• Aus: Same Sex Marriage Bills announced (Both aren't great...)
    19 replies, posted
[quote]THE Yes campaign has critcised a new gay marriage bill that would allow businesses to refuse to provide services for a same-sex wedding. “This is not a marriage equality bill,” The Equality Campaign’s Anna Brown said. “It’s about enshrining discrimination and taking Australia back decades.” “Australians are voting to make our country a fairer and more equal place, not to take us back to a time where people can be denied service at a shop. “We are confident that the majority of parliamentarians are sensible and will see this for what it is and not wind Australia back decades. “Australians have voted for equality, not more discrimination. Australians believe in a fair go for all – this Bill goes completely against what people have voted for.” Under the bill, businesses will be able to claim “conscientious objection” and refuse to provide services for a gay couple’s wedding under a new bill to legalise same-sex marriage. Ministers of religion and celebrants that object to gay marriage would also be able to refuse to preside over a wedding if it went against their beliefs under the new bill released by conservative MPs today. It would also introduce a Safe Schools clause that would allow parents to pull their children out of classes that conflicted with their values, introduce freedom of speech protections for people who spoke out against gay marriage, and introduce an “anti-detriment clause” that would prevent government authorities from taking legal action against an individual “with a traditional view of marriage”. Non-government organisations, businesses, or individuals would be still be able to take legal action, however. It’s understood the new bill would override state and territory anti-discrimination laws. Australia’s peak legal advisory body has also blasted the new bill to legalise gay marriage as an “extraordinary and perilous” winding back of the nation’s anti-discrimination laws. Law Council of Australia President Fiona McLeod SC said the bill would take Australia into “uncharted waters”. “You could potentially see a situation where a hire car company could leave their customers stranded on the way to a marriage ceremony simply because the driver held a thought or belief against it. This is even if the belief had nothing to do with religion,” Ms McLeod said. Ms McLeod said senator Dean Smith’s bill already provided protections for freedom of religious expression in the context of marriage and was “a reasonable compromise”. “While the Law Council does not endorse every detail of the Smith Bill it represents a better balance from a human rights perspective and represents greater fairness, including those affected by winding back anti-discrimination laws.” [/quote] [url]http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/conservatives-mps-samesex-marriage-bill-to-override-antidiscrimination-laws/news-story/8c5e902aa8374ddacd5b432a73e9866a[/url] Dean Smith's Bill is mentioned in the Source, I'd highly recommend looking at that as well.
the sooner the coalition government fucks off the better, in literally all cases
I honestly thought Australia was better than this way of thinking.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;52885257]I honestly thought Australia was better than this way of thinking.[/QUOTE] lol this country is full of backwards bogan dickheads.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/KbsZo7u.png[/img] I pulled this from the LDP Facebook page. I agree with it in principle. If religious people want to right to discriminate against gay marriages then gay celebrants should be allowed to discriminate against straight weddings. Why should religious loonies get special discrimination powers?
Nobody should have rights to discriminate against either.
[QUOTE=helifreak;52885371]Nobody should have rights to discriminate against either.[/QUOTE] So if someone decides they want to specialise in gay weddings they can't?
[QUOTE=download;52885383]So if someone decides they want to specialise in gay weddings they can't?[/QUOTE] I fail to see how there's enough difference present to specialize in it to begin with. Literally the only difference is the bride has a Y chromosome. That's it. Or, optionally, the Groom lacks one. There ya go. There's not enough meat on that carcass to warrant specialization.
[QUOTE=download;52885383]So if someone decides they want to specialise in gay weddings they can't?[/QUOTE] By "specialise in gay weddings" I suppose you mean to "refuse straight weddings". That isn't the same thing.
[QUOTE=download;52885383]So if someone decides they want to specialise in gay weddings they can't?[/QUOTE] What specialization can that be? I don't think homosexual weddings are much different than straight weddings, if they're at all different. Also, no, they can't.
what is so fucking hard about this? "two people may legally be married." thats it, thats all you need. all the other stuff should be covered by anti discrimination laws already and anyone who has an issue take it to court, no business or religion needs special protections because the state should not be able to force a religious marriage
I wonder if any no voters are gonna show up here again. They were weirdly amusing in previous threads.
The paterson bill is a chunk of bullshit designed to make sure bigots still feel comfortable discriminating Honestly at this point I hope they get mired in arguments about the bill, then ousted early and Labor can put through a way better bill because the whole party actually supports it at least [editline]14th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=download;52885360][img]https://i.imgur.com/KbsZo7u.png[/img] I pulled this from the LDP Facebook page. I agree with it in principle. If religious people want to right to discriminate against gay marriages then gay celebrants should be allowed to discriminate against straight weddings. Why should religious loonies get special discrimination powers?[/QUOTE] Honestly, its a false equivalence to say that gay celebrants discriminating against straight weddings will have anywhere near the effect or the significance of the opposite. It's equal in name only. It's skewed if you introduce literally every other consideration that exists. There should just be a bill that doesn't introduce further religious protections. We don't need them - quite a few already exist and sorry but if you run a business, your religion is separate from your business. You [I]already[/I] can't discriminate based on race, sex, etc. LGBT people shouldn't have it any differently to that, otherwise what the hell are we doing this all for? It's not about getting marriage equality, its about getting actual equality and all these religious protection arguments are just attempts to stall and kick the can down the road. Religions do not need to be protected in Australia currently. [editline]14th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=download;52885383]So if someone decides they want to specialise in gay weddings they can't?[/QUOTE] They can specialise, but they can't refuse service to straight celebrants.
Lmao a safe school clause. as it it wasn't obvious enough they're not talking about SSM but having to put up with the gays in general. Im sorry fuckos turns out you cant catch the gay by just talking about it so nut up and deal with it you princesses
God I hate this country sometimes. My bf and I don't even [I]want[/I] to get married, but legally allowing shithead bigots to feel justified in their hatred!? What the actual [I]fuck!?[/I] I mean, what is even the motivation for this shite? It sure as hell isn't about "freedom". Is our government run by fucking children or something!? Do these people think gay folk have cooties? Are they honestly that far up their own asses that it's [I]imperative[/I] for them to stop people they've never met and likely never will meet from enjoying life together? Christ on a motherfucking bike, fuck these dim-witted, regressive, prehistoric shit sacks!
[QUOTE=Ona;52888264]God I hate this country sometimes. My bf and I don't even [I]want[/I] to get married, but legally allowing shithead bigots to feel justified in their hatred!? What the actual [I]fuck!?[/I] I mean, what is even the motivation for this shite? It sure as hell isn't about "freedom". Is our government run by fucking children or something!? Do these people think gay folk have cooties? Are they honestly that far up their own asses that it's [I]imperative[/I] for them to stop people they've never met and likely never will meet from enjoying life together? Christ on a motherfucking bike, fuck these dim-witted, regressive, prehistoric shit sacks![/QUOTE] Yes, yes and yes to all of your questions
I'm so glad this is coming to a close, if I hear any more I'm going to fucking off myself Just change the law no more questions let's just leave it behind and just get on with it
[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52888532]I'm so glad this is coming to a close, if I hear any more I'm going to fucking off myself Just change the law no more questions let's just leave it behind and just get on with it[/QUOTE] For once I agree with you. The vote's done, it'll hopefully pass, if it does, just change the marriage act to say marriage is between two consenting adults, done and done. No more bullshit, none of this trying to change other stuff with it, just amend that one fucking line and let everyone move on with their lives.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;52885441]By "specialise in gay weddings" I suppose you mean to "refuse straight weddings". That isn't the same thing.[/QUOTE] if they arn't, then you just gave an out to those who don't want to support homosexual weddings by allowing them to say they only specialize in heterosexual weddings.
Australia says yes OK now pass it and stop talking about it Can't wait for the bigoted shitstorm.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.