"Australians decisively support same-sex marriage"

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Assuming you mean an illegal drug, the baker could refuse because such a thing would violate the law. This isn't a valid comparison, as using illegal drugs is not considered a right.

Ever notice all the similes that get used by the anti- side are always strawmen? Funny that. It's almost as if... their position can't be argued on it's own merits... or something...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did the baker refuse to serve gay customers? No he did not.

Could the gay couple buy a cake and put their own decorations on it without implicating the baker in their celebrations? Yes, many people already do that. The decorations for all occasions are pre-made....all they have to do is put them on. They can personalise it as much as they wish. No one is offended.

What would be the point in paying someone for making only half a cake? So people who get cakes that the baker personally doesn't agree with don't get their full money's worth? Do they get a discount for having to decorate it themselves? That's silly!

There is so much garbage attached to this issue that could easily be averted.

If we value our free will then we will not impose our will on others. This works both ways.

Indeed. Especially when bakers can just bake cakes for people and get on with their lives.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This man is an artist, not just a cake decorator. Should an artist be forced to waste his talent on something that violates their conscience?

Lazy excuse. A cake maker who offers a service to make wedding cakes has to abide by anti-discrimination laws when deciding who is entitled to pay for his service or not. It doesn't matter whether you pass it off as them being an "artist" or not. This is not simply a matter of free expression - it is a matter of denying service on unjust grounds.

Not a slippery slope at all. To ask someone to incorporate something into an activity that is against the law is not right. The law in this case is the Law of God, which overrides any law made by men.

For him, but not for many, and laws exist that prevent people who operate businesses from using their beliefs (religious or otherwise) as a basis to discriminate against individuals and/or groups by denying them a service, in accordance with anti-discrimination law.

Deeje, you know very well that if this individual was instead denying service to an interracial couple on the basis of his religion, you would not be defending them. You would also not be defending them if they denied a service to someone based on their political views, despite the fact that said views could be just as strongly held as any religious view. This isn't a matter of allowing this man to have his beliefs - it's you calling for special permission for religion to use businesses to discriminate against clients and push their agenda on people.

At least be honest about it.

 

[columbus]

Ever notice all the similes that get used by the anti- side are always strawmen? Funny that. It's almost as if... their position can't be argued on it's own merits... or something...

Reminds me of the article @Deeje posted in post 121. The article itself didn't support her claim about it.
I pointed that out and never heard a response.
Tom

 

[Deeje]

Reminds me of the article @Deeje posted in post 121. The article itself didn't support her claim about it.
I pointed that out and never heard a response.
Tom

If you would like me to post the whole article again, I will. Did you even read it? There is nothing in the article that even remotely agreed with your challenge, hence my failure to respond. Anyone who read it would see exactly what it was saying. The gays who voted "yes" would change their vote to "no" if they thought that a change to the marriage act would mean discrimination for others as a result.

Please quote the portions of the article that you think was unsupportive of my reason for posting it.

 

[columbus]

If you would like me to post the whole article again, I will. Did you even read it? There is nothing in the article that even remotely agreed with your challenge, hence my failure to respond.

There was nothing in that article that supported the title. Here's the salient part of my response:

People had a problem with a vague process, lacking transparency, where they were expected to vote on law without knowing what the law is. People had a problem with marriage as a concept, referring to it as "patriarchal" . People said that they personally didn't want to get married. People had a problem with multiple marriage and age of consent. But none of that has anything at all to do with marriage equality.

People not liking the process (I would have trouble with it myself) , or disliking marriage itself is not the same as having a problem with gay marriage.
Tom