Because this is what he said you did not actually bother to read it. Like I keep telling you things are not always as simple as you.
Whilst I might not agree with this, I go along with his fundamental right to stick to his own moral and religous beliefs regardless of the consequences, why should he have to lie about the reasons for making it.because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.
As Katmam had said he would as it was his right to if he whished and decided to deny service to anyone he see's fit.
Actually ... he was discriminated against ... on account of his sexual orientation.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM304475.html
(m) sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.
When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...
Just another case of one's arrogance of ignoring the ledgislation that doesn't suit/doesn't like ... at the time.
However ... the couples lack of respect for the bakers personal beliefs does not sit well with me either. (They discriminated against HIS religious beliefs)
They could have just gone and found another baker ...
When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...
Read this carefully - I'll try to use simple words.
If I was opposed to gay people and I had a gay person come into my shop and ask for a particular helmet in a particular size I could go to the computer and say "sorry, the wholesaler doesn't have one of them available". Whether it was true or not I would be unlikely to be prosecuted.
If I said "no, I don't serve gay people, go somewhere else" then I would very likely face prosecution.
Understand now?
And to clarify the issue of prohibited discrimination versus allowed discrimination........
The forms of discrimination that are prohibited are clearly listed in the Human Rights Act.
Restaurants are allowed to have a minimum dress code - therefore they are allowed to discriminate against people wanting to eat there dressed in a singlet.
Bars are not permitted to serve intoxicated people - therefore they are allowed to discriminate against people who have drunk too much.
And to use my earlier example, if a customer comes into my business acting like an abusive wanker I'm allowed to discriminate against them based on them being an abusive wanker.
I note you never use words a 10 year old would never understand yet my 7 year old has more capability of grasping the concept that people are entitled to their own opinions regardless of whether they agree with Katman or not.
I understand that you think that someone can deny service because of their morals as long as like you have said they should as you said you would lie about it can you not see the flaw in your over simplistic argument (I doubt you can or ever will)
I also note you changed your post from yesterday I would never expect any less from you.
No one I am aware of has ever accused you of being capable of rational thought patterns.
Just a series of abusive trolling for your own enjoyment, to make up for the overwhelming feelings of your own inadequacy.
Feel free to continue in PD rather than cluttering up the thread though.
Hopefully you will ensure that your 7 year old will also one day grasp the concept that while people most certainly are entitled to their own opinions they are not entitled to use those opinions to discriminate against anyone on the basis of any of the listed prohibited grounds for discrimination.
If the baker couple had learnt that simple rule they wouldn't be having the need for their little grizzle now.
And now that we've finally cleared up your misunderstanding of what constitutes prohibited discrimination, maybe we can get back to discussing how we could best implement new euthanasia laws.
You are the person who introduced discrimination to the argument not me
Medical professional don't get to pick and choice who they treat.
Shame you are not able to comprehend that. Ask them for help they are obliged to help.
You have repeatedly ignored examples that people are being persecuted for what is their moral beliefs, then then deride people you say they are silly because you would just lie about the reasons if put in a similar situation.
This speaks volumes and shows a lack of fortitude plus a total lack of courage.
I doubt anything you ever say will ever be taken seriously by any mature adult, because you do not comprehend that people are not obliged to have your moral interpretations forced on them.
Like I said a couple of posts above I would not expect you to ever be able to understand or comprehend that.
Who other than you is bleating on about discrimination ..........
Last time I looked you are not in any position to order anyone to do anything. Grow up.
Go back through your posts and have a gander at how often you make conflicting statements.
Why don't you ask Bill English, unless you already believe you know the answer to what his thoughts are?
People who have firm moral and courage do not often lie as to what they are. I would not expect you to ever be able to understand that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks