OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gary Gutful]

No, I don't believe that is the case, it is one of the intents I'm sure, but in doing so it also further enshrines in law the ability to discriminate upon religious grounds. Only that the grounds are established via belief rather than membership of any particular religion.

I'm open to the idea that this may be the case, but I honestly couldn't find anything based on the examples provided in the article Gronk posted.

Maybe you've got some better examples? Happy to have my mind changed.

 

[Bazal]

Talk to the sky or whatever .... people are entitled to their beliefs to an extent

I think in cases where there is a readily available alternative, like cases gary mentioned above, then i dont have a problem with people basing their decisions in line with their beliefs

I think a staunch catholic dr should be able to say i dont believe in the pill, so im not presribing it - cos theres a heap of others that are available.

And no im certainly not religious myself ... i dabbled in high school cos some of my friends were and i wanted to pick up chicks (yeah, didnt think that through) - but i came out of that stage

I don't believe that a Doctor who would place his own religion over his patients health interests should be allowed to practice.

They take an oath for a reason.

 

[Bazal]

1. You should't lecture on the basis of "unity, undertstanding and inclusiveness" when many of the people who are critical of the bill are showing anything but that.

2. Rather than silly, meaningless knee jerk reactions I decided to explore each of the listed concerns in detail and form my own opinion on their merit.

3. I doubt you'll be able to argue me on the specifics because based on any rational interpretation, the concerns that have been outlined are pretty weak. They are either irrelevant, unlikely or just plain misguided.

4. I don't have a lot of time for religion, but I don't believe people should be discriminated against because they are practicing it.

5. A lot of the concerns raised by people about not being able to go a jewish schoool or be employed by a church seem like a f**ken pathetic attempt to be a victim. I doubt they'd give two f**ks if there was some other type of discrimination towards some other group that ultimately benefitted them.

Come on man, you are a smart guy. Surely you can concede that I have a point?

To be perfectly honest your point boils down, essentially, to "people should have a right to be shit merkins because that's their religion."

Disagree.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No we are not.

That's a load of shit , people are not permitted to practice their religion in a manner that discriminates against others

Then they are not permitted to practice their religion. Every value system entails discrimination. It is secular privilege not to notice when your own value system is discriminatory.

 

[Bandwagon]

I'm open to the idea that this may be the case, but I honestly couldn't find anything based on the examples provided in the article Gronk posted.

Maybe you've got some better examples? Happy to have my mind changed.

Tbh I've watched several debates on this legislation, and read a fair bit into it. It interests me because whilst I do respect peoples rights to practice their religion as they see fit, I don't extend that to point where it then infringes upon the rights of others.

I'll see what i can dig up.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Im confused who is intimidating, the person withe the camera or all the people with masks trying to hide their identity for some reason

It's definitely the little gay Asian dude who is intimidating everyone else.

 

[strider]

I don't believe that a Doctor who would place his own religion over his patients health interests should be allowed to practice.

They take an oath for a reason.

Yeah i wouldnt think putting peoples health at risk is a good thing, but thats not the case im talking about is it

 

[Bandwagon]

Then they are not permitted to practice their religion. Every value system entails discrimination. It is secular privilege not to notice when your own value system is discriminatory.

Why did you ignore the second part of that quote?

It qualifies it beyond your rebuttal here.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yet the very thing you complain of here in reality only exists in that those very same adults are restricted in choosing their values only in sense of foisting their values upon others.

It's quite the conundrum.

It is indeed. Best to just let everyone discriminate rather than just the one ideology.

Ha ha ha, it's amazing how the conservative has become such a victim these days. FFS.

Social media makes everyone feel attacked.

 

[Bazal]

Yeah i wouldnt think putting peoples health at risk is a good thing, but thats not the case im talking about is it

Not specifically....but boil it down

If you have a doctor with that attitude, who would happily place his faith over his oath and now has the legal right to do so, do you not agree that 100% has the potential to cause harm to a patient?

 

[Gary Gutful]

To be perfectly honest your point boils down, essentially, to "people should have a right to be shit merkins because that's their religion."

Disagree.

Thats not what my 5 points boil down to at all. Where have I ever said that people can be merkins because of their religion?

I could be just as facetious and smug and say that all of your points just boil down to "people should have a right to be shit merkins if they aren't religious"

I think you threw my points into a bowl of semen rather than hot water. You need to work on your boiling...

 

[Bandwagon]

Talk to the sky or whatever .... people are entitled to their beliefs to an extent

I think in cases where there is a readily available alternative, like cases gary mentioned above, then i dont have a problem with people basing their decisions in line with their beliefs

I think a staunch catholic dr should be able to say i dont believe in the pill, so im not presribing it - cos theres a heap of others that are available.

And no im certainly not religious myself ... i dabbled in high school cos some of my friends were and i wanted to pick up chicks (yeah, didnt think that through) - but i came out of that stage

Often times there will not be a genuine alternative, for all manner of reasons. Take for example a smaller town where there may only be very limited service providers in many areas, what then?

And yes I agree, you did not think that last idea through particularly well.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Tbh I've watched several debates on this legislation, and read a fair bit into it. It interests me because whilst I do respect peoples rights to practice their religion as they see fit, I don't extend that to point where it then infringes upon the rights of others.

I'll see what i can dig up.

Thanks mate. Look forward to it.

 

[strider]

Not specifically....but boil it down

If you have a doctor with that attitude, who would happily place his faith over his oath and now has the legal right to do so, do you not agree that 100% has the potential to cause harm to a patient?

Why would you want that doctor .... go to a doctor who aligns with you

Also, i have always been baffled by people upset about catholic or jewish or whatever schools/hospitals ..... if you are totally anti religion, dont f**kin worry about those merkins

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I see, so legislation that permits or even encourages division in the community is good ?

View attachment 36441

View attachment 36442

View attachment 36443

View attachment 36444

Well forced 'unity' has led us to where we are now. Everything's a reaction to something else.

I don't imagine I'll feel free to stop pretending I'm an atheist any time soon, but maybe I won't have to keep putting up with merkins talking shit about religion in the workplace. Surely that's a good thing.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ok way to make things personal. Didn’t this escalate quickly ? Don’t let your insecurities cloud the debate merkin.

Insecurities? I just don't like bullies.

 

[Bazal]

Thats not what my 5 points boil down to at all. Where have I ever said that people can be merkins because of their religion?

I could be just as facetious and smug and say that all of your points just boil down to "people should have a right to be shit merkins if they aren't religious"

I think you threw my points into a bowl of semen rather than hot water. You need to work on your boiling...

Righto. Now you have five points? Instead of being a smart-arse dickbag and throwing around your old faves like "smug", how about paying attention?

That may not be what you believe, but it is essentially what you are arguing. This bill allows people the legal right to be shit merkins based on their religion. Simple as that, whether you choose to agree or not. Someone can essentially say just about whatever they like, or refuse to provide whatever service they like, based on their religion.

But but but it has to be in "good faith"!! "Sorry your honour, I truly believe I would go to hell if I treated that gay man, so I chose not to."

Let me spin it this way then. Do you believe that religious people should have different rights than non-religious people?

 

[Bazal]

Insecurities? I just don't like bullies.

Bullies like religious people who force their beliefs on others to the extent of doing harm?

 

[Bandwagon]

It is indeed. Best to just let everyone discriminate rather than just the one ideology.

Then that would only serve an ideology that reckons that is ok. So the same still applies

Except the world becomes a much shittier place.

Social media makes everyone feel attacked.

Really?

I think you give it far too much credence.

Mind you, if we followed your position above, that'd probably have a lot more truth to it.

 

[strider]

Fact is, people who are true shit merkins are gonna be shit merkins regardless of the laws