings. It is his responsibility to live by the rules of his religious beliefs. He does not get to change business law or hard-won anti-discrimination laws at his leisure.

Apparently, it is how it works as the Federal AG is taking up the case.

 

[Episaw]

The issue being discussed isn't about "providing public services to sinners", but that's inevitably what people seem to like to make it sound like.

Yes, that is right. They are trying to put the Christian baker in his place and create a free for all in the business world where the only rights allowable is the customer to demand what they want whether it is reasonable or beneficial to the business.

It seems as though these people would demand that if someone came into a shop and asked for a something or other and said I cannot afford to pay for it so you will have to give it to me, then the shopkeeper is obliged to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

Apparently, it is how it works as the Federal AG is taking up the case.

Taking up a case, doesn't mean much, unless it changes the law.

 

[Episaw]

I find it much more likely that you chose to ignore the real reasons. You agreed with someone's hateful/intolerant/bigoted view, and you got mad because someone held them accountable for it and dared to suggest that a view you share could possibly be ill-informed or immoral.

it seems that you are determined to have your own take on things so let me illustrate what I am saying in one syllable words.

What I am about to say has happened.

Me: I believe that God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman.

Antagonist: That is so hateful saying that.

Me: I won't be supporting the YES vote.

Antagonist: You are so intolerant.

Me: I don't see anywhere that homosexuals have the right to get married.

Antagonist: You are so homophobic.

None of what I said was hateful, intolerant or homophobic.

Get the point. if not, talk to someone else about it as I can't get any simpler than that.

 

[bhsmte]

it seems that you are determined to have your own take on things so let me illustrate what I am saying in one syllable words.

What I am about to say has happened.

Me: I believe that God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman.

Antagonist: That is so hateful saying that.

Me: I won't be supporting the YES vote.

Antagonist: You are so intolerant.

Me: I don't see anywhere that homosexuals have the right to get married.

Antagonist: You are so homophobic.

Get the point. if not, talk to someone else about it as I can't get any simpler than that.

I have no issue with you personally believing marriage is for a man and a women and for you stating the same and carrying that out in your private life. Now, in public interactions, the compelling reasons states have to assure equality of treatment, may cause you distress, because others don't agree with you.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, that is right. They are trying to put the Christian baker in his place and create a free for all in the business world where the only rights allowable is the customer to demand what they want whether it is reasonable or beneficial to the business.

It seems as though these people would demand that if someone came into a shop and asked for a something or other and said I cannot afford to pay for it so you will have to give it to me, then the shopkeeper is obliged to do so.

I think the Christian baker example is just one of many that could come up where I believe an owner should be able to have some say in what he does. A sign maker who is Jewish shouldn't have to make anti Israel or anti Jew signs for a white supremecist rally. A black woodworker should be forced to build crosses for the KKK to burn in their rituals. If asked to do so, they should have the option of declining the order.

 

[Cearbhall]

None of what I said was hateful, intolerant or homophobic.

In your opinion. Because you hold those views, and of course you wouldn't call yourself those things.

Personally, I nearly always avoid saying something so succinct or aggressive as "Wow, you're a homophobe." Because I know that no homophobe is going to open their ears and their heart to someone who says that to them. So I agree with you only in the sense that it's not constructive or strategic to engage with someone in such an abrupt or confrontational way. That's not usually how minds are changed.

 

[Aldebaran]

Taking up a case, doesn't mean much, unless it changes the law.

But it does mean that they believe the case has enough merit to make it worth taking up.

 

[Episaw]

That is very unfortunate.

However, I'm pretty sure it works the same way in Australia as in the US... it can be a legally recognized marriage without God recognizing it.

In Australia, it is the bloody-mindedness of the homosexuals that is the sticking point. They can have a civil union ceremony, one without God involved but they said that is not good enough.

They want a fully fledged marriage in a church even though various individuals have said churches cannot be forced to marry two men or two women.

That is what they said in other countries that have legalised SSM but slowly these exceptions are being removed and ministers are being fined or sent to jail if they won't marry two men or two women.

Currently, the PM of Australia is Malcolm Turnbull and he has said that ministers and religious organizations do not have to comply with the law if SSM is legalised.

Bill Shorten, the leader of the opposition has said if he becomes PM all exceptions will be removed.

So one, we hope that SSM will not be legalised and two if it is, that Bill Shorten never becomes PM.

And another reason we hope it is not legalised because Benjamin Black a leading homosexual in the debate has said SSM is only the beginning. Their ultimate aim is the toppling of society so that anything goes and everything is lawful, even man/boy love.

 

[Aldebaran]

...are you referring to ministers who are working for the state?

Yes, sorry, you have to do your job. Didn't realize that was too much to ask.

It only became part of the job when it was changed to make it that way. Before SSM, it wasn't. See the difference?

 

[Episaw]

In your opinion. Because you hold those views, and of course you wouldn't call yourself those things.

Personally, I nearly always avoid saying something so succinct or aggressive as "Wow, you're a homophobe." Because I know that no homophobe is going to open their ears and their heart to someone who says that to them. So I agree with you only in the sense that it's not constructive or strategic to engage with someone in such an abrupt or confrontational way. That's not usually how minds are changed.

No, it is not my opinion, it is a fact because for any of those things to be what it is claimed to be there has to be intent. If there is no intent then they are not what they are claimed to be.

I remember a programme on TV where SSM was discussed and one of the panel was a Penny Wong who is a lesbian and member of Parliament.

Every time someone said anything she didn't like her stock reply was "I am offended by what you said."

It was as clear as day that what the person was saying was not intended to offend anyone, but when you have a victim mentality which homosexuals have, you see offense in anything and everything if it does not fall into line with your way of thinking.

 

[Cearbhall]

It only became part of the job when it was changed to make it that way. Before SSM, it wasn't. See the difference?

No, there is no difference. Anyone working as a public servant knows that they are agents of the state and are subject to changes in the law. They know that their personal opinions are irrelevant and that they are not allowed to infringe on someone's rights to those government services. If they are ignorant of the nature of their own job, that's their own fault, and they should not have accepted the position.

 

[Aldebaran]

I have no issue with you personally believing marriage is for a man and a women and for you stating the same and carrying that out in your private life. Now, in public interactions, the compelling reasons states have to assure equality of treatment, may cause you distress, because others don't agree with you.

Do you think it might actually be due to being forced to do something that is against your religious beliefs. Now, before you say "Nobody forces you to own a business", as seems to be the standard comeback, I'll simply ask you to save your keystrokes.

 

[Episaw]

I think the Christian baker example is just one of many that could come up where I believe an owner should be able to have some say in what he does. A sign maker who is Jewish shouldn't have to make anti Israel or anti Jew signs for a white supremecist rally. A black woodworker should be forced to build crosses for the KKK to burn in their rituals. If asked to do so, they should have the option of declining the order.

That is logic, but the opposition seems to be devoid of that in their thinking (that is if they do think).

 

[Aldebaran]

No, there is no difference. Anyone working as a public servant knows that they are agents of the state and are subject to changes in the law.

Even soldiers are allowed to be a conscientious objector, the definition being: "A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion."

 

[Aldebaran]

That is logic, but the opposition seems to be devoid of that in their thinking (that is if they do think).

When you talk to non Christians about Christian things, they'll be all too happy to tell you what the law or Supreme Court says. That's what they value.