That’s…kinda weird.
Who’s demanding a specific doctor actually perform the abortion?
Edit: The more I think about it, that’s a really terrible analogy.
If you want a comparison, then you need a service that someone normally provides, but not for you people…
Good luck.
I reckon the market will balance itself out. Almost certainly there will be celebrants that will specialise in SSM, just as there are probably religious folks who are lay celebrants that will cater to those with religious beliefs. As was mentioned earlier, any gay couple that wants to try to force a celebrant/church to conduct their wedding ceremony is probably doing it out of spite. I’ve only done the wedding thing once myself unlike others (looking at you, Bacchusfox), but we were pretty intent on it being a happy, positive occasion. The whole Yes campaign message was about love being love and everyone having equality. Picking a fight for your own wedding kind of flies in the face of that.
If a celebrant objects to SSM and wants to make it well known so they don’t get confronted with it, I would imagine their business model will need some reconsideration before too long. I dare say Dr Pansy Lai (sp?) from the “No” campaign ads will lose a few regular clients over her public stance. Although, she may gain others for the same reason, so go figure.
Perhaps I’m pronouncing it differently to others…
I feel kinda dirty using news.com.au as a source, but there it is…
Private Marriage celebrants and Ministers of Religion authorised to conduct marriages are regulated by Commonwealth law, whereas the Registry Office people are regulated by State law and are generally government employees. . The States have power over marriage law to the extent that their laws are not inconsistent with Commonwealth law. It is possible that State law might not include exemptions from discrimination for their Registry officers.
There could be a bit of competition in the market
I’ve already had a few couples contact me since Wednesday. Just have to wait for the legislation to go through!!
How quick does new legislation take to come into effect once it’s voted on? Is it the second it’s passed in parliament, does it have a “with effect x date at 12pm” caveat on it?
Surely there will be a race to be the first once it’s legislated? The media will have a field day.
And let’s not forget these poor folks:
This whole “argument” that the right to discriminate should be protected under anti discrimination legislation is a massive steaming pile of ■■■■.
A religious person can be a civil celebrant - they just can’t discriminate while they do so.
It’s really not that difficult.
Most things are not black and white.
This is actually the best way to think about it.
Substitute gay for Jewish, female or disabled, and re-read what you wrote.
If it sounds wrong with one of those adjectives, it’s wrong based on anything else.
Generally they put a date on it, effective after…
Yes,
I originally wrote “Jews” but it sounded wrong.
In time, so will “gays” for anyone who thinks the above are unacceptable too.
You’re right, but this one is.
laws are one example that very much are black and white.
If a civil celebrant refuses to abide by the law, they should have their registration stripped.
I’m of the view religions and clergy should be allowed freedom to pick and choose, as long as it’s within their flock and under their roof. People can choose to be in that religion or not.
I can’t believe it’s even being discussed, really.
Is anyone advocating for religions to be forced to conduct ssm? I don’t think anyone is. And for the record, they shouldn’t be made to. Their club, their rules, and I have no problem with that.
Outside of religious views though, the laws of the land apply. If you can’t refuse to serve someone in a shop because they’re a woman, or refuse to let someone on the bus who is black, then you shouldn’t be allowed to not provide services to someone who is gay. It is, exactly, that simple.
The only amendment to existing laws that is required is the rolling back of the Howard ‘man and a woman’ marriage definition. That’s it.
$145M to change 4 words
Next time these ■■■■■ want to raise taxes…
Laws can, and often are, changed to reflect what the lawmakers believe. So the Law on this can be changed to allow civil celebrants the freedom to choose. If that happens do you support your black and white then?
For what it is worth, I personally believe, if you offer a service and advertise a service formally as a business then you have no place refusing to service anyone unless they are being abusive or threatening. You have conscientious objections to something, then don’t run a business.
Plus the money raised to support the respective campaigns, plus the time it takes parliament to debate and then pass the legislation (politician wages, Parliament House staff wages, electricity, water, etc consumed during the debate), plus the impact on counselling/support services by those affected by the campaign itself, plus productivity lost from time spent in this thread alone…
No, I (fairly obviously) think the 2004 marriage act is discriminatory as is.
I’m vaguely uncomfortable with churches being allowed to say no under their roofs, but I see the argument.
You can’t start allowing people to be offensive arseholes just because they say it’s what they believe. There has to legal protection against discrimination and offensive behaviour, or you’ll end up with a Westboro church situation.
If you can argue you should be allowed to do X because your religion says, I can just as validly argue I should be allowed to stop you doing X because my religion says. It’s childish.
I’m of the view that marriage should not be a religious event at all, and that it is a civil matter that is done by a Government approved person. And if SSM happens then no-one has the right to deny it.
If a priest is approved and he only work sin a church, then it is up to him to obey the law or lose his approval.
In any case, when I get married next; Koala is my go to person.