Please post a copy of the finished art here so I can also add to the PPAU Gallery.
Perhaps PPAU might show continued support with a rainbow signet.
whatchathink?
1 Like
Check your email? haha
duh. Saw it after I hit send. Catching up now …
I have issue with the way the Yes side stifles the free speech of the No side. I’m sure the No side does the same thing, but given how conservative my family is, every time the yes side overreaches, I get it thrown in my face. With us being the free speech party, and having the policy which best supports marriage equality without suppressing people who wish to disagree, I should hope that our participation in and support of the yes side leads to a cleaner debate all round.
Those mothers in the No ad shouldn’t need to fear us here on the Yes side if/when we win.
1 Like
How is this happening? I haven’t seen anyone’s free speech being stifled. It seems the no campaign is saying all sorts of bigoted and hateful stuff quite freely.
3 Likes
For example (and I think this is what @Hypershock is partly referring to), the No campaigners consider the petition hosted on a Getup site (it wasn’t started by Getup, but people like Senator Abetz will happy conflate user generated content on a Getup petition site as being from Getup) to advocate de-registering a doctor that appeared in a No campaign ad as censorship.
No campaigners will be pointing to incidents like that to argue parts of the Yes campaign are turning to attempts at censorship.
Even though the official organisations on the Yes side had nothing to do with the above incident. And Getup stepped in to censor from their petition website the attempt to harm a No campaigner’s income because of the views that person expressed.
Anyone getting involved in this debate will need a thick fucking skin. There’s much more important shit to be doing than watching people argue over whether two adults can get fucking married. You know, like climate change, poverty, homelessness, and feeding the kids.
But here we are, primed for an almighty shit-storm argument about an idea that has already become personal. So buckle up, it’s gunna be a bumpy ride. Cheeses.
1 Like
Yeah, rundll’s example is the most recent. The other big one was the Cooper’s boycott. Most the other incidents my family tells me about have occurred overseas (someone in the States got sued for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding), so I hope they are irrelevant here.
If anyone has examples of the No side doing the same, I’ll happily share them with my family and point out the hypocrisy.
I hadn’t heard about the doctor, but had heard about Coopers and the call to boycott Coopers was stupid. The Coopers video was actually alright.
The cake thing is tough, where is the line between active discrimination and religious freedom? I see refusing gay people a cake as a bigoted act much the same as refusing to serve black people because they are black. I don’t really have any sympathy for the baker in that case, nor would I have any for a business that refused to serve a gay couple wanting to get married if they got sued for discrimination, it IS discrimination. Legality aside, if any shop refused to serve gay weddings, I would like to know so I can boycott them, If you want to discriminate against gay people, I want to discriminate against you.
As for cases of pro-equal marriage people being targeted by religious organisations for persecution, the Catholic Church wants the right to fire anyone who is same sex married.
3 Likes
I think the line for the baker’s case lies somewhere between boycott and suing.
If they go out of business because everyone boycott’s them for their views, that’s fine. Actually, that’s a good way to send a signal about the community’s position on gay rights. The baker can exercise their right to free speech, and the community exercises its right to free speech by telling the baker “we won’t buy stuff from bigoted people like you”.
Suing, on the other hand, is a form of coerced speech, at least in this case. You’re not allowed to run a business if you hold views which differ from the court.
Thanks for the link. I was more looking for examples of the No side suppressing our free speech, not just discriminating against us.
That is already the case with people refusing services on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation and inter-sex status. Carving out an exception for the right to discriminate against same sex married people specifically doesn’t make sense. It is against the law to discriminate based on race, why should people have the right to discriminate over people getting married?
I think that is also coerced speech. I don’t think this should be an exception.
I mean, where does it end? (Sorry, another American example) should Airbnb hosts in Washington be sued for refusing service to Trump supporters who wanted to attend the inauguration? Or fashion designers be forced to design clothes for Melania Trump?
In America they have a right to free speech, and they apply it very broadly. In Australia we don’t, and we have more anti-discrimination laws because of that.
The question we ask ourselves when making policy is “SHOULD” there be anti-discrimination laws in Australia and to what extent, not necessarily applying to to the reality that there currently are.
Lets look at the examples and then ask ourselves some questions
If there was a BAKER refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple on the grounds that they are a Christian. Is that a Baker who bakes items for exclusive use to the Christian faith because the baking recipes they use have religious significance, or would they usually bake a cake for anyone who pays the usual price for it?
If there was a FASHION DESIGNER, do they specifically make fashion for a certain political group which this group owns the rights to that style of design, or do they usually design for anyone who pays the usual rate for it?
And lets say that it is discrimination pure and simple. No actual religious justification for it. Should that be allowed?
The line we draw on Civil Liberties tend to draw is when it causes harm to others in the community.
What kind of harm should that be? Physical? Emotional? Inciting others to be violent?
We believe in both Civil Liberties AND Equality, so what do we do when both are conflict? Which one takes preference.
The community expectation tends to lean towards equality, and inequality/discrimination can cause long term harm which is not immediately obvious.
There are other ways to maintain Civil Liberties like being able to express your feelings without Discriminating.
Would it be right to punch a gay person in the face because they are gay? Or is that harmful to the community to have people hurting each other because they don’t like them. Would your parents tolerate people brawling in the streets?
Would it be right to contribute towards a gay person stewing over their sexuality which they can’t help but feel which leads to outcomes at least as bad as being punched in the face? (i.e. Suicide/Suicide Attempts). Why should discrimination be any different to other community harms?
On the other hand, if it is a religious practice which a non-religious person is trying to shoehorn themselves into even though they don’t belong, that causes harm to the community (of religious people) as well.
I think that people should be able to do or say what they want as long as they are not harming anyone else, equally for religious and nonreligious people. If it goes against a religious value not to do something, they shouldn’t have to do it, but at the same time they shouldn’t put themselves in a position where someone which is not part of their religion could reasonably expect to use their service.
It wouldn’t be fair for a non-religious person to demand a tailor to make them a Cassock (Christian Clerical Clothing) when the point of the tailor’s business is to supply the Christian clergy.
if it’s a general business , at least have the decency to put up a big sign which says “WHITE PEOPLE ONLY” if you feel that way, you know? Then everyone who doesn’t agree with that can avoid you. I personally don’t have a problem with that, the damage to their reputation would be enough and at least people who don’t agree with those views would know instead of accidently supporting them.
1 Like
Interestingly, the anti-discrimination laws in the link you provided do not say they apply to discrimination based on religious or political beliefs, but the cases @Hypershock is citing are specifically about such considerations.
E.g. dress designs for Melania.
So can Christians refuse service to atheists?
Can kebab vendors refuse service to Pauline?
I was going to say that it is moot because she would refuse to eat halal, but then again she did wear a Burqa.
In reality, they would probably serve her a kebab as not to make a big deal out of it.
In law, it should depend if it’s some kind of holy kebab that only certain people are allowed to eat (no), so that would be discrimination.
What? Truth in advertising? Now there is a policy for all times that really ought to be enforced, though surely expecting businesses to be open, truthful and provide complete information is a bit of an unrealistic stretch?