SSM postal vote

[ken777]

I think their fears are real, but I think many of them are ill-founded.



It depends what you mean by exemptions. I'll go to the wall for freedom of religion every time, but I don't believe the supplying a non-same-sex specific cake (for example) is a conscience issue. I don't believe it actually implicates you in the wedding; you're just selling a product.

When you have time, familiarize yourself with the Jack Phillips ( Masterpiece Cakeshop) case which will be heard by SCOTUS next month.

In the last conversation we had on this topic some time ago you gave me the impression you would see such businesses prosecuted, fined and even put out of business.

And charities - what exactly is the issue here? I've seen, for example, a document prepared by Amnesty International in which they raise issues such as (for example) that a charity which provides Auslan interpreters might refuse to supply an interpreter for a same-sex wedding. But should people with disabilities lose their access to much needed supports on this basis?

So you think an interpreter should be compelled to translate for a same sex wedding when it was a violation of their faith? What punishment would you impose?

The Traditional Family Is Not Welcome in NZ

 

[Paidiske]

So you think an interpreter should be compelled to translate for a same sex wedding when it was a violation of their faith? What punishment would you impose?

Not exactly what I said. I raised an example of a possible issue Amnesty International had identified. I'm not sure I'd compel the interpreter as an individual, but I don't think the charity supplying interpreters should be allowed to refuse to send anyone at all. Disability supports shouldn't be compromised either.

 

[ken777]

Not exactly what I said. I raised an example of a possible issue Amnesty International had identified. I'm not sure I'd compel the interpreter as an individual, but I don't think the charity supplying interpreters should be allowed to refuse to send anyone at all. Disability supports shouldn't be compromised either.

In very few cases - none I've heard of - has an alternative service provider not been able to meet the needs of the clients. The lack of a religious exemption for a ss wedding means that 1,000's of people will be living with the threat of prosecution hanging over their heads or over people they care about.

When you say people should not be allowed to refuse, the next step is to impose punishment.

 

[Paidiske]

Maybe they're in the wrong industry, then, if they can't provide basic services without the need to discriminate.

 

[ken777]

Maybe they're in the wrong industry, then, if they can't provide basic services without the need to discriminate.

And that is the reasoning that will lead to the punishment of people. So the fears of conservative Christians are not unfounded.

 

[Paidiske]

And that is the reasoning that will lead to the punishment of people. So the fears of conservative Christians are not unfounded.

Given that we haven't even seen proposed legislation yet, we don't know what protections will or will not be built in. I'm giving you my opinion, the government might take a different approach.

But if nothing else, given the numbers of people we're talking about, what I'm absolutely confident about is that when same-sex marriage becomes legal (because it will, it's only a matter of time), most conservative Christians' lives will be absolutely unaffected in any way. All this fear-mongering I'm seeing about safe schools and religious protections and all of that will end up amounting to a storm in a tea cup.

 

[ken777]

Given that we haven't even seen proposed legislation yet, we don't know what protections will or will not be built in. I'm giving you my opinion, the government might take a different approach.

But if nothing else, given the numbers of people we're talking about, what I'm absolutely confident about is that when same-sex marriage becomes legal (because it will, it's only a matter of time), most conservative Christians' lives will be absolutely unaffected in any way. All this fear-mongering I'm seeing about safe schools and religious protections and all of that will end up amounting to a storm in a tea cup.

The experience in other countries, and the agenda of the Greens, and some in Labor, do not support your conclusions.

Most conservative Christians know someone they care about who will be directly affected by the failure to provide a religious exemption for people in business. The lack of protection means people live with the threat hanging over them or they get out. No doubt you would say this is a good thing but what you cannot say is that people will not be affected.

 

[ken777]

BTW, we have seen several proposed bills.

 

[Paidiske]

I'll grant you that people are being affected by fear. I just don't think their fears are likely to eventuate.

 

[ken777]

I'll grant you that people are being affected by fear. I just don't think their fears are likely to eventuate.

The fear is based on a real possibility.

 

[ken777]

From what we have seen from gay activists in their ssm campaign, aggressively pursuing people who make their support for traditional marriage publicly known, it is evident that when ssm is legalized, people who engage in "discrimination" will be targeted. Of course, for the activists, "discrimination" means support for traditional marriage.

 

[Paidiske]

I think when the debate is over most of this will settle down. Right now emotions are high on all sides; but once the vote has happened and it is over the next big issue will come along.

 

[ken777]

When even moderates agree with the legal punishment of people who are unable to provide service for a ss wedding because of their religious convictions, the next stage of the debate will be the prosecution of conservative Christians.

 

[Paidiske]

Given that the latest piece of news this morning is a minister refusing to marry a straight couple, members of his parish, simply because one of them indicated publicly their support for same-sex marriage, I'm fairly clear that this is not about oppression of conservative Christians.

 

[ken777]

Most relevant to this debate is what legislators have said, and it is clear that religious freedom will not extend beyond the protection of clergy to marry or not to marry couples.

The experience in other countries, the views of Labor-Greens, and the aggressive tactics of gay activists in Australia, all indicate that the diminution of rights for those opposed to ssm will be targeted.

 

[Paidiske]

No, it's not clear what the extent of religious freedom provisions will be. I've heard some proposals which go well beyond that. But this is the problem with not seeing the legislation before being asked to vote.

 

[ken777]

It is very clear in the proposed bills which have been put forward that there is no intention of offering religious protection to people in business.

 

[Paidiske]

It depends on the kind of business and the kind of service they offer. Some will not be protected, yes. That's to do with anti-discrimination law and the principles that protects, and that's important, too, though.

Honestly, I'm not even in the yes campaign. I'm just exasperated with the misinformation and fear mongering of the no campaign!

 

[ken777]

All the evidence indicates people in business with a religious objection to ssm will be prosecuted & fined. That is not fear mongering.

Today Malcolm Turnbull has refused to support legislative protections for charities, church auxiliary buildings, religious schools, or even the right to publicly say that ssm is wrong. This is the situation. This is not fear mongering.

 

[Paidiske]

All the evidence indicates people in business with a religious objection to ssm will be prosecuted & fined.

Only if:

a) they offer the kind of service where discrimination law applies
b) they actually are discriminatory in the way they offer their services
c) someone challenges them on that
d) when challenged, that's taken to the point of a legal case
e) the legal case is won.

Each of those things has a small probability. Multiplied together, the probability is vanishingly small. Posting this as if half the country is going to be in and out of court is just misleading.

Honestly, if you're a photographer or florist or whatever and you don't want to do same-sex marriages, it's not that hard to specialise in baby photos or funeral flowers rather than weddings (for example). The only reason people are going to be prosecuted and fined is if they insist on putting themselves in that situation to make a point.

Today Malcolm Turnbull has refused to support legislative protections for charities, church auxiliary buildings, religious schools, or even the right to publicly say that ssm is wrong. This is the situation. This is not fear mongering.

But what are charities and schools even going to be doing that is going to attract this kind of action? Schools aren't marrying people. Charities aren't marrying people. Of course we'll have the right to say ssm is wrong; what we don't have the right to do is indulge in hate speech. But as I've said before... we shouldn't be indulging in hate speech anyway.