Euthanasia

[Katman]

.....he was more them happy to sell then anything else.

And you know that how?

Why do you make shit up and imply it's fact?

[husaberg]

And you know that how?

Why do you make shit up and imply it's fact?

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.

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.

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.
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.

Bullshit - yet again.

Your job is to do the best for your patient.

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

[FJRider]

He is then being discriminated against on account of his moral beliefs.

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.

[husaberg]

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.

Maybe not but...

[FJRider]

Maybe not but...

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 ...

[Katman]

Yet you freely bleat on how you are entitled to serve who ever you want.

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?

[Katman]

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.

[husaberg]

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?

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)

NB: If you are not prepared to 100% agree with the narcissistic OP, then there is little point in posting in his threads, he even has little time for his own siblings point of view, because it not his.

PS: His rep comment suggest I got it right ..'Fuck off cocksucker.'

why do you insist on devaluing any argument or case you have by descending into mindless name calling of those who express an opinion or take a position other than your own? You asked for the man's position and he provided it. Rather than engage in actual debate you dismiss the very thing you sought. That is senseless!

You present this social conundrum as being simple to solve. Entire nations have struggled with this question long before you began to think about it and none have yet come up with a flawless system to allow those with genuine desire to control how they meet their end, while still protecting the vulnerable.
You have had a personal experience which has clearly influenced your thinking and attitudes, understandably so, and noone has the right to question or detract the validity of your experience or the resulting mindset which has developed from it. Why should anyone else expect less, just because their attitude does not align with yours?

Yeah, Katman - but every now and then you could, you know, try to debate the facts instead of trotting out the tired old ad hominem fuckwitschtick? The relevance of the analogies is the desire of your ilk to enforce your beliefs on other people who then you demand implement them. Or else. And the 'Or Else' enforced by Government Diktat.

I also note you changed your post from yesterday I would never expect any less from you.

[Madness]

my 7 year old...

Someone bred with you? The world is more fucked than I thought.

[husaberg]

Someone bred with you? The world is more fucked than I thought.

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.

I just come here to wind up fuckwits like yourself.

No, I meant that I come here to wind up fuckwits such as yourself and the measure of satisfaction or success in this lies with me, not you or the other fuckwits.

Feel free to continue in PD rather than cluttering up the thread though.

[Madness]

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.

So you didn't put that call through this morning then? That's a shame. Think of your 7 year old.

[Katman]

..... yet my 7 year old has more capability of grasping the concept that people are entitled to theier own opinions.....

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.

[husaberg]

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.

Bullshit - yet again.
Your job is to do the best for your patient.
If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

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.

[Katman]

You are the person who introduced discrimination to the argument not me

Yes, but you were the one who didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word.

Anyways, shut the fuck up about discrimination and let's talk about how to reform the euthanasia laws.

Bill English has come out and said he will not support law reform.

Why would that be?

[husaberg]

Yes, but you were the one who didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word.

Anyways, shut the fuck up about discrimination and let's talk about how to reform the euthanasia laws.

Bill English has come out and said he will not support law reform.

Why would that be?

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?

I have not heard one single supporter of euthanasia law reform propose that any doctor should be ordered or obligated against their will to assist someone's death.
So why do idiots still put forward such a ridiculous argument?

Bullshit - yet again.
Your job is to do the best for your patient.
If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

I have not heard one single supporter of euthanasia law reform propose that any doctor should be ordered or obligated against their will to assist someone's death.

So why do idiots still put forward such a ridiculous argument?

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.

No, they're not.

They're being prosecuted because they discriminated against a gay couple.
If they'd had the sense to keep their beliefs to themselves, and instead simply made an excuse of being too busy to bake a cake, do you think they'd still be facing prosecution?

Yet conversely how many people that have assisted in euthanasia here prosecuted, when they have not loudly and publicly publicised what they have done.
As I have said I support a carefully managed implementation and application of euthanasia with robust laws to support and protect peoples moral beliefs.

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.