ACT introduces Marriage Equality Bill

[IQS.RLOW]

I gather you are not aware of Australian anti-discrimination legislation then?

Yeah, good luck to the group that tries to sue a church for refusing to do something against the tenets of that church's religion. Fuck, we haven't even been daft enough to find on the side of the plaintiff in a case like that. If that's the case, Dude, then Australia is at least an order of magnitude more fucked up than I thought.

That's what will be coming. Maybe not in the form of forcing the Catholic Church to marry a couple of whinging lesbians...at first....but you will find that perhaps Ben Dover and his fiancé Phil McCrackin have always wanted to get married in the big old Church down the road so the church may have to hire it to them or face discrimination charges if they refuse.

[Rorschach]

I gather you are not aware of Australian anti-discrimination legislation then?

Yeah, good luck to the group that tries to sue a church for refusing to do something against the tenets of that church's religion. Fuck, we haven't even been daft enough to find on the side of the plaintiff in a case like that. If that's the case, Dude, then Australia is at least an order of magnitude more fucked up than I thought.

yet America not Australia allows gay marriage in certain states.

[Black Orchid]

Fuck, we haven't even been daft enough to find on the side of the plaintiff in a case like that.

Not yet!

[Black Orchid]

The Prime Minister’s plans for gay marriage could leave churches facing legal action unless they agree to same-sex unions, it emerged today.

Legal advice reportedly sent to David Cameron warns that church could be sued under human rights legislation if they refuse to allow the services to proceed.

Exemption granted to the Church of England by the Coalition Bill to prevent it having to conduct gay marriages is “eminently challenge-able” in the European Court of Human Rights.

It also warns that the Government's insistence that protections put in place for other religious groups who don't want to marry homosexuals could be undermined by evolving European human rights law.

The warnings, written by Aidan O'Neill, a leading human rights lawyer at centre-left Matrix Chambers, argues that churches that refuse to marry homosexuals would be banned from using council facilities such as village halls.

Other legal opinions commissioned by opponents have argued that teachers could face disciplinary measures under equality laws if they refuse to promote same-sex marriage once the change has been implemented.

Lord Carey warned the plans will lead to “serious and wide-ranging conflict between religious institutions and local authorities”.

He also argued that the legal opinion “demonstrates why the legislation is unworkable”. He concluded: “These proposals are divisive, have no mandate and are poorly thought-out.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... iages.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chard]

That's what will be coming. Maybe not in the form of forcing the Catholic Church to marry a couple of whinging lesbians...at first....but you will find that perhaps Ben Dover and his fiancé Phil McCrackin have always wanted to get married in the big old Church down the road so the church may have to hire it to them or face discrimination charges if they refuse.

Why would someone get married in an establishment where they aren't welcome when there are other establishments that are accepting of them? Actually, now I'm really wondering where the hell you get this shit from, because not a bit of what you're predicting makes any damn sense when you step back and think about it.

[Chard]

I gather you are not aware of Australian anti-discrimination legislation then?

Yeah, good luck to the group that tries to sue a church for refusing to do something against the tenets of that church's religion. Fuck, we haven't even been daft enough to find on the side of the plaintiff in a case like that. If that's the case, Dude, then Australia is at least an order of magnitude more fucked up than I thought.

yet America not Australia allows gay marriage in certain states.

Actually it's now completely legal at the federal level with the same rights and benefits that straight couples get, and the IRS will accept a "Married-filing jointly" tax return from a gay couple regardless of if the states the reside in supports gay marriage or not.

It's the logical outcome of the repeal of the US Military's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy. If you can serve your country then it stands to reason you deserve all the rights your service safeguards for others, which means the US Military by default had to accept gay marriage, which in turn had all sorts of fun ramifications for things like dependent status and benefits issues. Once DADT was repealed it was only a matter of time before the Federal government had to grant civilian gays the same rights as gay service members.

If that pattern of event sounds familiar it's because it's the same strategy used in the US civil rights movement to end segregation by starting with in the military.

[Chard]

Fuck, we haven't even been daft enough to find on the side of the plaintiff in a case like that.

Not yet!

No, looks like England or you people will beat us to the punch on this. The fucked up thing is in the UK's case they're getting fucked by eurotrash socialists, but if the same thing as what you posted in that article applies to Australia as well then I've got to simply ask why? Do you people not understand that freedoms need not be mutually exclusive or something? How the shit do you people not understand that you can grant gays the same rights as straights and still keep free religious practice simply by respecting the rights of the religious to practice their faith. Here in the US, a bullshit legal challenge like a gay couple suing a Baptist church for not allowing them to be wed by their pastor after Sunday services would get tossed out of court so fast it'd make your head spin. How the fuck it is you guys keep managing to get this shit wrong is puzzling as all hell.

[Black Orchid]

Why would someone get married in an establishment where they aren't welcome when there are other establishments that are accepting of them?

For someone who likes to throw their weight around you really are quite naive

The Colorado Attorney General's office formally filed a discrimination complaint last week on behalf of a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts who claim a Colorado bakery refused to provide a cake to honor their nuptials last summer.

*snip*

After being denied a cake by Phillips last summer, the couple took to Facebook to tell their story, which received a wide amount of attention and even garnered notice by the American Civil Liberties Union, which eventually volunteered to legally represent the couple in their discrimination complaint.

The Facebook fervor behind the issue even resulted in protests taking place in front of Phillips' shop, and the small business owner reportedly received more than 1,000 angry messages for his Christian convictions.

Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the ACLU in Colorado, told AP that the complaint revolves around the issue of discrimination in the public sphere.

The bakery has since closed. Potentially the owners could face a year in prison. Why not just use another bakery?

Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that photographers could not refuse to shoot gay wedding ceremonies even though the state does not officially recognize gay marriage. The court ruled that declining to photograph a gay wedding was similar to declining to work at an interracial wedding, with Justice Richard Bosson saying, “There is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.”

Why not get another photographer?

A Kentucky county commission sided with a gay rights group in a discrimination complaint last year after a Christian printer declined to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival.

Why not get them printed elsewhere?

A florist in Richland, Wash., who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding launched a countersuit against the state attorney general, who sued her for violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

Why not get another florist?

[IQS.RLOW]

That's what will be coming. Maybe not in the form of forcing the Catholic Church to marry a couple of whinging lesbians...at first....but you will find that perhaps Ben Dover and his fiancé Phil McCrackin have always wanted to get married in the big old Church down the road so the church may have to hire it to them or face discrimination charges if they refuse.

Why would someone get married in an establishment where they aren't welcome when there are other establishments that are accepting of them? Actually, now I'm really wondering where the hell you get this shit from, because not a bit of what you're predicting makes any damn sense when you step back and think about it.

Are you seriously trying to frame a rights issue with a "why would" example?

[Chard]

For someone who likes to throw their weight around you really are quite naive

Bitch, please...

The bakery has since closed. Potentially the owners could face a year in prison. Why not just use another bakery?

A church is protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution as religious speech, even shitheads as hateful as Westburough Baptist (note that this only applies to religious institutions that claim tax exempt status).

A business refusing to serve a customer based on arbitrary bigotry do not get those protections as it's a fucking business that's refusing to serve someone because they're gay. Would you say the same shit if the bakery had refused to serve a couple because they were black or because they were Jewish?

Why not get another photographer?

Would you say the same shit if the photographer had refused to serve a customer because they were Asian? It's the same fucking thing as refusing service because they're gay, woman.

Why not get them printed elsewhere?

Seriously, see the above.

Why not get another florist?

How about not being a bigoted fuckwit if you intend to sell goods and services to the public for money?