Full rights for the LGBT community.

aloyisious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Good, so at least we agree they were targeted

I'd agree with that if it were proven that the people who asked Asher's to supply the cake with the requested design also didn't ask other bakeries to supply the same. Targeted is a word with so much overtone it's handy for implying discrimination by those choosing to cause business's to reveal their true colours.

alastair

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd agree with that if it were proven that the people who asked Asher's to supply the cake with the requested design also didn't ask other bakeries to supply the same. Targeted is a word with so much overtone it's handy for implying discrimination by those choosing to cause business's to reveal their true colours.

And we know they did ask another bakery, as they got the cake elsewhere.

Annasopra

alastair wrote: »

And we know they did ask another bakery, as they got the cake elsewhere.

At the last minute. In Bangor. Not in Belfast.

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd agree with that if it were proven that the people who asked Asher's to supply the cake with the requested design also didn't ask other bakeries to supply the same. Targeted is a word with so much overtone it's handy for implying discrimination by those choosing to cause business's to reveal their true colours.

I think its really sinister that there is insistence on this being something that was "targeted" with no evidence. Its almost like a low level smear tactic against LGBT activism.

Daith

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think its really sinister that there is insistence on this being something that was "targeted" with no evidence. Its almost like a low level smear tactic against LGBT activism.

It feeds into "LGBT stuff is infringing on my religious beliefs" and this odd thing where people think that religious belief should trump the law of the land or at least it should when it comes to LGBT things.

Not saying this is exactly what happened here but it comes up all the time.

marienbad

Daith wrote: »

It feeds into "LGBT stuff is infringing on my religious beliefs" and this odd thing where people think that religious belief should trump the law of the land or at least it should when it comes to LGBT things.

Not saying this is exactly what happened here but it comes up all the time.

So what if they were targeted ? what is wrong with that

the is the way of all campaigns , as I pointed out already, legal action against advice and informantion on abortion after the referendum passed . So what ?

Fr Tod Umptious

Daith wrote: »

It feeds into "LGBT stuff is infringing on my religious beliefs" and this odd thing where people think that religious belief should trump the law of the land or at least it should when it comes to LGBT things.

Not saying this is exactly what happened here but it comes up all the time.

But is the law of the land that a business must always do what the customer wants regardless of what they themselves believe in.

Hopefully this will go to court so that we can find out the whole facts of the situation i.e what the customer asked for, when they asked for it, what the company did , when they did it and what alternatives, if any, were offered.

Daith

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But is the law of the land that a business must always do what the customer wants regardless of what they themselves believe in.

Why does or should belief come into it at all? Are you saying in some cases a persons religious belief should be more important than the actual law?

This case isn't as clear cut as that granted and I'm not familar with NI law to say it has been broken here.

Fr Tod Umptious

Daith wrote: »

Why does or should belief come into it at all? Are you saying in some cases a persons religious belief should be more important than the actual law?

This case isn't as clear cut as that granted and I'm not familar with NI law to say it has been broken here.

But does the law say that a business must do whatever a customer asks ?

So if I want a cake with C**T, S**T, B***IX, F***Y, P***Y and F**K written on it then they must do it for me, regardless of how offensive the terms I want on it are ?

I think it will all hinge on whether the bakery are shown to have rejected the cake because of who ordered it or because of what the customer wanted written on it.

Daith

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But does the law say that a business must do whatever a customer asks ?

Of course not. The owner can refuse business. He doesn't bake cakes with political messages, cakes with offensive slogans or he doesn't want to bake that cake.

This isn't the case. The owner is making it clear he doesn't support same sex marriages because he doesn't believe in them from a religious point of view.

He didn't actually have to give a reason. He's entitled to refuse business.

Lets look at an example. A caterer is hired and accepts to work at a same sex couples wedding. One of caterers staff refuses because he is against same sex unions. Should the caterer not be able to discipline them for not showing up to work?

Godge

Daith wrote: »

Of course not. The owner can refuse business. He doesn't bake cakes with political messages, cakes with offensive slogans or he doesn't want to bake that cake.

This isn't the case. The owner is making it clear he doesn't support same sex marriages because he doesn't believe in them from a religious point of view.

He didn't actually have to give a reason. He's entitled to refuse business.

Lets look at an example. A caterer is hired and accepts to work at a same sex couples wedding. One of caterers staff refuses because he is against same sex unions. Should the caterer not be able to discipline them for not showing up to work?

I would not have done what the bakery did.

Yet under the law, it seems to me that they had the right to do what they did.

The discussion of the issue on this thread is in danger of becoming an argument over the morals of what they did (which was wrong) rather than the legality of what they did (which is a very interesting legal question). If we get stuck discussing the morals, the thread will just descend into the usual shouting at one another over the general issue and won't be worth any time or effort.

Daith

Godge wrote: »

The discussion of the issue on this thread is in danger of becoming an argument over the morals of what they did (which was wrong) rather than the legality of what they did (which is a very interesting legal question). If we get stuck discussing the morals, the thread will just descend into the usual shouting at one another over the general issue and won't be worth any time or effort.

I'm not sure. During the Seanad debate on Civil Partnership, I believe Ronan Mullen wanted to get a "conscientious objection" clause put in. So that say a photographer could refuse to say photograph a same sex civil partnership and state because it was against his beliefs.

You mightn't think it's worth the time or effort but a persons belief or their moral view is going to be a factor in the same sex marriage debate. It already has to be honest.

As I said this case isn't a perfect example.

Just for some background here but it does seem familiar with this story?

Independent Senator Ronan Mullen is to table amendments to the Civil Partnership Bill, to protect freedom of conscience for people with religious and ethical concerns around civil partnership on Wednesday.

Last week the Dáil passed all stages of the Bill without a vote. The Seanad cannot prevent the Bill from passing into law, but can suggest amendments, and in certain cases delay passage.

In a statement released today, Senator Mullen said the Bill as currently worded “would penalise, and in some cases criminalise, photographers, printers, managers of parish halls or registrars who might, on conscience grounds, not wish to facilitate civil partnership events”.

He said: “This attacks the freedom of conscience of those who believe in traditional morality and in marriage between a man and a woman as the bedrock of society.

http://ionainstitute.net/index.php?id=892

NuMarvel

Daith wrote: »

Why does or should belief come into it at all? Are you saying in some cases a persons religious belief should be more important than the actual law?

And if religious beliefs be a defence against unlawful activity, why can't personal beliefs? Why should only those who chose to be part of a religion benefit? Why can't atheists, or agnostics?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But does the law say that a business must do whatever a customer asks ?

So if I want a cake with C**T, S**T, B***IX, F***Y, P***Y and F**K written on it then they must do it for me, regardless of how offensive the terms I want on it are ?

I think it will all hinge on whether the bakery are shown to have rejected the cake because of who ordered it or because of what the customer wanted written on it.

You can accept or refuse whatever business you want. But if you refuse business, it can't constitute discrimination under the law.

So in your example if the bakery refuses those messages for all customers, they're in the clear. If they only refuse customers they think are ugly, they're in the clear (attractiveness not being a protected characteristic). If they only refuse those messages for women customers or Travellers, they could be in trouble.

Daith

NuMarvel wrote: »

And if religious beliefs be a defence against unlawful activity, why can't personal beliefs? Why should only those who chose to be part of a religion benefit? Why can't atheists, or agnostics?

Indeed and it seems almost...acceptable as long as it just involves gay people?

If a photographer refused to photograph a wedding involving travelers and actually said "I don't like travelers" there would be an uproar.

Yet refusing to photograph a same sex marriage gets a "well you know it's his religious belief" and you have Senators and TDs actually suggesting putting discrimination into law?

Godge

Daith wrote: »

I'm not sure. During the Seanad debate on Civil Partnership, I believe Ronan Mullen wanted to get a "conscientious objection" clause put in. So that say a photographer could refuse to say photograph a same sex civil partnership and state because it was against his beliefs.

You mightn't think it's worth the time or effort but a persons belief or their moral view is going to be a factor in the same sex marriage debate. It already has to be honest.

As I said this case isn't a perfect example.

Just for some background here but it does seem familiar with this story?

Of course a person's personal or religious belief is going to be an influence in their view of whether a law on same sex marriage should be introduced. That goes without saying.

However, the case involving the baker has nothing to do with that. It has to do with implementing the law.

Daith wrote: »

Indeed and it seems almost...acceptable as long as it just involves gay people?

If a photographer refused to photograph a wedding involving travelers and actually said "I don't like travelers" there would be an uproar.

Yet refusing to photograph a same sex marriage gets a "well you know it's his religious belief" and you have Senators and TDs actually suggesting putting discrimination into law?

Traveller weddings are refused all the time by hotels, photographers etc.

Going back to the case at hand. Take for example the case of halal meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal

"The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Specifically, the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God") and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest). Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck, causing the animal’s death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained"

At the moment, if a Muslim goes into a butcher and asks for halal meat, he can be told we have none. IF the Equality Commission wins its case against the bakery, that Muslim would similarly be able to claim religious discrimination from the butcher as it was refusing to cater to his religious beliefs in the same way that the baker was refusing to cater to the political beliefs of the same-sex couple.

That is only one case. What if that butcher brought in a Muslim butcher to slaughter meat and the following week a fundamental Christian asked for meat that wasn't touched by an infidel?

To me, the answer is quite simple. The bakery is entitled to refuse to bake the cake in the same way that a photographer can refuse to take pictures of a couple having sex or a butcher can refuse to supply halal meat so long as they apply the policy across the board and offer an alternative e.g. I will bake the cake, you can ice it; I will photograph you with clothes on; I will supply you with whatever meat I have etc.

Daith

Godge wrote: »

However, the case involving the baker has nothing to do with that. It has to do with implementing the law.

What? Of course it does. He even says he wouldn't bake a cake because he supports traditional marriage.

We're continuing to hold to the stand that we took originally because we believe it's biblical, we believe it's what God would want us to do, and we also think that if we do cave in to the Equality Commission at this point it'll put pressure on other citizens who are defending their view of traditional marriage.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/christian-bakery-owner-who-refused-to-make-gay-slogan-cake-told-to-offer-compensation-or-face-litigation-30722676.html

Godge wrote: »

At the moment, if a Muslim goes into a butcher and asks for halal meat, he can be told we have none. IF the Equality Commission wins its case against the bakery, that Muslim would similarly be able to claim religious discrimination from the butcher as it was refusing to cater to his religious beliefs in the same way that the baker was refusing to cater to the political beliefs of the same-sex couple.

That's not the same thing at all? In one instance the business can't fulfill the order. The other example is the business not willing to fulfill the order based on religious objection. The bakery could have just left it at "we can't fulfill your order or we don't want to fulfill your order". They didn't need a reason.

Godge wrote: »

That is only one case. What if that butcher brought in a Muslim butcher to slaughter meat and the following week a fundamental Christian asked for meat that wasn't touched by an infidel?

The business can't fulfill the order? I'm not sure where you are going with this?

Godge wrote: »

To me, the answer is quite simple. The bakery is entitled to refuse to bake the cake in the same way that a photographer can refuse to take pictures of a couple having sex or a butcher can refuse to supply halal meat so long as they apply the policy across the board and offer an alternative e.g. I will bake the cake, you can ice it; I will photograph you with clothes on; I will supply you with whatever meat I have etc.

Or simply we can not fulfill your order. Not we don't want to fulfill your order because it's against our beliefs. That's the key thing here.

You seem to think it's about a customers right to ask a business to do anything they want. It's not.

Godge

Daith wrote: »

What? Of course it does. He even says he wouldn't bake a cake because he supports traditional marriage.





That's not the same thing at all? In one instance the business can't fulfill the order. The other example is the business not willing to fulfill the order based on religious objection. The bakery could have just left it at "we can't fulfill your order or we don't want to fulfill your order". They didn't need a reason.



The business can't fulfill the order? I'm not sure where you are going with this?



Or simply we can not fulfill your order. Not we don't want to fulfill your order because it's against our beliefs. That's the key thing here.

You seem to think it's about a customers right to ask a business to do anything they want. It's not.

There is nothing in any of that or in anything in the newspaper article that suggests he refuses to sell cakes with that slogan just to same-sex couples. Therefore there is no discrimination. He legitimately and in freedom holds a belief that means he won't sell cakes with that slogan to anybody. In the same way a butcher can hold a view that halal butchery is nonsense and won't sell halal meat to anyone.

Daith

Godge wrote: »

There is nothing in any of that or in anything in the newspaper article that suggests he refuses to sell cakes with that slogan just to same-sex couples. Therefore there is no discrimination. He legitimately and in freedom holds a belief that means he won't sell cakes with that slogan to anybody.

His belief doesn't trump the law and that hasn't been tested yet.

What does it matter what his belief is? It all boils down to law.

Godge

Daith wrote: »

His belief doesn't trump the law and that hasn't been tested yet.

What does it matter what his belief is? It all boils down to law.

The law does not prevent someone from holding a discriminating belief.

It prevents someone from discriminating against someone i.e. from acting in a discriminating manner towards someone.

Extending it into the holding of the belief is a step too far for me, no matter how much I might disagree with a particular belief.

Think of it another way. What if the slogan was "Support Paedophilia"? The person requesting the cake may not be a paedophile, but may believe that others should have the right to do something that is currently illegal. Could the baker refuse to print that slogan?

Annasopra

marienbad wrote: »

So what if they were targeted ? what is wrong with that

the is the way of all campaigns , as I pointed out already, legal action against advice and informantion on abortion after the referendum passed . So what ?

Because its being used by opponents as a stick to beat campaigners with. Its a smearing tactic.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

At the moment, if a Muslim goes into a butcher and asks for halal meat, he can be told we have none. IF the Equality Commission wins its case against the bakery, that Muslim would similarly be able to claim religious discrimination from the butcher as it was refusing to cater to his religious beliefs in the same way that the baker was refusing to cater to the political beliefs of the same-sex couple.

Different situation altogether. Halal meat is a specific niche product. You can't turn regular butchered meat into halal meat, any more than you can turn sausages into spiced beef. If the butcher hasn't got any halal meat, then that's the end of the story. You don't go into a pork butcher's expecting to find beef, and you don't go to a regular butcher expecting halal meat.

The argument is whether the refusal of the slogan is at the heart of the issue, or the refusal of the custom because of the sexual identity of the customer. I'd be very surprised if the case went against the bakers - the decision wasn't made until someone, further up the chain vetoed the slogan, rather than the customer.

It's irrelevant if the bakers are reactionary throwbacks, they've a right to refuse service, if it's on the basis of not wanting to get involved in the sloganeering. Which would appear to be the crux of the matter, although they do themselves no favours by framing the whole business in their opposition to gay marriage. It's hard to see how a court would find other than the refusal to serve was on the basis of the nature of the request, rather than the nature of the customer.

marienbad

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Because its being used by opponents as a stick to beat campaigners with. Its a smearing tactic.

So what, you make it sound as if it is a negative .

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

The law does not prevent someone from holding a discriminating belief.

It prevents someone from discriminating against someone i.e. from acting in a discriminating manner towards someone.

Extending it into the holding of the belief is a step too far for me, no matter how much I might disagree with a particular belief.

Think of it another way. What if the slogan was "Support Paedophilia"? The person requesting the cake may not be a paedophile, but may believe that others should have the right to do something that is currently illegal. Could the baker refuse to print that slogan?

And that is what the court will decide - were they acting on a discriminating belief.

As regards paedophilia ,I would say the defence there is that you cannot be forced to arvertise something that is illegal.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

As regards paedophilia ,I would say the defence there is that you cannot be forced to arvertise something that is illegal.

Gay marriage is also illegal in NI though. Or extra-legal at a minimum.

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

And that is what the court will decide - were they acting on a discriminating belief.

As regards paedophilia ,I would say the defence there is that you cannot be forced to arvertise something that is illegal.

But same-sex marriage is illegal, the same status as pedophilia, which is why people want slogans such as "Support Same-sex marriage" on cakes. If you can have one illegal slogan on a cake, you can have any illegal slogan.

marienbad

alastair wrote: »

Gay marriage is also illegal in NI though. Or extra-legal at a minimum.

it is as you say not illegal . I think the court would also take account of current issues being discussed in the public square , e.g. gay marriage , marijuana in the usa ,abortion,etc

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

it is as you say not illegal . I think the court would also take account of current issues being discussed in the public square , e.g. gay marriage , marijuana in the usa ,abortion,etc

Court cannot do that, it must respect the law not public opinion, either you are entitled to have a bakery print any slogan you want on a cake or you are not.

The day courts ignore the law and react to public opinion is a bad day for democracy and the rule of law. It would be like "community restorative justice" or gang rule.

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

Court cannot do that, it must respect the law not public opinion, either you are entitled to have a bakery print any slogan you want on a cake or you are not.

The day courts ignore the law and react to public opinion is a bad day for democracy and the rule of law. It would be like "community restorative justice" or gang rule.

In principle I accept that , I am just making the point that a 'legalise marijuana ' teeshirt would be acceptable ,whereas 'legalise paedophilia' might'nt

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

In principle I accept that , I am just making the point that a 'legalise marijuana ' teeshirt would be acceptable ,whereas 'legalise paedophilia' might'nt

It mightn't be acceptable to you but the law doesn't discriminate.

Annasopra

marienbad wrote: »

So what, you make it sound as if it is a negative .

It is a negative. Opponents of LGBT equality are jumping up and down on this to use it for their own purposes.

Fr Tod Umptious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is a negative. Opponents of LGBT equality are jumping up and down on this to use it for their own purposes.

And rightly so, because on the face of it this looks like a blatant attempt by the LGBT group to play the homophobia/persecution card.

As I said in my opening post on this its the type of action that veers me and away from the Yes side in the same sex marriage debate.

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

In principle I accept that , I am just making the point that a 'legalise marijuana ' teeshirt would be acceptable ,whereas 'legalise paedophilia' might'nt

If I'm the tee shirt printer and I disagree with both statements then my reason for refusal to print both is exactly the same.

Godge

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And rightly so, because on the face of it this looks like a blatant attempt by the LGBT group to play the homophobia/persecution card.

As I said in my opening post on this its the type of action that veers me and away from the Yes side in the same sex marriage debate.

I disagree with you on this.

There are some really stupid people on the liberal side of the agenda who see everything as an insult but that wouldn't stop me from voting for what is right which in this case, the right thing to do is to allow same-sex marriage.

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

It mightn't be acceptable to you but the law doesn't discriminate.

I think it does in that other laws come into play such as hate speech, incitement, libel, .

Personally I wouldn't give a s*^t is domeone is foolish enough to wear one . Just going back to the Traveller issue and barring from hotels - they can't be barred as travellers though, only for being a nuisance,violent etc , just like anyone else. Am I correct in saying that ?

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

I disagree with you on this.

There are some really stupid people on the liberal side of the agenda who see everything as an insult but that wouldn't stop me from voting for what is right which in this case, the right thing to do is to allow same-sex marriage.

Absolutely 100% fcuking correct , why anyone would do the wrong thing because they don't like the campaigners has always been beyond me !

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And rightly so, because on the face of it this looks like a blatant attempt by the LGBT group to play the homophobia/persecution card.

As I said in my opening post on this its the type of action that veers me and away from the Yes side in the same sex marriage debate.

Can't understand this attitude . Brings me back to when I was a kid and we had 'the deserving poor' and 'the undeserving poor' when charity was being doled out . I will give you two guesses as to how to tell the difference .

Give them your vote because you believe it is a civil right merited by all , if you don't believe that then don't.

ShooterSF

I think the baker was in their right to refuse. That doesn't mean I'm going to prevent people who love each other and had nothing to do with this getting married. Hell, even the people who are involved still deserve the right to marry their loved ones even if I think they acted silly here.

It's not a vote on discrimination laws. To stop someone marrying someone they love because you disagree with them on such laws is petty.

aloyisious

Sure people have the individual right to decline to support anything which they do not agree with. The question faced by both the bakery and the equality authority here is whether a business has the right to repudiate a deal to provide services and goods to a person which the staff of the business had agreed to under N.I. law. Re the food-stuff angle, the refusal to complete the agreed deal was not over the content of the cake, it was the message on top of the cake, so a halal or kosher food similarity would NOT apply. Re the T-shirt example, that might apply, as the writing could be said to be political. However, that would also run into the snag faced by the bakery; the agreed deal between the business and the customer.

It possibly would have helped the bakery business if it had disclaimer notices posted to inform prospective customers that it was run on religious-belief ethics and was likely (on religious-belief grounds) to repudiate business deals agreed by it's staff. It seem's that the Methodist Church (Ireland) is weighing in behind Ashers, according to both the Belfast News Letter and PinkNews newspapers.

Godge

aloyisious wrote: »

Sure people have the individual right to decline to support anything which they do not agree with. The question faced by both the bakery and the equality authority here is whether a business has the right to repudiate a deal to provide services and goods to a person which the staff of the business had agreed to under N.I. law. Re the food-stuff angle, the refusal to complete the agreed deal was not over the content of the cake, it was the message on top of the cake, so a halal or kosher food similarity would NOT apply. Re the T-shirt example, that might apply, as the writing could be said to be political. However, that would also run into the snag faced by the bakery; the agreed deal between the business and the customer.

It possibly would have helped the bakery business if it had disclaimer notices posted to inform prospective customers that it was run on religious-belief ethics and was likely (on religious-belief grounds) to repudiate business deals agreed by it's staff. It seem's that the Methodist Church (Ireland) is weighing in behind Ashers, according to both the Belfast News Letter and PinkNews newspapers.

A refusal to fulfil a contract is a contractual issue, not an equality issue.

conorh91

Godge wrote: »

A refusal to fulfil a contract is a contractual issue, not an equality issue.

It can be both.

ShooterSF

As far as I can see the bakers weren't refusing to serve the customer based on their sexual orientation and would have sold them any of the cakes they make but rather refused to put a message on the cake that I'm sure they would have refused for anyone. That should be well within their choice.

But as said it's not the main issue at hand.

aloyisious

RTE TV 1 News just started, it's going to run an interview with the American Cardinal that Pope Francis has just demoted. He said that any irish Catholic Politician who vote's to legalize for equality in civil marriage (or same-sex marriage, as he prefers to call it) here would be refused communion by him, in the same way that he planned to refuse it to U.S. Catholic Politicians who did not comply with his wishes there. ignorant fool, thinking his words will terrify the populace here, and stir the Irish R.C church hierarchy into falling into line with his desires to subvert the line taken by Pope Francis.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fnews%2F2014%2F1115%2F659730-cardinal%2F&h=dAQHHn2Q1

colossus-x

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And rightly so, because on the face of it this looks like a blatant attempt by the LGBT group to play the homophobia/persecution card.

As I said in my opening post on this its the type of action that veers me and away from the Yes side in the same sex marriage debate.

You mean you would vote No out of spite?

aloyisious

This post isn't an opinion piece, it's a short film titled... Forbidden Love - Our Gender-Swap Wedding... just on Sky Living HD, about a trans couple (M to F and F to M) who got married in England, just two people who met, fell in love and got married like any other humans.

The_Captain

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And rightly so, because on the face of it this looks like a blatant attempt by the LGBT group to play the homophobia/persecution card.

As I said in my opening post on this its the type of action that veers me and away from the Yes side in the same sex marriage debate.

Even if Yes vote campaigners spat at me, I'd probably still vote Yes. There's no good reason to deny same-sex couples the same rights as everyone else, no matter what actions campaigners take

aloyisious

Nice story from ITV News (via facebook) of good parentage... http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-02/parents-post-birth-announcement-in-newspaper-after-sons-sex-change/

zielarz

The_Captain wrote: »

There's no good reason to deny same-sex couples the same rights as everyone else

Nobody is denying them any rights. We just oppose redefinition of the word marriage.

zielarz

zielarz wrote: »

Nobody is denying them any rights. We just oppose redefinition of the word marriage.

Could you remind us of the current definition as you see it please? I don't know what the starting point is.

Annasopra

zielarz wrote: »

Nobody is denying them any rights. We just oppose redefinition of the word marriage.

So you are denying them the right to marry then!

NuMarvel

zielarz wrote: »

Nobody is denying them any rights. We just oppose redefinition of the word marriage.

Well, it's not really a redefinition, is it?

To redefine a word means to change its meaning, but that's not what's happening here. The meaning of the word isn't changing, just the eligibility criteria for who can use the word. For example, If I say John and Paul got married in New York, you know exactly what I mean; no redefinition is required. On the other hand, if I say I was late to a meeting because the car got a marriage, it would require changing the mean of the word marriage to understand what I mean.

But let's say it is a redefinition. Are you saying that meaning of a word can be grounds for denying equal treatment to a group of people? Does parity and equality under the law take second place to dictionary definitions? That seems entirely disproportionate to me, and I can't see how a simple definition can be grounds for differing treatment under the law.