×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.
× Feel free to discuss any typical forums accepted topic here, Whateley or otherwise. Let's avoid the usual suspects: politics, religion, and so forth that tend to result in flame wars and angered forums readers. Other topics will be considered fair game unless they prove to be too volatile, at which point we'll use Devisor created anti-flame chemicals on the subject.

Question The results of the 2017 Australian Gay Marriage Plebecite

7 years 5 months ago - 7 years 5 months ago #1 by CrazyMinh
  • CrazyMinh
  • CrazyMinh's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 758

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Hello WA fans!!! I did say I wouldn't post anything. BUT, I've got decent wifi, so I'm posting some great news for those LGBT folks on this site: Australians just voted 63% in-favour of allowing Gay marriage in the Australian Commonwealth. If our government acts on this decision (saying no would be political suicide), Australia will join the other western nations in Marriage Equality, and take a big step into a better future!!! Of course, I bet that our 'esteemed' prime minister, the 'honourable' Malcom Turnbull didn't expect this to happen when he made it a postal vote rather than a online one...
    You can find my stories at Fanfiction.net here .

    You can also check out my fanfiction guest riffs at Library of the Dammed


    Last Edit: 7 years 5 months ago by CrazyMinh. Reason: Wrote 'Wife' instead of 'wifi'
    7 years 5 months ago #2 by Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn's Avatar


  • Posts: 1383

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • When you're in Australia
    You'll have a yabba dabba doo time
    A dabba doo time
    A golden gay old time!
    I am the kernel that pops in the night. I am the pain that keeps your dentist employed.
    7 years 5 months ago - 7 years 5 months ago #3 by konzill
    • konzill
    • konzill's Avatar


  • Posts: 500

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Note though that even if they do act, they can still put forward some rather toxic legislation. The thing that the bigot side of politics is talking about is giving anyone offering marriage related serves the right to discriminate and say, sorry I don't do gay weddings. One of the proposed bills goes even further and actually makes it illegal to publically call businesses out for refusing service to gay couples.

    This is something that opposition and minor parties won't vote for so you could end up in a situation where they deliberately put up a toxic bill, it gets defeated and the government says, well we tried, it's not our fault the bill got defeated.
    Last Edit: 7 years 5 months ago by konzill.
    7 years 5 months ago #4 by Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn's Avatar


  • Posts: 1383

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • I don't view permitting businessmen to opt out of doing business with you as that toxic. It's suboptimal, yes, but as long as nobody is banned from providing the services you want, somebody will do it. Even if everyone currently in the industry were a bigot, how long do you think it would take for some gay (or just greedier than they are bigoted) entrepreneur to see the blindingly obvious business opportunity and set up Rainbow McGhee's Anything-Goes Weddings, Inc. to make a killing on the jobs everybody else is rejecting?

    The real problem you have to watch out for is if they allow government officials to pull that shit. If some bigot in the local government can say, "Oh, you're gay / pro-LGBT and I'm not okay with that, so I'm not going to grant you a license to perform weddings / do business / whatever," then that's a no-go.
    I am the kernel that pops in the night. I am the pain that keeps your dentist employed.
    7 years 5 months ago #5 by lighttech
    • lighttech
    • lighttech's Avatar


  • Posts: 584

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Kettlekorn wrote: I don't view permitting businessmen to opt out of doing business with you as that toxic. It's suboptimal, yes, but as long as nobody is banned from providing the services you want, somebody will do it. Even if everyone currently in the industry were a bigot, how long do you think it would take for some gay (or just greedier than they are bigoted) entrepreneur to see the blindingly obvious business opportunity and set up Rainbow McGhee's Anything-Goes Weddings, Inc. to make a killing on the jobs everybody else is rejecting?

    The real problem you have to watch out for is if they allow government officials to pull that shit. If some bigot in the local government can say, "Oh, you're gay / pro-LGBT and I'm not okay with that, so I'm not going to grant you a license to perform weddings / do business / whatever," then that's a no-go.


    Yep I agree, if you don't want the job--then the customer can find and pay someone else to do it!
    That is why I personally hated the US "bake me a cake' Lawsuit!
    That blows forcing someone to DO a service---just go somewhere else loser--their are lots of bakeries in town!

    only France has 'cake is a right' law-- per-Marie Antoinette=let them eat cake!
    Part of the WA Drow clan/ collective
    Author of Vantier and Shadowsblade on Bigcloset
    7 years 5 months ago #6 by konzill
    • konzill
    • konzill's Avatar


  • Posts: 500

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Kettlekorn wrote: I don't view permitting businessmen to opt out of doing business with you as that toxic. It's suboptimal, yes, but as long as nobody is banned from providing the services you want, somebody will do it. Even if everyone currently in the industry were a bigot, how long do you think it would take for some gay (or just greedier than they are bigoted) entrepreneur to see the blindingly obvious business opportunity and set up Rainbow McGhee's Anything-Goes Weddings, Inc. to make a killing on the jobs everybody else is rejecting?

    The real problem you have to watch out for is if they allow government officials to pull that shit. If some bigot in the local government can say, "Oh, you're gay / pro-LGBT and I'm not okay with that, so I'm not going to grant you a license to perform weddings / do business / whatever," then that's a no-go.


    Now try replacing the word gay with black in that sentence, do you still feel it should be OK for businesses to opt out of doing business with you? The thing is we have anti-discrimination laws which specifically say the businesses are not allowed to do this. Also If you live in the city then sure, you can always go elsewhere, what about people living in more remote areas? What if the florist who says no is the only florist in town and the next nearest one is 50 miles away?

    Also if you allow providers to opt out selling goods and services to gay couples for religious reasons, then what about other religious reasons. The Bible specifically prohibits divorce and says that a 2nd marriage is adultry. So should Christian businesses have the right to demand evidence that neither party has been married before and refuse service to 2nd marriages? What About Denominations that reject interracial marriage? Keep in mind that a generation ago allowing interatial marriage was a battle jsut as big as this one.
    7 years 5 months ago #7 by MM2ss
    • MM2ss
    • MM2ss's Avatar


  • Posts: 291

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Strangely, I am actually OK with the concept of allowing a business to discriminate against any group of people for any reason. but, I have a caveat that goes with that. The business should be required to conspicuously post a sign saying exactly what group or groups they do not serve.

    My rationale for this is two fold. First, I feel that any exchange should be done freely between two or more consenting parties. Second, I do not want someone who does not want to provide the service requested to be forced to provide that service.

    On the second point, there are two reasons also. First, if I force Bob to provide his service to me against his will I suspect I will not be getting the best service possible for my dollars. Second, I know that there are some people that would engage in malicious compliance.

    Lastly, I am a big believer in the free market concept. If a bunch of businesses start refusing to serve homosexuals, then that opens up a very lucrative market for the people that are willing to serve homosexuals (or blacks, or Asians, or Irish, etc.).
    7 years 5 months ago #8 by Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee's Avatar


  • Posts: 3113

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 08 Nov 1966
    • Free market is fine... when it works. It works reasonably well in large markets; it is crap in small towns. Consider if the owner of the only grocery store in town won't sell to, say... Italian descendants. This one guy has the power of effectively turning the entire town into a "No-Italians-Allowed" zone. And, as long as there are few Italians in town, his business won't suffer very much -- it's just too inconvenient to boycott him, and the market is too small to support two grocery stores.

    There are plenty de facto monopolies around. ISPs, for instance. If you allow them to refuse service for arbitrary reasons, how far are you from "anybody who supports my chosen candidate's opponent will lose Internet access"?
    Don't call me "Shirley." You will surely make me surly.
    7 years 5 months ago #9 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Heh... that segues nicely into a little anecdote from a couple weeks back...

    I got a phone call from Comcast wanting me to take a survey about their service. Now, I know a lot of people have problems with Comcast. I've had some frustrating episodes with them myself over the years... but mostly, in my current setting, they provide a pretty good service. I might be offline for a couple hours one night in eight months. That's not bad.... not at all. Most of the issues I have had with them are with repair subcontractors (who come out, do a job, leave and I have to call them back because they did the job for my neighbor instead of for me). Things like that.

    But... I am also about the words. And some of the things being asked in the survey were about 'choice' and 'recommending' and 'options' ... and finally, I called the survey guy on it. I told him that I refused to answer questions about recommending service to anyone... or about making other choices... when Comcast is my only option. It's not like we have any choices for broadband. Sure, I can choose to get DSL... but my option is cable with Comcast. Or no cable. And I wasn't going to cater to some survey that made it sound like I was choosing comcast because it was the 'better' or 'cheaper' option. It was my only option. Would I pay less if another service provided it for less? Hell yes. Would I use a more stable service? Yes. But I have no other service. There are no options.

    THAT is something that shouldn't happen in a regulated market... but the government that is supposed to be protecting us from it is in the pocket of these people. And in a free market? This sort of thing is perfectly legal and fine. Free markets are like every other theory. They would just fine in theory... until you add people and their flaws.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 5 months ago #10 by Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn
    • Kettlekorn's Avatar


  • Posts: 1383

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • konzill wrote: Now try replacing the word gay with black in that sentence, do you still feel it should be OK for businesses to opt out of doing business with you?

    I didn't say it's okay. I said it's suboptimal but not that toxic. If my only option to get married was to get on a three month waiting list, drive two hours to a bigger city, and pay 50% more than average, then that is not okay. It is, however, a hell of a lot better than not being allowed to get married at all. While I would not appreciate a law of that nature, I wouldn't consider it sufficiently toxic to prefer maintaining the status quo, unless I thought I could get a better result by rejecting it and holding out for a better deal. But that technique only works if I have something they want. Your own concern that the government will see the bill's rejection, shrug, and move on to other issues implies that the LGBT community in Australia does not have enough leverage to force the government to provide full rights and protections. So, compromise may be necessary if you don't want to wait however long it takes to get a second try.
    I am the kernel that pops in the night. I am the pain that keeps your dentist employed.
    7 years 5 months ago #11 by annachie
    • annachie
    • annachie's Avatar


  • Posts: 597

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • I believe the decent SSM bill is currently being debated in the Australian Senate.

    There should be enough votes there to stop any toxic amendments outright.

    The lower house should also be safe from amending the bills as at the moment the conservative government is in the minority and facing 2 bye-elections. 1 safe, 1 definitely not safe.

    All that being said, the far right are going to make a hell of a noise about it.

    Ironically, one of the far right leaders, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, represents an electorate that had the biggest yes vote.
    Moderators: WhateleyAdmin, Kristin Darken, E. E. Nalley, elrodw, Nagrij, MageOhki, Astrodragon, NeoMagus, Warren, Morpheus, Wasamon, sleethr, OtherEric, Bek D Corbin, MaLAguA, Souffle Girl, Phoenix Spiritus, Starwolf, DanZilla, Katie_Lyn, Maggie Finson, DrBender, JG, Bladedancer, Renae_Whateley
    Powered by Kunena Forum