SSM postal vote

ken777 · Sep 15, 2017

It really boggles my mind that some Christians would support the persecution of people today so Christians wont have to suffer persecution tomorrow!

It also boggles my mind that some Christians think they have the right to impose their view on the religious conscience of another Christian. And not only impose, but compel by the use of lawfare to the extent of driving a person out of business.

Paidiske · Sep 15, 2017

I see the claim of "driving out of business" as a completely untrue exaggeration. The only way anyone's going out of business is if they choose to put themselves in that position.

ken777 · Sep 15, 2017

People don't drive themselves out of business - vengeful attacks on their faith do that.

ken777 · Sep 15, 2017

Christian business owners will not be the only ones targeted by a spurious interpretation of ssm laws. A NZ charity called Family First has been deregistered by the Charities Registration Board.

Headed by Bob McCoskrie, Family First promotes traditional family values, and constitutes marriage to be only between a man and a woman.

The reason given for deregisteration is: "The board considers that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable."

The High Court has once rejected the Board's claim, but the Board has reimposed deregisteration. The case will once again go to the High Court.

Paidiske · Sep 15, 2017

And our laws are not the same as New Zealand's, either.

Seriously, this is my biggest frustration with this whole postal ballot. I have no real problem with people voting no, but I have a problem with lies, misinformation, fear-mongering, propaganda, and general fuddling of the public.

We're being asked to answer one question: Should same-sex marriage be legal? But instead it's being turned into a chance for people to vent every other issue imaginable. Margaret Court even claimed today that if same-sex marriage became legal there'd be no more Easter or Christmas! (How she thinks it would stop us celebrating the incarnation or the resurrection is beyond me).

We need to focus on the issue at hand and debate it on its merits, not run around carrying on as if the sky will fall in. It does the kingdom of God no good, and it does us no credit.

ken777 · Sep 16, 2017

Are you calling Murdoch University legal academic Augusto Zimmermann a liar.

"Once marriage was redefined, anyone who disagreed with same-sex marriage and denied a service faced potential legal prosecution." (The Australian, 16 Sep 2017)

A person can say this is the right thing to happen - what they cannot say is that there will be no ramifications of the law change. That is dishonest and deceptive.

The best guide as to what changes we can expect is what has happened in similar countries.

Paidiske · Sep 16, 2017

I would want to comment on his comment in its fuller context.

The issue there is denying the service; you face potential legal prosecution for denying a service now.

ken777 · Sep 16, 2017

One can deny service for a large number of reasons which include that the event is not legal.

Businesses have always had the right to deny service because of ethical concerns. A photographer does not have to photograph a nudist event.

A ssm law will have impacts on other areas. That cannot be denied.

Paidiske · Sep 16, 2017

You can't refuse to sell someone a cake or flowers because you think they might do something illegal with it. The concern of the provider ends when the customer walks out of the store.

But you're right; there are reasons why you can deny service. "I don't like what you're going to use my cake for" isn't one of them.

ken777 · Sep 16, 2017

You keep trying to wriggle out of the real issue with your moralizing ... which is that a ssm law will have ramifications that will affect businesses.

FYI, a business is under no legal obligation to provide a service. They have the right to say no. Discrimination law simply says that there are reasons you cannot say no.

With the legalizing of ssm, businesses will not be allowed to say no as they now can on the basis ssm is not legal.

There are advertising agencies who have refused to make ads for the no campaign.

ken777 · Sep 16, 2017

Paidiske said:
But you're right; there are reasons why you can deny service. "I don't like what you're going to use my cake for" isn't one of them.

So you think a baker would be legally required to make & decorate a wedding cake for a man marrying his 14 year old sister ... which btw is just as illegal as ssm.

Paidiske · Sep 16, 2017

ken777 said:
So you think a baker would be legally required to make & decorate a wedding cake for a man marrying his 14 year old sister ... which btw is just as illegal as ssm.

In that instance, the baker would have other legal obligations; like reporting the sexual abuse of a minor.

But I'm not trying to "wriggle out of the real issue." I see the constant deflecting to this fear mongering about the wedding industry as an attempt to wriggle out of the real issue.

The real issue is: Should same-sex marriage be legal? Our arguments about it should address that issue, and not invent or imagine others.

ken777 · Sep 16, 2017

The likelihood of businesses being prosecuted & fined under the proposed ssm bills is not imagined ... it is inevitable. To exclude this from the ssm debate is reprehensible.

Paidiske · Sep 16, 2017

Well, ken, when you're fined, you may tell me that you told me so.

Until then, I'm going to continue telling people that carrying on as if we're being dragged into the circus is to spectacularly fail to deal with the issue at hand.

ken777 · Sep 16, 2017

The threat that will hang over the heads of Christian businesses is real and not to warn people about that is deliberately deceitful. It is one of the many good reasons to say NO.

ken777 · Sep 16, 2017

When the Republic referendum was held, most people were in favour but voted against because the way it was being set up was not the best model.

We face the same situation today with the ssm vote. If it is to happen, then it needs to be set up so that the rights of all are guaranteed. The rights that businesses have had for generations are about to be destroyed by a new law that requires them to violate their conscience or close their business.

From the moment the law is passed this threat will hang over the heads of people in business for all time. Stop this travesty of justice - vote no.

dude99 · Sep 30, 2017

The Bible is clear on marriage is between a man and woman. Sure same sex couples will eventually be legalised, however God word never changes regarding his design of marriage, no matter if the state or if a religious institution allows and grants same sex marriage.

Radagast · Sep 30, 2017

Paidiske said:
We're being asked to answer one question: Should same-sex marriage be legal?

But of course, changing the definition of marriage has follow-on consequences. Going by overseas experience, potential consequences include:

Bakers and wedding photographers being prosecuted if they refuse service.
Churches being prosecuted if they refuse rental of their buildings (in cases where they rent out their buildings to the general public).
Military chaplains losing their jobs for not performing marriages.
Changes to government school curricula to reflect the new reality.
Prosecution of schools (such as Catholic schools) if their discussion of marriage does not reflect the new reality.

It's hardly surprising if people are concerned about such consequences.

Paidiske · Sep 30, 2017

I'm not surprised - or even dismayed - about people being concerned about such consequences.

What is driving me up the wall is that people are making the debate *about* these potential consequences, instead of dealing with the question of secular marriage on its merits, and lobbying for (for want of a better phrase) a two-integrities society if necessary.

Same-sex marriage need be no threat to those who disagree with it. What those who disagree with it cannot reasonably expect is a bubble universe in which they never have to deal with that which they disagree.

dude99 · Oct 2, 2017

Sure everyone has their views, and there are even Christians that will consider voting yes, and even though they are against it, they trust the ruling Liberal government to protect religious freedom or as long as the churches are free to conduct their marriages, the state should be free to conduct marriages in anyway they wish. However I have seen some churches and church leaders campaining for the yes vote and believe it is not a sin for same sex marriage or homosexual relationships, then they are not Christian and should not be seen as Christian.

SSM postal vote

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Clara bonam audax

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Clara bonam audax

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Clara bonam audax

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Clara bonam audax

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Clara bonam audax

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Clara bonam audax

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Newbie

comes and goes

Clara bonam audax

Newbie

Similar threads