And Economic Freedom for All

The SSM vote numbers are in and the answer is Yes.  And full disclosure, Spartacus voted Yes.

With the numbers in, the rubber needs to hit the road.  There will be the battle of the bills to follow.

There seems to be a lot of talk about protections for religious freedoms, but where is the discussion of economic freedom?  Why, if a pub can have a “no shoes, no shirt, no service sign” and not be deemed to be discriminating, why can’t other businesses decide who they chose to serve or not serve?

Just as a precursor to what may be to come, consider this following scenario from New Mexico, USA.

In August 2013, before same sex marriage was legalised in the US, the Supreme Court of New Mexico upheld a lower court decision that a small, private business called Elane Photography (owned by Elane Huguenin) could not refuse to take photos at a same-sex marriage.  The judgement said:

in the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

There you go.  The price of citizenship in New Mexico included the State forcing businesses to service customers they did not want to.

The US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal for this one, but currently before the US Supreme Court is the matter of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  Yes.  The cake shop that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding that was pursed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  Amazing what happens to rights when civil agencies are tasked with defending them.

This case is not done yet, but interestingly, there was a recent amicus brief (friend of the court) lodged on behalf of 37 large businesses.  Businesses that included Apple, Uber, Intel, Deutsche Bank, American Airlines, Citigroup, Marriott, AirBNB and PWC.  These large businesses were arguing in support of …. correction arguing against the small business exercising its economic and religious freedoms.

Yes.  Interesting times ahead for Australia.  Maybe Spartacus should have gone to law school after all so he could have gotten his snout into this coming stream of lawyerly work.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to And Economic Freedom for All

  1. pbw

    So why, knowing all this, did you vote yes?

  2. A Lurker

    …and knowing all this Spartacus still voted Yes.

    There is a saying that a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  3. I am Spartacus

    Because Spartacus believes that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. It is the ultimate in conservatism. All the other stuff is the mess made by governments and that will need to be cleaned up.

    We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not given to us by the state. We are born with them.

    The right to force a business to serve you is not a right by birth but a load of crap created by the state. Let the state clean up its mess.

  4. FelixKruell

    My libertarian side says go for it – let businesses decide who they will serve. But make them advertise as such so no-one is mislead (on your front door, your website etc). Don’t want to serve gays? Put it on the window. Don’t want to serve white/black/yellow/other people? Put it on the window. The market will soon sort it out.

    In practice though, this would be divisive and messy. Half of Western Sydney would refuse to serve gays/christians/women. In geographically remote areas, this would significantly impact on minorities.

    So on balance, I think this is a reasonable price to pay for running a business – you have to serve everyone. Any restrictions (no shoes/no shirt/no money) should have a clear rationale, and not be targeted at a specific group of people. Which is largely the law we have all lived under for the last few decades. There have been very few court cases on it. Not sure why this issue (SSM) will necessarily lead to an explosion of cases or disputes?

  5. Same Sex Marriage is an oxymoron. Persons of any sex have a right to live as they wish. No one has a right to rubbish a traditional institution by redefiing a word that has (and for many still will) describe the union of two humans of different chromasonal makeup.

  6. Can’t wait for the first SSM to be held in a mosque!

  7. FelixKruell

    Confused:

    describe the union of two humans of different chromasonal makeup.

    I’m so pleased you are supporting intersex people (the I in LGBTI&^$#) getting married to whichever gender they prefer. But I wouldn’t go so far as calling that traditional marriage.

  8. iampeter

    There seems to be a lot of talk about protections for religious freedoms, but where is the discussion of economic freedom? Why, if a pub can have a “no shoes, no shirt, no service sign” and not be deemed to be discriminating, why can’t other businesses decide who they chose to serve or not serve?

    They absolutely can and should discriminate for any reason whatsoever. The issue is that conservatives who have being arguing that their beliefs should be enforced on everyone via the gun of the state now can’t make the argument that the beliefs of others shouldn’t be enforced on them via the gun of the state.

    Hence their appeals to some collectivist notion of “religious freedom” instead of just “freedom”. As the SSM debate demonstrates, they don’t really support freedom.

    To those of us who are consistent individualists, who would no more want a state regulating who a business discriminates against anymore than the state should be able to regulate who can marry who, this is not an issue.

    It’s only an issue for the profoundly confused and self-contradicting conservative movement.

  9. John J

    I would suggest, IAS, that the only right you are born to is to be eaten.

    You’re protein.

    The so-called rights to liberty are all due to a community that suggested we should be nice to each other, recognised property rights and that we all should strive to do the best we could whilst obsvering the first two points.

    I suggest that the normalisation of lifestyles that diminish the realities of life itself are designed to erode the achievements of that community.

    I would further suggest that you should hardly congratulate yourself if you consider the political and community leadership that we have been blessed with during this so called debate.

    And yes I have gay friends, de facto friends and I wasn’t married in a church.

    But my children were christened because we recognised the value that our community has provided. And yes we resorted to IVF but it wasn’t because of a lifestyle choice.

    But even the vicar is now a socialist stooge.

  10. Bruce of Newcastle

    Just for the record Newspoll asked this question not long ago:

    Same-sex marriage must protect religious freedom: Newspoll (August)

    Asked if parliament should provide legal guarantees for freedom of conscience, belief and ­religion if same-sex marriage were legislated, 62 per cent of voters agreed, 18 per cent disagreed, and 20 per cent were uncommitted.

    So the same proportion of the population want “legal guarantees for freedom of conscience, belief and ­religion” as voted yes to same-sex marriage.

    Over to you Parliament of Australia.

  11. bobby b

    “Why, if a pub can have a “no shoes, no shirt, no service sign” and not be deemed to be discriminating, why can’t other businesses decide who they chose to serve or not serve?”

    Because if I am barefoot, I can put on shoes, but if I am gay, I can’t switch to straight? If I am black, I can’t switch to white?

    Not disagreeing with your underlying meaning – I’m all for associational rights – but this argument goes nowhere.

  12. Driftforge

    We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not given to us by the state. We are born with them.

    You do realise this is regime propaganda?

  13. We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not given to us by the state. We are born with them.

    Spartacus, we are born with whatever rights the society we are born into, is prepared to confer on us. No more, no less. Even if you believe in an Omnipotent God, His track record of intervening to protect people’s individual rights has been pretty shambolic the last couple of millennia.

  14. Dr Fred Lenin

    The law trade will be delighted , think of all the SSD s same sex divorces ,nice little earner for them ,wonder if slugs and grubs ,and Morrieblackballs will set up groups to handle them ? Gays are notoriously fickle in their relationships . The u.n.communust wedge is driven deeper into society .

  15. Paul

    So why did the activists pick on that cake shop, when they could easily have gone to the next one and buy what they wanted?
    Next the activists will complain to the discrimination board that the cake wasn’t as good as another cake shops’ product.
    Seems to me that these activists only want to cause trouble.

  16. Confused Old Misfit

    FelixKruell
    #2554222, posted on November 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
    Confused:

    describe the union of two humans of different chromasonal makeup.

    I’m so pleased you are supporting intersex people (the I in LGBTI&^$#) getting married to whichever gender they prefer. But I wouldn’t go so far as calling that traditional marriage.

    To be perfectly clear, (having typed the first post on a tablet, literal accuracy was sacrificed for brevity) no, you should not be pleased. Neither should you nor any person count me as supporting any definition of marriage that is not solely the union of two human beings one of which has one x and one y chromosome in their 23rd chromosome pair and the other which has two x chromosomes in their 23rd chromosome pair.

    Go peddle your alphabet genders in Lakemba!

  17. Linden

    That’s exactly what I was discussing with my partner on the way home tonight, when I see a gay marriage in a mosque, and my partner replied, what about a synagogue? well them too I suppose lol

  18. Linden

    and that one too, as someone said why should all the straight married people have all the misery of a divorce? there will be some lovely dovey hissy fits galore, oh what fun.

  19. Linden

    yeah I remember someone once asking me if I believed in God, I said well if does exist, he has got a lot to answer for, and can you imagine what the press conference would look like if Jesus Christ made his long awaited return,imagine the squabbling among all the media agents.

  20. Tezza

    Maybe Spartacus should have gone to law school? Arguable, but Spartacus certainly should have voted no, since all the evils he enumerated were well known.

  21. Empire GTHO Phase III

    To those of us who are consistent individualists, who would no more want a state regulating who a business discriminates against anymore than the state should be able to regulate who can marry who, this is not an issue.

    So you support the removal of age restricions from the Marriage Act?

  22. Spartacus certainly should have voted no

    Spartacus, like anybody else with more than two functioning brain cells, should have refrained from voting at all. Of all the signs that this country is headed for the dustbin of history, the fact that 80% of the population would give the parliament unfettered permission to pass legislation without even knowing what was in it, is the saddest and most telling of all.

    RIP the Commonwealth of Australia.

  23. candy

    I don’t feel easy about businesses discriminating on the customers they serve and other types of situations.
    Priests, imans, rabbis represent their particular God, a stand-in for God if you like. Unthinkable to force them to marry homosexual couples. But business people can’t claim that. In fact, businesses probably serve all types of customers they may not particularly approve of for whatever reason, but they have to make a living.
    Of course. some Catholic priests will marry gay couples, but they are not actually Catholics, they are the pretend ones.

  24. alexnoaholdmate

    Let’s be quite clear about a few things.

    In none of these cases – the cake shop owner, the photographer, the p*zza place in Indiana that even Obama joked about (“Joe Biden and I are so close that some places in Indiana won’t even serve us pizza”) – in none of these did the owners refuse to serve gays. They’d been serving gays for years. There have been no cases reported of gay people being declined service when they’ve gone to buy bread at a bakery.

    They have been pursued by the state because they declined to cater for a gay wedding. That is, they declined to go out of their way to fulfil a special order because they had religious scruples about the ceremony.

    It isn’t about whether you can be forced to serve gays. No one has declined to do so. It’s about whether the state can force you to cater for – and thus condone – a ceremony to which you have a deep-seated religious or political objection.

  25. Vicki

    Well – I got that wrong.

    I really figured that the strongly conservative beliefs on this issue by ethnic communities and a voting public skewed towards the upper age scale would secure a “No” vote.

    There you go.

  26. alexnoaholdmate

    If the state can therefore force you to cater for a ceremony to which you hold deep-seated objections, under the grounds of anti-discrimination laws – then what next?

    Can an African-American baker be forced to cater for the next meeting of the local chapter of the KKK? After all, these same laws that forbid religious discrimination also forbid political discrimination.

    Can a Christian bakery be forced to cater for a Satanic service? Satanism is a recognised religion, after all – if religious objections are not sufficient to waive anti-discrimination laws, then surely yes. And some of those Satanists are very “lawyerly.” They like setting legal precedents. They’ll be next in court.

  27. alexnoaholdmate
    #2554376, posted on November 15, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    +100 Alex.

    Very important distinction.

  28. Dr Faustus

    As in the case of the various show trials in the US and the UK, the economic and social friction will come from well-funded activists and SJW’s – not from the majority of marrying LSDG&T couples.

    Acceptance without exception: nobody should pretend that SSM sets the limit.

  29. candy

    Very important distinction.

    But how do you prove that distinction. It sounds like a legal minefield to get involved in.
    And activists for sure will try it on, to get a business to deny them so they can claim discrimination. It just sounds too messy and threatening. Just make the cake.

  30. iampeter

    So you support the removal of age restricions from the Marriage Act?

    No I don’t because marrying someone below the age of consent means forcing someone into a situation they literally cannot consent to, which is by definition, a rights violation and should be absolutely illegal.

  31. It just sounds too messy and threatening. Just make the cake.

    If rape inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it, eh Candy?

  32. alexnoaholdmate

    It just sounds too messy and threatening. Just make the cake

    In other words, you feel the state should be able to force you – you, Candy – into participating in events and ceremonies you have genuine objections to?

    That’s the legal issue being debated here – whether the state can do so on the grounds of “anti-discrimination.”

    Not whether you can decline service to gays in your day-to-day business. You already can’t. And nobody in any of the cases has done so. That’s not in question.

  33. Rev. Archibald

    I said well if does exist, he has got a lot to answer for,

    ..
    If you have a problem with creation, I guess you could instantaneously opt out.
    You know, if it all offends you that much.
    I’m sure you will spontaneously come back into existance again in a few trillion years for no particular reason.
    It happened once right?

  34. Rev. Archibald

    Go on… take a punt that next time it will be better.
    If you’re right, what are you hanging around for?

  35. Makka

    yeah I remember someone once asking me if I believed in God, I said well if does exist, he has got a lot to answer for

    Why? He wisely also gave humans a free will so that we can choose between right and wrong or even completely ignore Him. Stalin and Mao , fellow atheists like you, made their own choices to slaughter their fellow man by the millions. See what not believing in God will lead to?

  36. classical_hero

    Since when is sexuality the same as skin colour? There’s no scientific literature that has proved any genetic link, like there’s one for skin colour.

  37. classical_hero

    Peter, does that mean you’re Islamophobic?

  38. rickw

    The SSM vote numbers are in and the answer is Yes. And full disclosure, Spartacus voted Yes.

    You’re a complete fucking idiot.

  39. Siltstone

    And full disclosure, Spartacus voted Yes.

    And fuller disclosure, Spartacus voted Yes knowing that there will be no protections for economic freedom (let alone religious freedom) and then complains about the state of affairs he sought to bring about.

    Good on you Spartacus for posting a lot of Catallaxy, but on this matter you really are all at sea. I would have thought that a more rational position to take would be to say “what business is it of Government to be involved in marriage at all?” Let the Christian curches issue marriage certificates; let the Hindu temples , the mosques, the synagogues issue certificates. And let the homosexual dog lovers society issue marriage certificates. Then the people decide the relative value of these certificates.

  40. Andreas Brown

    I understand the argument. But really it’s about not accepting an “other” as being acceptable. So, if someone is not dressed right at the jewellery shop you can refuse service? Okay but then you have to show on every piece of advertising who you won’t accept. Must be a public school Protestant who myself or my parents know. Is this acceptable?

  41. Rev. Archibald

    You’re a complete fucking idiot

    ..
    They just don’t understand sequences.

  42. Rev. Archibald

    sequins yes, sequences no.

  43. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    This case is not done yet, but interestingly, there was a recent amicus brief (friend of the court) lodged on behalf of 37 large businesses. Businesses that included Apple, Uber, Intel, Deutsche Bank, American Airlines, Citigroup, Marriott, AirBNB and PWC. These large businesses were arguing in support of …. correction arguing against the small business exercising its economic and religious freedoms.

    GOvernment forces any business that it trades with to kowtow to political correctness. It is even in the contracts what government policies you must have and enforce, typically diversity policies and gender equality policies. I have even seen government contract that require policies on aboriginals.

    Forcing business to kowtow to politics should be a criminal offence.

  44. Empire

    To those of us who are consistent individualists, who would no more want a state regulating who a business discriminates against anymore than the state should be able to regulate who can marry who, this is not an issue.

    So you support the removal of age restricions from the Marriage Act?

    No I don’t because marrying someone below the age of consent means forcing someone into a situation they literally cannot consent to, which is by definition, a rights violation and should be absolutely illegal.

    So you support the state regulating who can marry?

  45. I am Spartacus

    You’re a complete fucking idiot.

    Thanks rickw. Perhaps I am a fucking idiot, but I explained my reasoning. You may disagree, but make your case. Use as many 3 and 4 letter words you feel comfortable with. Draw a picture if necessary.

  46. I am Spartacus

    on this matter you really are all at sea

    Thanks Silstone. I agree. This is not perfect and ideally I would prefer to have the Government out of the marriage business. Unfortunately this is not possible because of the relevance of marriage in law and other areas. In essence IMO, marriage is a contract between 2 consenting parties. There are plenty of other contracts between parties that governments endorse for other purposes and contracts they outright reject.

    There is no legislation yet passed so part of my objective is to identify issues so that they may be addressed and debated in advance rather than after.

    Spartacus believes that the better social outcome is with SSM with other issues addressed rather than no SSM and no other issues. The arguments put forward by the against case that we have not seen the legislation and so can’t proceed are utter nonsense IMO. JWH did not present the GST legislation before the election or any other legislation before presenting policy. State your policy goal, draft the legislation, debate it and fix all the problems before passing it. That’s how it should work.

    Perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

  47. rickw

    Thanks rickw. Perhaps I am a fucking idiot, but I explained my reasoning. You may disagree, but make your case. Use as many 3 and 4 letter words you feel comfortable with. Draw a picture if necessary.

    Redefining the meaning of a word by popular vote makes sense?

    Society is built on the unions of men and women, marriages.

    If you can’t see that this is an effort to damage that cornerstone of society, using the Waffen SSM as a spearhead, then you’re not much of a general are you.

  48. Roger

    This is not perfect and ideally I would prefer to have the Government out of the marriage business.

    So you voted yes.

    Face palm.

  49. I am Spartacus

    In your opinion, society is build on the unions of men and women, marriages.

    In my opinion, society is build on the family and marriage is a mechanism to codify the family – irrespective of whether the family has or has not children. Members of the family sacrifice for the other members of the family and society should encourage that and not discourage that.

    The definition of the word is not changing. The application of the contract is being extended.

  50. Helen

    FFS, just make that cake like the shit pie in that movie, if you dont want to bake it.

  51. I am Spartacus

    This is an effort to damage that cornerstone of society

    There are same sex couple effectively married today. There were same sex couples effectively married yesterday. Once the law is changed, all that will happen is that they will have their marriage contract endorsed by the state.

    How is this going to damage society? Please explain.

  52. zyconoclast

    Can’t wait for the first SSM to be held in a mosque!

    I said before, it wont happen.
    They will go to a Catholic church and get the double whammy anti muslim- anti homo lawfare.

  53. Roger

    In my opinion, society is build on the family and marriage is a mechanism to codify the family

    A family is a group of people linked by consanguinity.

    Think about it.

  54. Boambee John

    Just make the cake.

    Perhaps a bit overcooked? Maybe a minor error in the recipe?

  55. iampeter

    So you support the state regulating who can marry?

    I support the state protecting individual rights. Two consenting adults marrying each other is not a rights violation and so there is no role for the state to play.

  56. candy

    How is this going to damage society? Please explain.

    My issue with it has always been the procurement of children into gay marriages, who will never know their biological and cultural beginnings, who they look like, whey they are, any medical problems. Never know a mum or dad, just never now where they came from.
    They are commodities. It’s wrong. Gay marriage will make this “normal” and “regular”. Quite wrong.

  57. Siltstone

    Thanks Silstone. I agree. This is not perfect and ideally I would prefer to have the Government out of the marriage business. Unfortunately this is not possible because of the relevance of marriage in law and other areas.

    Why is it not possible? You voted for an outcome that you explicity admit will restrict the freedom of people running a business and mean that many businesses will be subject to legal sanction. You could have abstained but you did not. You positively decided that this was the best outcome. You can’t now complain Sparticus, you own it.

  58. Confused Old Misfit

    Regardless of how one might feel on about homosexual practices the more terrifying prospect is that the present parliament of Australia will legislate on these matters.
    Given its past record, we, the citizens of this benighted land, can only tremble and cower in fear of the inevitable consequences. It is just not conceivable that they will not screw it up beyond belief.

  59. Mr Black

    This is a very temporary issue. Before too long, babies will be genetically analysed and altered to eliminate a whole host of defects and I am sure homosexuality will be one such defect. In a few generations time, even seeing a gay person will be unusual.

  60. hzhousewife

    I support the separation of Church and State. I think the French way of separate ceremonies for civil and religious celebrations of marriage is useful. I find same-sex marriage distasteful, and would not endure one myself, but I suppose I cannot deny the thrill to others. The ensueing family matters re children and divorce however will surely be an intense minefield of lawyers delight. Good for the economy no doubt.

  61. Norman Church

    It is argued that protecting Christian bakers from being forced against religious beliefs to participate in a SSM ceremony would allow discrimination where it previously was prohibited. This is simply not so. As matters stand, those bakers are lawfully entitled not to participate. As others have already pointed out, refusing to serve any gays simpliciter is a different issue.

    It is the failure to acknowledge this fundamental point that makes the position of the PM and the Commonwealth AG so duplicitous.

  62. Bela Bartok

    Mr Black
    #2554582, posted on November 15, 2017 at 10:17 pm
    This is a very temporary issue. Before too long, babies will be genetically analysed and altered to eliminate a whole host of defects and I am sure homosexuality will be one such defect. In a few generations time, even seeing a gay oops, I mean heterosexual person will be unusual.

    FIFY

  63. Seco

    Hi Spartacus, why is marriage a contract between TWO consenting parties? Why not just one, or three or more? Its now change of meaning to include same sex couples mean anything is okay surely, as long as there is consent? No? And if not why not?

  64. How is this going to damage society? Please explain.

    There was a post on the cat a while ago about how, when the school chaplaincy program was struck down in the High Court in 2014, that progressives had been hoodwinked. They hated religion so much that they campaigned to have it struck down… now realised that their pet programs can and would be defunded too. The federal government was going to find it very difficult to fund programs controlled by state assets.

    IT’s the same with SSM.

    Homosexuals can and should be allowed to marry. Why vote no?

    The government shouldn’t be licensing or giving permission to marry. It should not be using marriage as a vehicle to distribute welfare and handouts at the expense of single taxpayers.

    The libertarians get hoodwinked into supporting SSM forgetting the point above and then wonder why, once it’s in law, it gets weaponised against them. Now you must bake that cake, after the wound was self inflicted.

  65. If you truly want economic freedom for all, perhaps consider that putting political weapons and justification in the hands of those who want to curb it might not be the best idea.

  66. Rev. Archibald

    If you truly want economic freedom for all, perhaps consider that putting political weapons and justification in the hands of those who want to curb it might not be the best idea.

    ..
    Oh no no no.
    These librarians must put their ideological purity above petty matters of actual results and consequences…
    Except when it is about free speech or the right to bear arms or property rights. Then they roll over to practicality every time.
    Librarians.
    Do you get them yet?
    When the shit really hits the fan and the consequences of all their weasely surenders comes to visit us they will simply evaporate.
    Keep that in mind when you discuss matters with the likes of Spasticus. When it matters, he won’t be here

  67. Rev. Archibald

    Libtardians:
    Gay marriage, open borders, drug legalisation- immediate action required to see our ideology triumph.
    Property rights, tax reform, winding back welfare- nah, no urgency. Haven’t got the numbers.
    See a pattern?

  68. Mark A

    memoryvault
    #2554264, posted on November 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm

    We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not given to us by the state. We are born with them.

    Spartacus, we are born with whatever rights the society we are born into, is prepared to confer on us. No more, no less. Even if you believe in an Omnipotent God, His track record of intervening to protect people’s individual rights has been pretty shambolic the last couple of millennia.

    Perfectly right MV. Quoting part of the American constitution is just silly.

  69. 2dogs

    I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

    Which boycotts are banned as the “price of citizenship”, and which are not?

  70. Clam Chowdah

    Because Spartacus believes that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. It is the ultimate in conservatism. All the other stuff is the mess made by governments and that will need to be cleaned up.

    We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not given to us by the state. We are born with them.

    Gay marriage is two clowns pretending to be a viable biological coupling. To say that they have an inalienable right to marry is like saying people have an inalienable right to identify as a person of the opposite sex, or no sex, or alien sex, or as a member of a different ethnicity. It’s a stretch.

    The correct response to all that should be “dude: LOL, whatever”, not “let’s celebrate your niche mental dysphoria!”

    My own mental dysphoria makes me hope against hope that now we have pandered to the fantasy life of of an irritatingly aggressive minority that they will be sufficiently happy to sod off and live their lives so that the important things (such as North Korea and the coming war between Saudi Arabia and Iran) can be the focus of public discourse. For me, this has all been a totally self-indulgent distraction on the part of the elites.

  71. rickw

    Spartacus, I’m not going to waste my time explaining the bleeding obvious to you, it’s impossible to debate completely stupid and gain any ground, besides, you’ve already helped do the damage, you can watch the incessant attacks on ordinary folk unfold from here, churches, those who are married, children.

    You should not be proud of supporting this lunacy.

  72. A Lurker

    You should not be proud of supporting this lunacy.

    Spartacus should be reminded time and again that when our Freedoms are eroded, it was he who helped enable Australia’s journey down the S-bend.

    He is just another of Stalin’s 7.82 million useful idiots in Australia.

  73. We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life …

    If yer mum didn’t abort you,
    and now marriage has become weird,
    and we argue about permitting death to arrive in its own time.
    Life been redefined as a series of sentimental whims.

  74. Diogenes

    The whole concept of marriage has been debased in several ways.
    1. The fact that all marriages, regardless of where held, are a civil ceremony, rather than the religious sacrament which it once was. – Regardless of venue or celebrant the same form of words need to be uttered to make it a legal wedding.
    2. Under family law a couple living as a couple (conjoined finances are a key) for 6 months are legally regarded as a couple. The 6 months can be shortened if there is a child, or the couple register their union (either civilly – or under the Marriage Act)

    For the record I voted no – I followed TAs advice – if you do not understand it, don’t vote for it.

  75. JohnA

    I am Spartacus #2554199, posted on November 15, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    Because Spartacus believes that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. It is the ultimate in conservatism.

    Then your beliefs are against the grain of how this universe was made to operate.
    It is NOT the ultimate in conservatism, but the ultimate in totalitarianism. Changing the law to make unequal things equal is the epitome of Big Brother control and Newspeak redefinition of words.

    It’s the legislative equivalent of Humpty Dumpty in “Through The Looking Glass”. Go down the Wikipedia page past the nursery rhyme stuff for the text of his conversation with Alice.

  76. Driftforge

    Before too long, babies will be genetically analysed and altered to eliminate a whole host of defects and I am sure homosexuality will be one such defect. In a few generations time, even seeing a gay person will be unusual.

    Unlikely. Homosexuality does not have the occurrence characteristics of a genetic condition. Far more likely that people will be able to be immunized against it.

  77. struth

    Wouldn’t be happening if they claimed they were Muslim.

  78. Empire GTHO Phase III

    To those of us who are consistent individualists, who would no more want a state regulating who a business discriminates against anymore than the state should be able to regulate who can marry who, this is not an issue.

    So you support the removal of age restricions from the Marriage Act?

    No I don’t because marrying someone below the age of consent means forcing someone into a situation they literally cannot consent to, which is by definition, a rights violation and should be absolutely illegal.

    So you support the state regulating who can marry?

    I support the state protecting individual rights. Two consenting adults marrying each other is not a rights violation and so there is no role for the state to play.

    Yes would suffice. Thank you for dissembling, as I knew you would.

  79. Rohan

    It is the ultimate in conservatism.

    This is exactly what Tim Wilson told Bolta last night. I fail to see how.

    Conservatives won’t change and trash the traditional meaning of an important social construct in marriage. Conservatives will allow for an equivalent legal standpoint such as civil union in thie case of same sex marriage. Especially since the gay activists don’t or recently didn’t agree with marriage and actively denigrated and ridiculed this institution when they were opposed to it.

    They’re laughing at us.

    And Marxism continues its long march through the institutions.

  80. tgs

    Two consenting adults marrying each other is not a rights violation and so there is no role for the state to play.

    Exactly.

  81. hzhousewife

    For me, this has all been a totally self-indulgent distraction on the part of the elites.

    Exactly. Avoidance strategy to put off doing the yuckky stuff like balance the budget and solve world peace.

  82. Iampeter

    Yes would suffice. Thank you for dissembling, as I knew you would.

    🙁 it’s not dissembling, my post is simply assuming you are not a leftist and have a grasp of entry-level right-wing political concepts like “individual rights” and a “rights protecting government”.

    I don’t blame you though, most professional conservative commentators have zero grasp of this stuff too.

  83. Diogenes

    No I don’t because marrying someone below the age of consent means forcing someone into a situation they literally cannot consent to, which is by definition, a rights violation and should be absolutely illegal.

    And the age of consent is a legally defined construct as well, and is it based on anything other than feelz ?
    eg in some countries it is a low as 13 (there are some lower – but within marriage) and in others 18. What makes our kids (16) so different from Japan(18).

  84. Stimpson J. Cat

    Before too long, babies will be genetically analysed and altered to eliminate a whole host of defects and I am sure homosexuality will be one such defect. In a few generations time, even seeing a gay person will be unusual.

    This is true.
    Enjoy my entertaining mental illness while it lasts.
    Soon we will all be gone, and only sane people will exist.

  85. Ez

    The definition of the word is not changing.

    Explain this then Spartacus:

    Schedule 1—Amendment of the Marriage Act 1961

    1 Subsection 5(1)
    Insert:
    marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

    How do homosexuals ‘marry’ (in the eyes of the law) without a change to the definition of this word?

  86. Awake

    IAS: We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Seriuosly, IAS. What have those got to do with SSM Certificate. Heterosexual Marriage is more than a piece of paper. If we all are into homo sex, it’s going to be the end of homo sapiens. You need sperm and egg to make a human.

    We are not worms which can reproduce by asexual means.

    That you voted , yes, IAS, and then complain about what the consequences might be was not being too smart on your part.

    SSM is a sham. Biologically there’s no union; concave to concave, convex to convex. Doing hetero sex is objectively messy with SS it’s rather more messy. Sex with SS causes no reproduction, no consequence so objectively exclusivity is foreign principle to this SS union. The first SS couple in the U.S. to marry, divorced after just a little over 2 years.

  87. Awake

    Businesses should just be practical, you don’t want to get bog down with lawsuits which surely will affect your wallet, time and health.

    Pubs can emphasize acceptable behaviour for clients while in the premises. Just like you can approach a parent to manage their shrieking baby.

    Photographers should first ask the names of couple or let them fill up a form then say they will check their booking and call them later and then just make excuses, they’re sick, fully booked, or attending a funeral. One might say the transgender could have changed name, we just have to accept there are always risk in everything. If you are seriously religious then pray to God to cleanse you for attending that sh–ty function. joking here.

    Seriously though, the” no groups” should work with the parliamentarians to counteract the effect of that sham SSM by emphasizing freedom of religious conscience.

    It’s a sad day for sane Australia

  88. Awake

    I’m on gab.ai and one poster said: The only time parlaiment & the rats on both sides have squealed how they will get the job done fast is on this issue. How about real things like debt, usury, (banking??, ha, ha, my note) crime, illegals but no, bipartisan on this one thing. Govt is enemy.

    I agree.

    From the site of Marriage Alliance: While the consequences of redefining marriage have in fact not been given the necessary attention in public discourse, a significant part of the same-sex marriage lobby’s argument has been overrepresented: recently released census data shows that just 0.38 per cent of Australia’s population are in same-sex relationships. In other words, the percentage of Australian society that has the most to gain by legalising same-sex marriage is less than half of one-percent.

  89. Awake

    Part of the blame should be leveled on the education sector. The education sector should be straightened out, turned upside down, inside out. I’m guessing many young people voted yes.

  90. Awake

    That’s it for me, for now. Obvious, I’m annoyed.

  91. Kneel

    ” Just make the cake.”

    Or…
    “You can buy off the shelf, or you can ask for a quote on custom – here just fill out this form, stating EXACTLY what you want, any variations require a new quote, no exceptions.”

    “Oh – yes, no problem sir, we can make you a custom wedding cake for you and your husband-to-be. Alas, due the the customisation required, this will cost $500,000 and can not be delivered before 23rd January, 2073. All orders require 20% deposit, non-refundable, cash only. Would you like to me to place the order in our books? I can place the order right now, if you like…”

    Simples.

  92. max

    “We are born with certain inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    The pursuit of happiness is open-ended and non-specific.

    Protection of all three — life, liberty, property — is guaranteed in writing by the United States Constitution. This guarantee appears in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. It has proven as reliable as other government guarantees of its own performance.

    Bastiat wrote in The Law, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/1380.cfm

  93. EvilElvis

    Less than 2% of the population. How’s about sorting out taxation, the ABC, the fucking public service in general. That affects at least 50% of us…

  94. Empire GTHO Phase III

    🙁 it’s not dissembling, my post is simply assuming you are not a leftist and have a grasp of entry-level right-wing political concepts like “individual rights” and a “rights protecting government”.

    More dissembling.

    You claimed to oppose the state regulating who can marry, then you changed your mind. You do support the state regulating who can marry. You also support the state defining what marriage actually means, despite the institution having been established and defined without state intervention for millenia.

    Your position is incongruent with entry-level right-wing political concepts.

    I don’t blame you though, most professional conservative commentators have zero grasp of this stuff too.

    No argument there, but then I’m not a conservative. You seem to have a good grasp of theoretical constructs of individualist utopia. I’m yet to see any evidence of practical understanding of how we arrived at the current state or how the present trajectory towards Orwellian totalitarianism might be reversed.

  95. Aristogeiton

    rickw
    #2554460, posted on November 15, 2017 at 8:19 pm
    […]
    You’re a complete fucking idiot.

    Second.

  96. Empire

    Ari

    Where you bin? I haven’t seen you round these parts for some time.

  97. hzhousewife

    Heterosexual Marriage is more than a piece of paper.

    Lovely young lass I work with ‘fessed she voted Yes, commented that everyone should be able to have a wedding. I replied that a marriage was much more than just a wedding. Then I asked her if she would go to her gay friend’s third wedding for example, she agreed that would be a bit much. We looked at a few statistics, and I was surprised to discover that more lesbian marriages end in divorce. We felt that perhaps that was because fewer pairs of blokes actually fronted up to the alter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *