#gaymarriage

Compelling the cake maker?

192634A8-A578-40DC-B48A-192EA9847047

The transcript of the Supreme Court on the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) hearing can be found here. It is 113 pages long (but double spaced). What is fascinating is the way the case is argued from both sides and the words of several judges who should just enforce the tenets of the constitution not leverage personal prejudices. CM doesn’t profess to be a lawyer but the biased language is pretty obvious, including one set of attorneys debating Colorado laws of  2018 rather than those of 2012 when the dispute first came to light.

The court session covered ground from anniversary cakes at a Michelin 2-star restaurant, mixed race or mixed religion marriages, an African American designer making a cross for the Ku Klux Klan and even the fairness of rejecting an order to bake a cake to celebrate Kristallnacht. The case also looked into the problems that might be created for a baker on a remote US military base who may not want to bake a cake for a same sex marriage because of his/her religious beliefs.

Mainstream media coverage has been pretty obvious but the transcript puts many things to light including the fact that all sides acknowledge the baker was prepared to sell a rainbow cake and almost anything else in the shop to the couple, just not the “compelled” words they wanted on it, which triggered the baker’s religious beliefs and led the Supreme Court to suggest that the baker’s 1st Amendment rights must be sustained.

Religious beliefs are a murky backwater where justification on a plethora of topics can be concocted. CM first learnt of “proper” religious fervor on a trip to Israel a decade ago. Seeing people wail as the were baptized in the River Jordan, watching them cry inconsolably as they placed pictures of family members atop the marble slab that Jesus’ body was laid on after his crucifixion, the scene of Jews of all ethnicities praying at the Western Wall or Muslims feverishly protecting entry to the Temple Mount. This is not the average punter going to a Sunday Mass or praying five times a days to Mecca. It is on another level. Some people walked bearing a cross along the exact route that Jesus did. Religion to some takes a different life form, some of it for the worse.

To think that a $500 wedding cake has cost both sides $100,000s in legal fees goes to show how serious both sides were prepared to defend their legal rights. No matter how silly some may view the outcome, the question remains whether the 14th Amendment be changed to more specifically define LGBT protections. Associate Justice Sotomayor made this point in her closing remarks, “That’s what the public anti-discrimination laws require.”

Forcing voters to become eunuchs by slicing off their free speech

IMG_0862.JPG

Kiss your free speech good-bye. Australia is going straight down the slippery slope of Canada in seeking to shut down the expression of open legitimate debate. Labor Senator Louise Pratt broke down today after explaining the horrid episode of receiving an anti-same sex marriage (SSM) pamphlet when going to the shops with her 3yr-old son and his three fathers. Instead of refuting the content of the anti-SSM pamphlet with facts (and her own experience) she chose to break down and claim how she could not bear reliving the content. Yes, she played a victim. She got a consoling hug from a Greens senator. By her own admission she said that the “no” campaigners have already lost the argument and will lose the vote. If that is the case then why the tears? Get on the front foot and defend your beliefs Senator Pratt rather than run to the bosom of totalitarian protections. If the plebiscite is carried the “No” campaigners will accept democracy.

Now we will have emergency laws that will prosecute someone who expresses a legitimate opinion with fines of up to $12,600. Who decides what constitutes hurting someone’s feelings? The PM only last week said that “we can rely on the wisdom and decency of the Australian people to decide on same sex marriage.” Three days later these same people will be muzzled. Why do we need people policing citizens for holding legitimate beliefs? We can be sure that if pro-SSM people abuse Anti-SSM then nothing will happen. We already have a gay Fairfax journalist who spoke of hate-f*cking politicians who didn’t support SSM to drive out their homophobia. I would bet that he wouldn’t get charged under this new law. It only applies to the dinosaurs and their antiquated backward thinking. Activists tried to get a doctor struck off the register for holding a belief in traditional marriage. Archbishops have been dragged before courts and hotels threatened if they allow anti-SSM meetings to take place.

Shame on the Conservatives to roll over so easily on this subject. The sad reality is that most people made up their minds way before the vote has even taken place. I don’t need WordPress to adorn my blog page with rainbow flag backed buttons and I do not need Subway to tell me to vote SSM when I buy a sandwich. I don’t need Qantas to give me an acceptance ring and I certainly don’t need tax dollars squandered on one side of the debate only. I couldn’t care less with those who want to virtue signal with their Facebook avatars with “I’m voting yes”. Good for you. None of that peer pressure would convince me in anyway on which way I would vote. The beauty of a polling booth is that you can vote how you like. Yet this day and age is all about vilifying non compliance to activism

Yet our government shows its cowardice and even worse, contempt for the public. In an attempt to gag free speech people will be told what they can and can’t say. Holding beliefs which are perfectly acceptable on rational grounds will be policed and removed from the Newspeak dictionary. I am sure the Australian Human Rights Commission is rubbing its hands with glee to take more control of the nanny state.

Not supporting SSM doesn’t make one a homophobe but that is how the activists seek to mock and ridicule non-conformity. Ramrodding gender fluidity and cross dressing in kindergarten and primary schools is just another shift in removing the ability to protect traditional values. In the majority of cases, the best outcome for children is to have their biological mother and father as parents. It shouldn’t be seen as hateful to think like that.

Once again, bit by bit freedoms are being removed. California is looking to introduce laws to prosecute people for using the wrong pronoun. Do we seriously need the judicial system to be clogging up the courts with such petty matters? Canada’s M-103 and Ontario’s M-89. More laws to shut people up. It is appalling. Free speech is an absolute unalienable right. Just because one might not agree with another doesn’t make it hate speech. Yet our laws will ensure that anything outside of the newspeak dictionary will get people prosecuted.

People ask me why I left the Liberal Party of Australia. I say, “I didn’t leave them, they left me!”

Bible-bashing bakers refuse same sex wedding cakes…and those for atheists, racists and others

IMG_0606.JPG

A Colorado bakery has won a Supreme Court case which revolved around their rights to refuse making a wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of their religious beliefs. However backward the bakery’s views may appear to many of us, why would the gay couple want a shop like that making a cake for their wedding in the first place? Surely the negative publicity on the back of it may well put the bakery in receivership or severely damage custom. Talk about a potentially self inflicted wound. Isn’t that just desserts if the bakery suffers because people exercise their distaste by their lack of patronage? What if the bakery had lost? Should the owner face a multi million dollar punitive damages suit and jail time? In all honesty how emotionally damaged were the gay couple?  Gays wedding aren’t the only things the cake shop bans by the way,. At what point do we draw the line on a breach of civil rights? The hurdle seems to keep getting lower.

If a Michelin 3-star restaurant refuses your young kids because they might spoil the ambience, have your kid’s civil rights been breached? Should gentlemen only clubs be banned? Why would women want to hang out in a club full of stuffy old men smoking cigars and drinking brandy? If the club charges its members sufficient dues to provide that atmosphere which breaks no laws then why the fuss? They set the rules. They’ve a right to such a club if they don’t harm anyone else. ‘Curves‘ is a female only health club. Is it right that men are banned from joining? It’s a club that discriminates solely on gender. Maybe the club wouldn’t be of interest to most men but it is openly discriminating yet no complaints are made.

Quite frankly the bakery may be petty minded but surely any business should have the right to choose who they wish to serve under their own guidelines. Turning away good business is rather absurd but it happens. Take my attempts to open a stock trading account in Japan last week to be denied the right for being a foreigner. It is not something I plan to take up with the Supreme Court here in Tokyo to fight for my rights to have an account. I’ll just suck it up and find another that will. Quite frankly if I managed to be able to open an account at the foreigner-unfriendly broker I probably wouldn’t want to trade with them anyway. The reality is probably more tied to the broker’s worry that the foreigner may not speak Japanese causing lots of angst so easier to ban the lot. Instead of asking my Japanese level, they turn me away. This isn’t the first such incidence.

Surely if the gay couple won this case, they would most likely place the wedding cake order elsewhere. Seriously what is the upside to order it at the bakery in question other than to humiliate them further? What of the death threats made to the bakery? Have activists reacted to this or forgiven it under the ‘serves you right, bigots!’ banner?

Was 1st in SEO CEO’s actions to demand the resignations of people who voted for Trump given the same media coverage? The CEO was actually violating labour laws. He also extended this to ceasing business with any clients that voted for Trump. Personally it is a narrow minded view but if he so chooses to cut off business it is his right to do so, in so far as he has shareholder approval to do so. A Melbourne bookstore has been criticised online after warning people who “vote no” in the upcoming same-sex marriage postal vote to never visit their shop again. Is that any better than the baker?

There seems to be no charge of a bile-laden homophobic rant by the baker. In fact the owner said,

I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got…But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.”

Whether we believe the bakery of not for the depths of their fervent religious beliefs they are protected under the law. The Supreme Court ruled in the baker’s favour. If people don’t like the law then they should change it. Still if people want to go ahead and ban the rights of bakers from refusing gay customer requests for wedding cakes, then they should be prepared to accept Curves not having the right to exclude men from their women-only aerobics classes and tell the Michelin 3-star restaurant to provide high chairs and a children’s menu. Still don’t complain when your plans to propose to your partner when some baby is screaming in the middle of dessert get ruined.