Gay Wedding Cakes

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gay Wedding Cakes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2055798 13-Jul-2018 14:41

mm1352000:

dejadeadnz: Would you like to stop trolling and have read of the legislations already discussed, arguments already made, and actually address them?

I'm not intentionally trolling. tdgeek's earlier comments with specific reference to legislation left me uncertain where he stands. On the one hand he acknowledged the human rights act section 44; on the other he acknowledged the lay-understanding that shops are within their rights to refuse to serve/sell.

Let me know what I said in regards to "he acknowledged the lay-understanding that shops are within their rights to refuse to serve/sell."

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2055805 13-Jul-2018 14:46

Fred99: You'll also see discussion about whether being "politely" bigoted or your actions being "heart felt" excuses being bigoted. The answer is no.

Okay. Perhaps I could have used better words, but I didn't want to assume Kath's objection was on religious grounds. Fundamentally what I'm trying to get at on that line of thought is: why are marriage celebrants allowed to object on religious grounds, while other people such as Kath are not? Or in other words: why is Kath apparently a bigot while religious celebrants are not? It seems inconsistent to me.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2055806 13-Jul-2018 14:48

tdgeek: Let me know what I said in regards to "he acknowledged the lay-understanding that shops are within their rights to refuse to serve/sell."

Sure.

tdgeek:

davidcole:

I thought any shop was in their rights to refuse a sale? Isn't buying something an offer to buy, that the shopkeeper is allowed to accept or not? I didn't think they had to give a reason. Just because.

I believe that is correct. But not based on statute based law.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2055866 13-Jul-2018 15:29

mm1352000:

Fred99: You'll also see discussion about whether being "politely" bigoted or your actions being "heart felt" excuses being bigoted. The answer is no.

Okay. Perhaps I could have used better words, but I didn't want to assume Kath's objection was on religious grounds. Fundamentally what I'm trying to get at on that line of thought is: why are marriage celebrants allowed to object on religious grounds, while other people such as Kath are not? Or in other words: why is Kath apparently a bigot while religious celebrants are not? It seems inconsistent to me.

It's not because they (celebrants, church officials etc) are not bigots if they do that. They certainly are bigots if they act that way, but they are acting within the law - which allows those exceptions.
Something that I'm dead against in principle, but the law is on their side. I'd like to see that law changed - separation of church and state should be absolute - not the western version of "watered down shariah" we have. However, to get the gradual removal of the remaining tentacles of the church from the state - compromise has been needed. Some conservatives are not happy about that. They fear the end game will cost them money and privilege. What would Jesus have done? Opress non-believers / grant themselves special privileges? I don't think so - but YMMV.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2055869 13-Jul-2018 15:36

Just to wade in again, I don't think marriage celebrants should be allowed to refuse weddings on the basis of religious grounds. I think religion should be completely separated from the civil act of marriage. This works well in other countries. If people then want to have a religious ceremony in addition to the official one, they should be free to do it any way they like, but in itself it should not have any legal status.

I also do not think any shop should be able to refuse a sale. If you are in business and the customer has the money, you should not be able to refuse their business. This debate is about something else, though, which is the customer asking for a customised service that the shop owner doesn't ~~approve of.~~ feel comfortable providing.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2055886 13-Jul-2018 16:12

Fred99: It's not because...

Thank you for your candour.

On the point of law change it is clear we would want changes in opposite directions.

I would argue that extending the exception to all marriage-related services would be more consistent. Either that, or [effectively] go back to civil unions (I don't see this happening), or have the state get out of "the marriage business" and leave it as a religious thing.

Having visited a country which has laws based on shariah (people are still stoned to death etc.), I'd also argue the comparison between our law and shariah is very unfair... but I understand your point.

Fred99: They fear the end game will cost them money and privilege.

As somebody who was raised in a religious family (missionary parents; uncles and aunts who are pastors; the works) and who still has many religious associates, I completely disagree with this assessment. In fact I don't know anybody with motives that would even remotely fit your description.

For what it's worth, anybody I know who has objected to homosexual marriage has done so on the basis of a principled stance related to the tension between the perceived morality of homosexual sex and their view of marriage as a covenant/relationship between woman, man and God. Likewise, people who are concerned about changes in society (perceived increases in quantity and severity of violent acts etc. etc. etc.) are concerned about the same things as anybody else would be if they had those perceptions. They simply attribute the change to different causes.

In short: I couldn't disagree more strongly with your assessment.

Fred99: What would Jesus have done? Opress non-believers / grant themselves special privileges? I don't think so - but YMMV.

He would have demonstrated love towards all the people involved, for sure, but even he had limits. My take is that the "...fabulous..." part of Kath's comment aspired to Jesus' attitude. The action part? I'm honestly not sure. I don't know what I would have done were I in Kath's position.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2055890 13-Jul-2018 16:23

If I can do so without causing undue offense (because this certainly is a topic of great significance for some) I would like to try and reframe the argument for @Fred99 and @dejadeadnz in this way:

Assumption 1: It is prohibited by law to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation

Assumption 2: It is prohibited by law to discriminate on the grounds of political belief

If either of you were in the cake baking business and had engaged with a “lovely couple” to bake a cake for a special occasion - and then discovered that the occasion was a “Welcome to NZ Party” for Laura Southern...

Would you still bake the cake? (and why?)

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2055901 13-Jul-2018 16:41

6FIEND:

If either of you were in the cake baking business and had engaged with a “lovely couple” to bake a cake for a special occasion - and then discovered that the occasion was a “Welcome to NZ Party” for Laura Southern...

Would you still bake the cake? (and why?)

If I were in the cake baking business, I would simply abide by the rules of the land and supply them. After supplying them, however, I would cordially invite them to F off.

Here's some news for you: I actually have experience in following the cab rank rule as a lawyer, where I accepted (as was my duty) briefs from people's whose views I considered utterly repugnant and represented them. I however refused to become their mouthpiece and refused any unlawful instructions and refused to undermine my primary duty as an officer of the court.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2055904 13-Jul-2018 17:04

mm1352000:

For what it's worth, anybody I know who has objected to homosexual marriage has done so on the basis of a principled stance related to the tension between the perceived morality of homosexual sex and their view of marriage as a covenant/relationship between woman, man and God. Likewise, people who are concerned about changes in society (perceived increases in quantity and severity of violent acts etc. etc. etc.) are concerned about the same things as anybody else would be if they had those perceptions. They simply attribute the change to different causes.

There's no "principled" stance to justify punitive treatment / discrimination against same-sex couples and marriage by the church even though they're "allowed" to be bigots. I have no idea where you're coming from putting the comment about "perceived increases in quantity and severity of violent acts etc. etc. etc." in the same paragraph where you're discussing "homosexual marriage".

If you're drawing a comparison between someone's (legitimate) concern about violent crime - and someone's (illegitimate) concern about some hypothetical "damage to society" caused by people of the same sex deciding to share a bed - violating the rights of nobody else at all, you leave me speechless.

I used to be religious - fortunately I was sent to effective aversion therapy - a half decent secular education should do the trick.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2055908 13-Jul-2018 17:22

6FIEND:

If I can do so without causing undue offense (because this certainly is a topic of great significance for some) I would like to try and reframe the argument for @Fred99 and @dejadeadnz in this way:

There's another problem with your useless postulated example. In your case, all the facts that I have available to me would be that the cake would be to celebrate the arrival of Lauren Southern and the facts also assume that I am aware of her obnoxious views. Now if that is all I know, for example, then I would struggle to be intellectually honest and hold to a view that if I were to refuse to make the cake just there and then, I would be doing so for any reason other than my distaste for her political opinions, i.e. a prohibited ground of discrimination. But if I knew that she was going to, for example, use that cake as a "tool" to foment/express some kind of view that I reasonably consider to be objectionable for reasons outside of a prohibited ground of discrimination, e.g. smashing a cake with lots of white icing into the face of the first black guy she runs into, then I would have a quite legitimate reason for refusing to supply her a cake.

And if I knew about Southern's obnoxious views, I probably would make quite serious inquiries about what she intends to use my product for. For example, I would be wary that she might make some social media announcement proclaiming that I am some defender of her views and how such proclamations might affect my business. I would be well within my rights to make legitimate inquiries and to refuse to serve her if the answers come back with grounds for legitimate concern. Again, that's because then the refusal to serve would not be based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But all this BS is just games. Because we know for a fact that Kath refused to supply that couple a cake because of their sexual orientation and no other reason. Why? She told us so.

Go and troll somewhere else.

dwilson

162 posts

Master Geek

#2055913 13-Jul-2018 17:51

dejadeadnz:

6FIEND:

If I can do so without causing undue offense (because this certainly is a topic of great significance for some) I would like to try and reframe the argument for @Fred99 and @dejadeadnz in this way:

There's another problem with your useless postulated example. In your case, all the facts that I have available to me would be that the cake would be to celebrate the arrival of Lauren Southern and the facts also assume that I am aware of her obnoxious views. Now if that is all I know, for example, then I would struggle to be intellectually honest and hold to a view that if I were to refuse to make the cake just there and then, I would be doing so for any reason other than my distaste for her political opinions, i.e. a prohibited ground of discrimination. But if I knew that she was going to, for example, use that cake as a "tool" to foment/express some kind of view that I reasonably consider to be objectionable for reasons outside of a prohibited ground of discrimination, e.g. smashing a cake with lots of white icing into the face of the first black guy she runs into, then I would have a quite legitimate reason for refusing to supply her a cake.

And if I knew about Southern's obnoxious views, I probably would make quite serious inquiries about what she intends to use my product for. For example, I would be wary that she might make some social media announcement proclaiming that I am some defender of her views and how such proclamations might affect my business. I would be well within my rights to make legitimate inquiries and to refuse to serve her if the answers come back with grounds for legitimate concern. Again, that's because then the refusal to serve would not be based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But all this BS is just games. Because we know for a fact that Kath refused to supply that couple a cake because of their sexual orientation and no other reason. Why? She told us so.

Go and troll somewhere else.

If the whole lawyering thing doesn't work out, you may have a career in the food industry. You certainly carved up 6FIEND with the precision of a master chef.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2055920 13-Jul-2018 18:10

Fred99: If you're drawing a comparison between someone's (legitimate) concern about violent crime - and someone's (illegitimate) concern about some hypothetical "damage to society" caused by people of the same sex deciding to share a bed - violating the rights of nobody else at all, you leave me speechless.

I wasn't drawing any such comparison!

My intention was to strongly reject your assertion that conservative people - presumably you include religious people - are motivated by a fear that "the end game will cost them money and privilege". I therefore supplied contradictory examples of what I believe are representative motivations for conservative, religious people who have been willing to communicate with me. I have no reason to doubt the honesty of these people.

Please note: I made absolutely no claim about the validity of the conservative/religious motivations.

Fred99: I used to be religious...

I'm surprised! At times when I've read your posts on this forum I've observed what I would describe as a bitter, anti-religious undertone, supported by inaccurate assertions like the most recent fear-of-loss-of-money-and-privilege. I sincerely hope your attitude is not a consequence of negative experiences.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2055929 13-Jul-2018 18:31

mm1352000:

tdgeek: Let me know what I said in regards to "he acknowledged the lay-understanding that shops are within their rights to refuse to serve/sell."

Sure.

tdgeek:

davidcole:

I thought any shop was in their rights to refuse a sale? Isn't buying something an offer to buy, that the shopkeeper is allowed to accept or not? I didn't think they had to give a reason. Just because.

I believe that is correct. But not based on statute based law.

Thats not my post. Its David's. In his defence, and from my study of law, Company, Partnership, Contract, and Torts (IANAL), his quote is based on Contract Law. Offer and Acceptance, and Consideration. There is no obligation under Contract Law to accept an offer. Under NZ Statute Law, it is illegal to decline an offer based on discrimination.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2055933 13-Jul-2018 18:42

mm1352000:

Fred99: If you're drawing a comparison between someone's (legitimate) concern about violent crime - and someone's (illegitimate) concern about some hypothetical "damage to society" caused by people of the same sex deciding to share a bed - violating the rights of nobody else at all, you leave me speechless.

I wasn't drawing any such comparison!

My intention was to strongly reject your assertion that conservative people - presumably you include religious people - are motivated by a fear that "the end game will cost them money and privilege". I therefore supplied contradictory examples of what I believe are representative motivations for conservative, religious people who have been willing to communicate with me. I have no reason to doubt the honesty of these people.

Please note: I made absolutely no claim about the validity of the conservative/religious motivations.

Fred99: I used to be religious...

I'm surprised! At times when I've read your posts on this forum I've observed what I would describe as a bitter, anti-religious undertone, supported by inaccurate assertions like the most recent fear-of-loss-of-money-and-privilege. I sincerely hope your attitude is not a consequence of negative experiences.

Wow. Ive been here longer than you. Ive known the defendant online longer than you. Either you have handpicked a few posts to suit (maybe the Trump thread), or maybe your religious beliefs colour your glasses.

I have no issue at all with religious people, I respect that. We are all different, but it seems to me that your posts are subsequently biased. Strength is having bias, but being able to sit on the fence and see both sides of the grass.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2055935 13-Jul-2018 18:49

dejadeadnz: Here's some news for you...

Assuming that you're right and Kath's situation from a law perspective is an open and shut case, I'm just wondering about what sort of potential defence she might hope to mount, were she taken to court.

Some people "draw a line" beyond which principles trump "rules". Given the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it!) circumstances, these people will intentionally break the law.

Three questions:

1. Given that you're a lawyer, you may not be able to answer this. Nevertheless...

In your personal capacity, are there any situations in which you would - for any reason - intentionally break the law, the rules of your profession, or similar?

2. Are there any precedents that you're aware of for this kind of behaviour/case/defence in NZ law?

3. Sorry if this is a stupid question. In NZ, is there a court or tribunal to which one can appeal "beyond" the law? For example, on a matter in which people might consider the law to be in contradiction with human rights. (Extreme, I know. Totally hypothetical.)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8