Carpe diem

This interesting story caught my eye:

WITHIN hours of the same-sex marriage announcement on Wednesday, an outspoken No voter who owns a beauty salon in Perth was floored by a gay wedding request.

Belinda received a booking inquiry on her salon’s Facebook page from gay couple Brad and Chris for “a full body wax to make our honeymoon extra special”.

“My partner Chris and I have started planning our big day for Jan now the vote thing is over, So excited!”

 Belinda, who is afraid to use her real name, is certain she is being trolled by gay activists.

“It’s not genuine. They know I’m an active No voter and they think they can goad me…

“Are they going to turn up at the shop tomorrow? Where do I stand now if there are people out there deliberately trying to force me to participate in gay weddings?”

Yes. Well. What to make of this request? First of all why would anyone care why people would want to have a full body wax? Does Belinda’s business offer that service or not? Given that she now knows its for a wedding she should charge a wedding premium for the service. All other caterers seem to do so.

Nobody is forcing her to participate in anything – just do your job. Run your business. Mind your own business.

Then, of course, we have to wonder how smart all of the individuals mentioned in this story really are.

Who would invite someone who they think loathes them to pour hot wax onto their body and rip their hair out by its follicles?

Who would pass up the opportunity to pour hot wax onto somebody they loathe and rip their hair out by the follicles?

This entry was posted in Libertarians don't live by argument alone. Bookmark the permalink.

137 Responses to Carpe diem

  1. rickw

    The waffen ssm pivots on to the next objective, harassing anyone who had the temerity to vote NO.

  2. Hugh

    What makes you think Belinda loathes ssmers?

    Just because X doesn’t want to co-operate to any degree in Y’s immoral lifestyle (to X) doesn’t mean X loathes Y.

    Jesus didn’t loathe sinners. To the contrary.

  3. .

    No one is thinking this through. If it is intentional trolling and not a genuine customer enquiry, it could breach of the SDA under section 28A.

  4. Sinclair Davidson

    Jesus didn’t loathe sinners. To the contrary.

    I’m under the impression that sinners go to hell when they die.

  5. Like Sinc says, just charge a premium and make it an extra painful wax.
    The difference between a baked, decorated cake or arranged flowers and body waxing is that decorations and arrangements are forms of ART. No one can force anyone to perform their art for them.

    Wax ’em, wax ’em good n hard.

    p.s. to all the activist pinko trolls out there. Go copulate yourselves you trouble making pricks.

  6. Sinclair Davidson
    #2558350, posted on November 19, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    Jesus didn’t loathe sinners. To the contrary.

    I’m under the impression that sinners go to hell when they die.

    Not if they repent. If the sinner is rich, a payment to the Vatican guarantees entry to Heaven.

  7. I’m under the impression that sinners go to hell when they die.

    Sinners have the chance to repent their sins, those who choose otherwise will be judged at the gates of St Peter.

  8. Hugh

    Not because Jesus loathes them, though – He loves them, but respects their free choice. No-one’s in hell that doesn’t want to be there.

  9. Michel Lasouris

    I like the idea of creating the very best gay wedding cake you can imagine and then lacing it with something really awful.

  10. So 2 guys who obviously supported the homo hoedown deliberatley target a business that they know has a different point of view.

    What they want is to be refused service so they can go the full victim retard, sure they are probably trolling but i see a subtle yet implied threat.

  11. calli

    Belinda should give them the full treatment. Slowly and heartily. 😃

    Colossians 3:23

  12. Infidel Tiger

    I’m under the impression that sinners go to hell when they die.

    Only the ones who don’t ask Jesus to be their life partner.

  13. .

    Carpe – if it is trolling, I believe it is a breach of the SDA.

  14. Sinclair Davidson

    Not because Jesus loathes them, though – He loves them, but respects their free choice.

    Yes. Yes. “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you”. Blah. Blah. Blah. I’m calling bullshit on the passive aggressive blackmailer.

  15. hzhousewife

    Belinda should require a very hefty booking fee up front, non-refundable.

  16. James of the Glens

    “Jesus didn’t loathe sinners. To the contrary.”

    Why is the rest of the discussion he had about sin always omitted by these sudden quoters of Jesus?
    He concluded by issuing the caveat,
    “Go, and sin no more”.

  17. Infidel Tiger

    A better question is why would homosexuals want to be married?

    It makes no sense unless their intent is to destroy the institution.

  18. James of the Glens

    “Not because Jesus loathes them, though – He loves them, but respects their free choice”.

    So the caveat mentioned above is a directive to allow them to keep making the sinful choice, is it? Bullshit.

  19. .
    #2558373, posted on November 19, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    Carpe – if it is trolling, I believe it is a breach of the SDA.

    How so Dot, Just curious and would appreciate any insight you have.

  20. Sinclair Davidson

    It makes no sense unless their intent is to destroy the institution.

    Precisely how are they going to do this?

  21. stackja

    ALP lawyers created a gold field.

  22. hzhousewife

    Once only in 22 years at the business I work in have I personally had an unreasonable customer. Her eyes lit upon a discounted item, but she demanded a greater discount, below which I was unauthourised to allow. Her argument escalated loudly to an unreasonable extent such that other customers noticed. I then informed her quietlyand informatively, that the item was no longer for sale, and removed it and myself out the back to the store-room. That was that.
    In service industries like hairdressers and beauty salons, I’m sure that over time they have customers that they would rather not see come back ever again. These can be handled by a discriminating appointment system. Different if you are Bunnings and have to take all sorts- hence the average customer service from cheesed off staff.

  23. .

    Carpe.

    Here is section 28A of the SDA.

    Some might say it is drawing a long bow, but in this particular case, the details are relevant to the broad scope of all factors a reasonable person would consider or anticipate forms harassment or intimidation.

    Now, of course, it might get knocked down, but the factors are very wide and even bringing it up as a matter might cool the enthusiasm of eager trolling.

    28A Meaning of sexual harassment
    (1) For the purposes of this Division, a person sexually harasses another person (the person harassed) if: (a) the person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the person harassed; or (b) engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the person harassed; in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated the possibility that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.

    (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the circumstances to be taken into account include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) the sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, religious belief, race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, of the person harassed; (b) the relationship between the person harassed and the person who made the advance or request or who engaged in the conduct; (c) any disability of the person harassed; (d) any other relevant circumstance.

    (2) In this section: conduct of a sexual nature includes making a statement of a sexual nature to a person, or in the presence of a person, whether the statement is made orally or in writing.

  24. Precisely how are they going to do this?

    Exhibit A: TimSoupandaSarni

    Exhibit B: AHRC

  25. stackja

    Liberty Quote
    A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.

    — Friedrich von Hayek

  26. hzhousewife

    A better question is why would homosexuals want to be married?

    A lot of them don’t.

    Lovely ex-Army bloke I know told me he voted Yes because his brother is gay and he felt gays should be allowed to marry if they want to. He then added that both his gay brother, and the brother’s partner (together 30 years ), voted No, because they did not feel as though marriage was the “right” thing to do ! All these people ar over 60 yrs old. Go figure !

  27. alexnoaholdmate

    Again – as I wrote on a previous thread, no one is talking about denying services to gay people. If we are going to have anti-discrimination laws, then that is a perfect breach of them. But we have those laws already.

    Where extra protection is required is when a gay person expects someone to go out of their way in order to take part in a ceremony they have deep-seated objections to. Selling cakes to gays in the ordinary way of business, fine. If someone thinks they can refuse to serve gays there, book em and cook em.

    But being expected to cater a gay wedding that you have a religious objection to? Or, twisting it around another way – a devout Christian being expected to cater for a Satanist ceremony? The state should be able to force you to do such a thing?

    These are what the cases before the Supreme Court in the US are about, and these are what the focus needs to be on here when we’re talking about protections.

    No one is saying a cake shop owner should be allowed to refuse to serve gays – ordinary anti-discrimination laws can take care of that already – and none of the cases in the spotlight are about that.

  28. rickw

    It makes no sense unless their intent is to destroy the institution.

    Precisely how are they going to do this?

    They’ve already done damage by having depraved buggery centred “relationships” jammed in with normal heterosexual relationships.

  29. Hugh

    He concluded by issuing the caveat,
    “Go, and sin no more”.

    Yep: He hates sin, not the sinner. Tells the woman not to sin any more so she doesn’t wreck herself. That’s love. Parents do it, every day. Well, loving parents, anyway.

  30. .
    #2558396, posted on November 19, 2017 at 7:36 pm

    Carpe.

    Here is section 28A of the SDA.

    Many thanks, very interesting.

  31. alexnoaholdmate

    Also – is Carpe okay, Sinc, with you commandeering his first name for the thread title?

  32. Fisky

    Ruthless enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is the next big cause for all Facebook “libertarians”.

  33. Alexi the Conservative Russian

    If the ‘beauty salon’ has provided this service in the past then surely they should do so for this homosexual couple. If they have not then they can refuse to do so as my local Thai Massage parlour does in stressing they only do females so as to avoid the seekers of extra services! If these trolls wish to pursue this issue then they will end up forcing female only services to open up to others or should I say Liquid individuals. Perhaps there will be a law suit against the female only gyms. The mind boggles!!

  34. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Sinclair Davidson at 7:06 pm:

    ” Jesus didn’t loathe sinners. To the contrary.

    I’m under the impression that sinners go to hell when they die.

    The risk of this happening may be ameliorated by eating seafood on a Friday. Father Jack told us so back in about 1959. I’ve followed that advice religiously since then and I reckon I’ve collected near enough dockets to slip through unnoticed.

  35. The risk of this happening may be ameliorated by eating seafood on a Friday. Father Jack told us so back in about 1959. I’ve followed that advice religiously since then and I reckon I’ve collected near enough dockets to slip through unnoticed.

    You forgot the bits about Omnipresent and Omniscient

  36. Oh come on

    WTF? A beauty salon doesn’t get booked to do full body waxes for weddings. In this situation it’s a case of either being willing to serve gays or not being willing to – and yes I do think you should be allowed to refuse gay people service simply because they’re gay. It’s a really dumb way to run a business and anyone who turns perfectly good customers away is just that much more likely to go broke, and be susceptible to the boycott of people who disapprove of your anti-gay stance. That’s perfectly reasonable. (Incidentally, why is a customer free to refuse to spend their money at a shop for whatever reason they like, while a shopkeeper does not have this same freedom to refuse to trade?)

    So I don’t know why you wouldn’t welcome such customers with open arms. Insist on a large deposit to hold the booking.

  37. alexnoaholdmate

    If the ‘beauty salon’ has provided this service in the past then surely they should do so for this homosexual couple.

    Yes. They should. This is a beat-up. Anyone who would deny their ordinary business to someone on the grounds of their sexuality needs to pull their head in.

    Where protections are needed are for when the homosexual couple demands participation in a ceremony that the supplier has a deep-seated objection to – such as catering a gay wedding, for example.

    When these anti-discrimination issues have arisen in the US, the Supreme Court over there has ruled that expecting someone to cater for a service can imply the condoning of that service (though that ruling was not about gay marriage in particular, as that institution did not exist at the time).

    It is for this reason I expect the Supreme Court over there will rule that freedom of religion means the state cannot compel someone to cater for a gay wedding. And it is these kinds of legal protections that need to be enacted here.

  38. Huh? Exactly which part of a wedding ceremony requires a “full body wax”?

    This doesn’t even pass the smell test.

  39. Hugh

    “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you”. Blah. Blah. Blah.

    Sinc, if you see Jesus/Christian God as the quintessential 19th century sadistic British schoolmaster, then fair enough. I respectfully but hotly disagree with that image and am prepared to debate.

    But the broader point is: you can absolutely oppose tooth and nail someone’s lifestyle choices down to shutting down, if necessary, all relations with them, commercial or otherwise, but yet still be loving them: ie, wishing their good and hoping (to God) they’ll come to their senses.

  40. Oh come on

    The fact is that prominent No businesses are going to be bombarded with gay rights activists placing frivolous test bookings that they have no intention of proceeding with. This makes it necessary for businesses who think they might be the target of such phony bookings to adjust their booking procedures to require a non-refundable deposit to make bookings. These activists are imposing an additional cost on businesses with their crusade. That cost will inevitably be passed onto customers.

  41. alexnoaholdmate

    But the broader point is: you can absolutely oppose tooth and nail someone’s lifestyle choices down to shutting down, if necessary, all relations with them, commercial or otherwise, but yet still be loving them: ie, wishing their good and hoping (to God) they’ll come to their senses.

    “Hate the sin, love the sinner” – in the words of St Augustine.

    (Then again he also wrote that women should be “segregated from men, as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections.” So I don’t know…)

  42. Sinclair Davidson

    you can absolutely oppose tooth and nail someone’s lifestyle choices down to shutting down, if necessary, all relations with them, commercial or otherwise, but yet still be loving them

    Yes – in principle that is true, but I suspect most people do not fall into that category. So I’m happy to deal with them on an exception basis.

  43. Hugh

    Yes – in principle that is true, but I suspect most people do not fall into that category. So I’m happy to deal with them on an exception basis.

    Agreed, in spades. Cheers.

  44. Infidel Tiger

    Yes. They should. This is a beat-up. Anyone who would deny their ordinary business to someone on the grounds of their sexuality needs to pull their head in.

    Do they? If we take individual rights and freedom of choice to their limits then we should all be able to discriminate against whoever we want.

    Apparently their are arbitrary limits on rights though. In fact for 5 Millenia homosexuals knew full well they could never marry each other and accepted it.

    All you really need those is a catchy campaign. “Rights are right”

  45. Oh come on

    Personally, I think businesses in the wedding trade that have moral objections to SSM need to be a bit cleverer about how they deal with bookings for SSM functions if there are no legal protections for their stance in place. So accept the booking but impose a hefty booking fee if you think it’s a phony test booking. Or say yes, then a month or two out from the big day say no, terribly sorry, my mother’s hip replacement surgery is on that day and I really can’t cater for you, however these wonderful competitors of mine will look after you brilliantly, all the best for your big day, God bless!

  46. If the salon doesn’t already do full body waxing, then there’s no reason why they should start now – no matter who asks them to.

    If they already don’t do body waxing for males (regardless of sexual orientation) then there’s no reason why they should start to now – no matter who asks them.

    If, as a female, she is uncomfortable waxing the more intimate parts of a male body – regardless of the sexual orientation of the person asking for the service – then she should be under no obligation to do so.

    If, as a beauty therapist, she is already uncomfortable waxing the more intimate body parts of any potential customer, then she should not have to – regardless of who is asking.

    Surely, with such an intimate service, any person has the right to decline – regardless of who is asking.

    To try or to actually force, by some act of legislation or court action, a person to provide such a service against their will is some form of sexual assault, or at least a sexually driven insult and intentionally demeaning.
    And we all know how much the lefties hate sexual assault…….. especially against wymminses.

    Besides, as mentioned already – hot wax, sensitive areas, hair follicles, and an unwilling party to the activity ……..

  47. The article imo deliberately ignores the impact if this is the start of a homo trend. Whether it’s about gloating in a bitch sort of way or putting a person on the spot, it is not becoming if the story is true. If it is aggressively taking on social mores as part of an agenda, people will react.

  48. Oh come on

    Just throwing down a ‘no I don’t want your business as I am morally opposed to catering your SSM’ is just going to attract unnecessary negative attention. You can get an outcome that sits comfortably with your morality but you need to be a bit more subtle about it.

  49. Roger

    Who would invite someone who they think loathes them to pour hot wax onto their body and rip their hair out by its follicles?

    No voters don’t necessarily loathe homosexuals, Sinclair.

  50. BorisG

    Or say yes, then a month or two out from the big day say no, terribly sorry, my mother’s hip replacement surgery is on that day and I really can’t cater for you, however these wonderful competitors of mine will look after you brilliantly, all the best for your big day

    This will inconvenience innocuous bookers, not malicious ones. Those will go to great length to find out if there is indeed a surgery on that day etc.

    Real gays really wanting to marry would try to avoid businesses that are known to be hostile to the idea. Only extreme activists will want to test you etc.

  51. Fisky

    The article imo deliberately ignores the impact if this is the start of a homo trend. Whether it’s about gloating in a bitch sort of way or putting a person on the spot, it is not becoming if the story is true. If it is aggressively taking on social mores as part of an agenda, people will react.

    Of course that’s what it’s about. The only reason any gay couple would be demanding services from a prominent “No” supporter is with a mind to suing them.

  52. BorisG

    No voters don’t necessarily loathe homosexuals, Sinclair.

    No but they may loathe those who deliberately try to provoke them

  53. Oh come on

    Real gays really wanting to marry would try to avoid businesses that are known to be hostile to the idea. Only extreme activists will want to test you etc.

    Borry, the mother’s hip replacement was a flippant example. Obviously you cancel on them before they put any serious effort into planning. And you can cancel for any number of sound reasons.

    All in all, it would be better for innocuous bookers if business owners were free to be honest about their moral aversion to catering SSMs, so that affected couples can waste a minimum amount of time on a business that doesn’t want to take their money and move on to one of the vast number of businesses that do.

  54. Infidel Tiger

    Just throwing down a ‘no I don’t want your business as I am morally opposed to catering your SSM’ is just going to attract unnecessary negative attention. You can get an outcome that sits comfortably with your morality but you need to be a bit more subtle about it.

    Why does a shopkeep have to serve whoever asks?

    How was Alan Joyce able to ban a delightful a old man who liked pies from a publicly listed airline?

    Would we make a Jewish baker make a celebratory cake to commemorate Hitler’s election? Just something tasteful like a nice sponge with the gates of Auschwitz on it.

    It appears we can discriminate but only if we correctly choose our team.

  55. Tim Neilson

    (Incidentally, why is a customer free to refuse to spend their money at a shop for whatever reason they like, while a shopkeeper does not have this same freedom to refuse to trade?)

    This is the key question.

    Sinc?

  56. I wonder if such a deliberately targeted request might constitute entrapment?

  57. Infidel Tiger

    Why does a shopkeep have to serve whoever asks?

    How was Alan Joyce able to ban a delightful a old man who liked pies from a publicly listed airline?

    Would we make a Je w ish baker make a celebratory cake to commemorate Hitler’s election? Just something tasteful like a nice sponge with the gates of Auschwitz on it.

    It appears we can discriminate but only if we correctly choose our team.

  58. .

    Fisky
    #2558410, posted on November 19, 2017 at 7:42 pm
    Ruthless enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is the next big cause for all Facebook “libertarians”.

    When god gives you lemons…you make lemonade…or find a new god.

  59. Oh come on

    The article imo deliberately ignores the impact if this is the start of a homo trend

    I doubt it will last long. Businesses will start imposing prohibitive costs on timewasters pretty quickly if they start to proliferate.

  60. BorisG

    Obviously you cancel on them before they put any serious effort into planning.

    Again you are confusing genuine gay couples with activists. We should assume at the outset that those making a request to a business known to be opposed to SSM are activists whose main aim is not to marry but to harass that business. Hence their planning is a strategy of harassment. Your strategy needs to counter that strategy.

  61. Oh come on

    Why does a shopkeep have to serve whoever asks?

    I agree with you, as I indicated above. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look as though what we think is right is going to be enacted any time soon. So I think people running businesses with genuine moral objections to SSM need to adapt or be litigated into oblivion.

  62. Viva

    Brad and Chris were a sorry case
    whose bikini lines wandered all over the place
    They said “We want a Brazilian
    We’ll pay you a million
    to match up our crotch with our face”

  63. Fisky

    Would we make a Je w ish baker make a celebratory cake to commemorate Hitler’s election? Just something tasteful like a nice sponge with the gates of Auschwitz on it.

    I’m thinking about claiming my birthday is 1 April 1988 (I could pass as this young) and go round the J-wish bakers demanding a cake with “1488” on it, with little Pepe the Frog candles. If they don’t comply, they are being very racist and must be shut down!

  64. Roger

    No but they may loathe those who deliberately try to provoke them

    But then it is the provocation that is loathsome.

  65. Oh come on

    Borry, so you don’t consider my suggestion of prohibitively high non-refundable deposits a decent way to scare off the time-wasters? If these people are going to go nuts placing phony bookings in the hope of getting a knock-back, then it’s a perfectly reasonable measure for a business to take even if its owners are perfectly happy to cater a SSM function.

  66. stackja

    Left have much money to create any circumstance to counter evasion of their strategy to exact complete obedience to control.

  67. .

    Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.

    Geez. Talk about your white knighting!

  68. Sinclair Davidson

    Incidentally, why is a customer free to refuse to spend their money at a shop for whatever reason they like, while a shopkeeper does not have this same freedom to refuse to trade?

    Asymmetry is a bitch.

  69. Carpe Jugulum = Carpe Diem

    Diem is sort of the Bastard red haired step child i never wanted.

    Just wanted to clear that up

  70. Oh come on

    Left have much money to create any circumstance to counter evasion of their strategy to exact complete obedience to control.

    Hrm. You say:

    Of course we’ll cater your wedding but we need you to pay a 25% deposit which is non-transferable and will be forfeited if you call off the wedding – as a number of couples recently have been doing this for some reason, no idea why!

    So they either walk away then or they pay up and cancel later and you keep the money. I suppose they might go to the extent of actually following through with the phony marriage but they could only do that very infrequently.

  71. Linden

    I would bring out a couple of Bolivian gorillas, you know the type the ones that smoke big cigars rotten teeth and have lots of spital stains of their forever worn tee shirt, and have them do it,

  72. alexnoaholdmate

    Of course we’ll cater your wedding but we need you to pay a 25% deposit which is non-transferable and will be forfeited if you call off the wedding – as a number of couples recently have been doing this for some reason, no idea why!

    In that case, you are acting dishonestly, and leaving yourself open to a very big legal fight when it’s found out that you’re only charging gay couples the twenty-five percent deposit – the very legal stoush you’re doing this to avoid in the first place…

    … or you have to charge the twenty-five percent to everyone, and there goes your business.

  73. OneWorldGovernment

    So when I set up a chain of LGBTIQ shops and ‘churches’ around Australia I will make a fortune?

  74. TP

    Charge them $3 grand each & throw in HR free 🖐🏼🖐🏼

  75. Rayvic

    “”A better question is why would homosexuals want to be married?”

    A lot of them don’t.””

    Social commentator Bernard Salt is understood to claim that same-sex couples account for about 0.4 percent of all couples in Australia. Based on overseas experience, only some 10 to 20 percent of those same-sex couples would be expected to marry.

    Should the Senator Dean Smith private member’s bill get up, on overseas experience it would mean that attainment of so-called ‘marriage equality’ for the 0.04 to 0.08 percent same-sex couple component would lead to severe suppression of the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and parental guidance for virtually all other Australians. Conquest by homosexual activist totalitarianism, thanks to the political correctness of Turnbull and Shorten!

  76. Confused Old Misfit

    The gutless wankers wouldn’t try that rubbish from a business in Lakemba.

  77. Confused Old Misfit

    And the business in Lakemba that told them to P.O. would face no recriminations.

  78. candy

    The problem is that the gay chaps are not asking for a service from Belinda’s shop in good faith, as they know she is a “no” voter. They are trying it on, as activists.

    If they were just 2 ordinary gay chaps turning up asking about a service and cost, a business person and 2 reasonable customers could work it out.

    My suggestion would be for Belinda to contact George Brandis’ office and see if she can find what his plans for any legislation in this respect are, because there were none, zilch in place, before the vote. This might assist her?

  79. Texas Jack

    Dontcha just love the libertarian conundrum? Let’s set the boundary here. No. Here. No, over there perhaps. Oh shit, if we do that then we might as well…..
    Wouldn’t it be better if Belinda could simply tell them to fuck off? All these useless lines in the sand are just that.

  80. stackja

    I heard SSM gets go ahead in countries with Christian background but not others. Will the ‘newly wed’ travel openly in these other countries?

  81. BorisG

    But then it is the provocation that is loathsome.

  82. BorisG

    It is. But you still need a strategy to deal with it.

  83. BorisG

    I heard SSM gets go ahead in countries with Christian background but not others. Will the ‘newly wed’ travel openly in these other countries?

    Gays cannot marry in Israel but their marriage is recognized.

  84. flyingduk

    dear o dear Sinc ! The very point here is she risks ruinous lawfare if she refuses! She is very much under duress over this. She cannot simply refuse to provide her labour if she does not wish to provide it. She is not free to run her business as she sees fit.

    Seriously Sinc, in recent times you have not been my greatest libertarian role model.

  85. Tim Neilson

    Asymmetry is a bitch.

    Then let’s get rid of it.

  86. Oh come on

    In that case, you are acting dishonestly, and leaving yourself open to a very big legal fight when it’s found out that you’re only charging gay couples the twenty-five percent deposit – the very legal stoush you’re doing this to avoid in the first place…

    … or you have to charge the twenty-five percent to everyone, and there goes your business.

    Yes, you do charge that to every couple. As most of your competitors will, too. And it’s not dishonest in the slightest. After all, there’s a genuine reason to demand a deposit. There’s suddenly a mass of pseudo customers making and then subsequently cancelling orders. The deposit is there to sort the genuine buyers from the frauds.

    What other option do you have? Take a moral stand and be litigated out of business by the gaystapo?

  87. J.H.

    “Nobody is forcing her to participate in anything – just do your job. Run your business. Mind your own business.”

    I guess it’s the principle of it Sinclair…. surely you must understand that?

    However, I’m pretty sure the State IS forcing her to participate. She can’t “run her business” according to her own moral code, nor is she allowed to “mind her own business” according to her conscience….. She is being attacked for her beliefs. Because we know that she will be hauled before the courts if she says she won’t serve homosexuals for religions reasons.

  88. Paul

    No voter who owns a beauty salon in Perth was floored by a gay wedding request.

    Yes a set up. It’s not as if the gay couple couldn’t go to the next salon eager for the business.
    No competition for the no voters, eh.

  89. Chris M

    No voters don’t necessarily loathe homosexuals, Sinclair.

    Quite true! Most homosexuality is the results of a messed up childhood, broken homes, absent father etc. Until recently the medical profession knew it as a treatable mental disorder.

  90. Eddystone

    To be quite honest, I’m just a little bit sick of hearing about homosexuals.

    There’s nothing classy about the goings on that are filling the news at the moment.

  91. Baldrick

    I notice you left out this salient point from the article Doomlord:

    Belinda says her Catholic faith prevents her from endorsing a gay wedding.

    Her business, her beliefs, her choice.

  92. This is like those reality shows on TV. Everyone involved is just in it to be seen, there is nothing edifying about the spectacle. Change the channel.

  93. Barry 1963

    Her Catholic faith prevents her endorsing gay weddings. Is this the religious freedom Abbott wants? Would this extend to Muslims not respecting the Australian flag?

  94. PK

    Sincs has got this one pretty right. If each guy came in separately without mentioning marriage, would there be a problem?

  95. EvilElvis

    Left have much money to create any circumstance to counter evasion of their strategy to exact complete obedience to control.

    And the libertarians will continue to enable them.

  96. .

    Please, apportion blame but be fair and name all of the guilty parties.

  97. Oh come on

    So m0nty is comparable to a reality TV show. Thanks for the heads-up, m0nts.

  98. Oh come on

    The business owner in this case is being more than a bit precious. If two blokes want to get a full body wax for what they say is their honeymoon, wtf has that got to do with endorsing SSM? Won’t give her real name, eh? She’s either really, really dumb or trolling what remains of the No campaign.

  99. .

    I never thought of that. She would be the Queen of Trolls. I have to pay homage to her skills.

  100. Oh come on

    And DL has a flair for trolling some threadsters on his blog.

  101. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Charge as much as the market will bear because it’s a wedding, point out that your staff might not be experienced at doing full body waxes for men, and here’s where you sign the indemnity in case of any injury you may suffer – for example, hot wax gets applied to your todger.

  102. Rob MW

    Nobody is forcing her to participate in anything – just do your job. Run your business. Mind your own business.

    Bullshit Sinc. Is it common practise for normal people to actually say ‘WHY’ they want a full body wax ? A wax is a fucking wax there is no disclosure necessary; so why did the proposed waxee disclose their sexuality as a precondition for a successful post wedding fuck-fest ?

    Cory might like to know whether or not a donkey can ring and disclose why he/she/it wants a fully body wax job eh.

  103. Viva

    So when I set up a chain of LGBTIQ shops and ‘churches’ around Australia I will make a fortune?

    I think they are called “wedding grottoes”.

  104. C.L.

    Who would invite someone who they think loathes them to pour hot wax onto their body and rip their hair out by its follicles?

    You’re a smart guy, Sinclair. You know the answer.
    They asked the woman to create a cause célèbre and be victims.
    Alternatively, they hoped to physically humiliate a recalcitrant woman.
    The gay lobby is indistinguishable from Harvey Weinstein in this respect.
    It’s her private property and if she wants to refuse them because they’re homosexuals, all libertarians must support her freedom to do so. If homosexual florists want to retaliate by not selling hydrangeas to Christians, so be it. Nobody cares.

  105. Driftforge

    Nobody is forcing her to participate in anything – just do your job.

    Nobody is forcing… I hereby order you to…

    As soon as the sodos go out of their way to rub their ascendant degeneracy in her face, she should have the right to refuse to have anything to do with them. If she doesn’t want their business, there is no reason she should be forced to offer them service.

  106. Viva

    By the way, many gays tend to patronise gay operated businesses anyway.

  107. BorisG

    It’s her private property and if she wants to refuse them because they’re homosexuals, all libertarians must support her freedom to do so. If homosexual florists want to retaliate by not selling hydrangeas to Christians, so be it. Nobody cares.

    Libertarians do (at least I do). But the problem is that the law doesn’t.

    for a much more thorough discussion of this see this essay:

  108. None

    Always amuses me how the new arrivals want to turn the country which adopted them into another fascist state.
    .

  109. There’s got to be a way to cash in on this activism.
    If I promote myself as a bitter opponent of gay marriage, will I be suddenly swamped by activists who want to rub my nose in it? & I’ll cash in properly by collecting huge deposits or something from gay dickheads who claim they want to hold their wedding reception in my pubtab, or something.

    I’ll have to think on this one for a bit.

  110. As I said in the OP when this first came up, the waxing seems separable from the faux wedding so she should simply do the waxing. But it’s abundantly clear that they are trying it on as CL says above, but given the remoteness of the service to the faux wedding the beauty salon should simply do the service and not provide these clowns an opportunity to virtue-signal.

    But it would be interesting to learn whether libertarians will require someone in a similar situation, but where the service is not so remote, to simply mind their own business then as well.

  111. Ellen of Tasmania

    It appears we can discriminate but only if we correctly choose our team.

    ‘Tolerance’ is a one way street these days.

  112. Rev. Archibald

    Aside from the basic question of right to refuse service, I believe the correct way to handle it is this:
    1. Get legal advice.
    2. Accept the booking and explain honestly that you belive they are in sin.
    Take the opportunity to cheerfully explain Christianity in all it’s glory and intricate detail to them both during the extended booking time and the subsequent service.

  113. Rev. Archibald

    3. When they arc up at being preached to (as they will) kick them out for the fuss they are making.

  114. Defender of the faith

    If this person actually offers full body wax then I can’t imagine that they refuse any clients. Fake news.

  115. Mother Lode

    I believe the traditional understanding is that a shop keeper was not obliged to supply service to anyone.

    The wares on display in a shop were not actually an offer in a contractual sense. If they were, then as soon as someone agreed to pay then a contract had been entered into and the shopkeeper was bound to supply goods or services or else be in contract.

    Instead, what is on display is an invitation to treat – an invitation for someone to come in and make an offer to purchase. It was then up to the shopkeeper to agree or not. A shopkeeper might well have said, “Hie thee on thy way, though breath-filled containment of the most dire serpent’s sloughing, thou black matter from twixt the elephants toes!”

    We now have laws that police people’s unspoken motivations, which are sadly tested simply by someone claiming to be vicitimised.

    The logic behind it is driven by a sense of justice – someone not serving an Asian simply because they were Asian is an affront to our sense of fairness. But the law is used as if any shopkeeper’s objection is unfair if the rebuffed person doesn’t like it. As if shopkeepers are not individuals plying their trade with their products in their time, but as servants operating at the behest of governments that loves to make decisions for businesses but would never think of helping the business.

  116. Megan

    Given that there is not yet a firm date after which same sex weddings can be held, why would anyone, straight, gay or purple, be asking for a full body wax this far in advance? Do they not realise it begins to grow back the very second they have successfully completed the long drawn out and painful procedure? Makes me think it is pure trouble making.
    I do think the salon owner has the perfect opportunity to make them pay and should seize it…so to speak…with glee.

  117. manalive

    Have a heart Professor, it’s hard enough to find people one can feel morally superior to nowadays.

  118. Mother Lode

    or else be in breach of contract

  119. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    the beauty salon should simply do the service and not provide these clowns an opportunity to virtue-signal.

    Yes, accept the booking with a hefty non-refundable deposit. She is under no obligation to do the service herself personally. If they turn up, I like the idea of hiring a specially trained gorilla to provide it in her place.

    This is how it could turn out for them:

    I waxed my husband Hairy’s back once for him as an experiment. I am not practiced at waxing and don’t have much idea about it. I also failed to properly read the instructions. It started badly when I overheated the wax, and went downhill quickly from there. You could hear his pained roar three suburbs away as the first strip of wax was ripped away and that was the end of that experiment.

    Have a nice wedding, guys.

  120. Walter Plinge

    The legislation won’t be passed by January next year. January 2019 if lucky. This is a wind-up. I’m a civil celebrant and I’m seeing zero interest in SSM.

  121. Eyrie

    Maybe the beauty shop owner thinks gays are fucking disgusting. The shop is her property and she can tell them to leave.

  122. amortiser

    The legislation won’t be passed by next January. January 2019 if lucky. This is a wind-up. I’m a civil celebrant and I’m seeing no interest in SSM.

    Well that wasn’t the message being put in the Yes campaign. We were being told that there would be massive economic spin offs because of the huge increase in activity for caterers, venue operators and travel operators.

    Are you saying this is all bulls**t? Who would have thought? Just another example of “trickle down”?

  123. Stan

    On the other hand, Sinclair, maybe Belinda has a conscience.

  124. Stan, she may, but the connection of this to the faux wedding is remote, and there is nothing that connects it to the faux wedding. It’s no different to selling them soap at the corner store. However, if they wanted to connect her salon to the event publicly then I would defend her right to refuse any such association, incl. the refusal to provide the waxing.

  125. cynical1

    Just specify waxes are females only as of today.

    Dead easy.

    If the pooves persist, tell em to fuck off.

  126. Kneel

    “Just specify waxes are females only as of today.”

    The bubble-head approach would work better, IMO. Just never shut up about what a sin it is, and how you hope that won’t affect their choice because you really could use the business, and how you seem like such nice people, even if you are condemned to purgatory for your sins, and how you try to reduce the pain load you see, because you are obviously such a sensitive person, so slow removal seems best to me… and so on, ad nauseum.
    IOW, they are trying to make it difficult for you, no problem. Cuts both ways, dunnit?

  127. .

    None
    #2558753, posted on November 20, 2017 at 2:09 am
    Always amuses me how the new arrivals want to turn the country which adopted them into another fascist state.

    Muslims voted for SSM and Christian bakers and “Christian Brazilian waxers”?

    I think there is epic trolling all round. GG.

  128. The risk of this happening may be ameliorated by eating seafood on a Friday. Father Jack told us so back in about 1959. I’ve followed that advice religiously since then and I reckon I’ve collected near enough dockets to slip through unnoticed.

    Best thing Catholics ever did. Seafood goes fabulously well with a fine lager or pilsner. Or twenty. Just saying.

  129. the sting

    Well ”Belinda” could say that with every body wax we will give you a free castration .

  130. Kneel

    “Well ”Belinda” could say that with every body wax we will give you a free castration .”

    before or after the fact?

  131. Chris M

    I waxed my husband Hairy’s back once for him as an experiment.

    Sheesh, who even does waxing these days. Book Hairy in for laser. Unless you enjoy the roaring 🙂

  132. Impharu

    Last two sentences: exactly

  133. Chris

    Huh? Exactly which part of a wedding ceremony requires a “full body wax”?

    This doesn’t even pass the smell test

    There was a young m

    an from Australia
    Who painted his rear like a dahlia.
    The drawing was fine
    The colours divine
    But the scent of the bloom – was a failure.

  134. Chris

    Wow, blockqw

    ote failure!

  135. JohnA

    If the potential customers are not willing buyers (because activist trolling), and Belinda is not a willing seller (as posted), then there is no legal contract.

  136. Cumborah

    Does she do waxes for blokes or not? If she does – well she should just take their money and provide the service. If for some reason they engage in conversation which she finds is unnecessary she could think of ways to make it not so pleasant i.e. blaring music (christian themes), overly bright lights etc so they don’t ever return.

Comments are closed.