So there you have it. Below is a tool for exploring the results at divisional level according to a range of electoral and demographic criteria. Take your pick from the drop down menu, and you will get divisional “yes” votes recorded on the vertical axis, and their results for the relevant indicator on the vertical axis. Most of these are self-explanatory, with the exception of “One Nation support index”. This equals the division’s 2016 Senate vote for One Nation divided by the party’s overall Senate vote in that state, multiplied by 100. So an electorate will score 100 if its One Nation vote is exactly equal to the state average; it will score 200 if it’s double; 50 if it’s half; and so forth. This is to prevent the party’s across-the-board high results in Queensland from spoiling the effect. “Finished school” is measured as a percent of the 15-plus population.
You are probably right. However, Pyne has form in “double bluff” in these sorts of matters. The most recent being his negotiations with “Get Up”re funding support for moderate Liberals. So, it wouldn’t be totally incredible for it to have been him looking for another way to garner sympathy, public support and damage his political opponents.
Here that dill of a Liberal Party vice-president starts it off.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/yes-campaign-must-keep-its-promises-after-5-million-people-voted-no-in-samesex-marriage-ballot-20171114-gzlawd.html
And Adam Gartrell reminds us of what our ubiquitous friend Lyle Shelton has been saying. Like “It’s just the start of the battle”.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-postal-survey-no-campaigners-vow-to-keep-up-the-fight-20171113-gzkkbi.html
As many have pointed out the survey was on marriage equality, if the lnp want exemptions on all sorts of discrimination against LGBTI then they should get turnbull to have a survey on this after the marriage act has been amended to all for marriage equality. If the result is a yes vote then they can start debating the various discrimination amendments to the new marriage act.
What did Pyne post that hes claiming was hacked? That hes a weasel?
businesses that dont discriminate can display a rainbow symbol, those that do should display a rainbow symbol with a cross through it.
nothing more frustrating than organising a wedding and finding out that certain businesses wont provide services because of their views. Far easier if you knew beforehand to avoid them.
Re the cake shop owners.
Yes, it’s a cause celebre for the RWNJs, but there is a real foundation to their arguments, which is the case “Masterpiece Cake Shop vs the Colorado Civil Rights Commission”, currently before the US Supreme Court. Masterpiece Cake Shop, which is owned by a devout Christian, is appealing a ruling by the State court that it could not lawfully refuse to bake cakes for same sex weddings, and that it needed to “change its company policies” and provide “comprehensive staff training” and report on a quarterly basis to the authorities about what it was doing to make sure that it would do the right thing in future.
Masterpiece Cake Shop has refused to do any of these things and has instead decided – pending the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing – to take wedding cakes off its list of products.
The case arose when a gay couple seeking to marry in Denver were refused service by Masterpiece Cake Shop. They immediately found another cake shop that would provide the cake, but decided anyway to complain to the authorities that they had been discriminated against.
The champions of identity politics of the 2010s like to throw the phrase “civil rights” around a lot and invoke the memory of Rosa Parks. But there is a clear and major distinction between the cases of Rosa Parks and Masterpiece Cake Shop: that is, there was at least one other (and, I assume, dozens of other) cake shops in Denver that were happy to supply a cake on this occasion, while Rosa Parks certainly did not have the option of choosing another bus service provider in Montgomery who would have been happy to have her sit in the front seats.
Human rights and stopping discrimination are important civilised values. But there is another important civilised value that some of the identity politics brigade don’t seem to have absorbed. I call it “live and let live”. It’s the value that I’m sure inspired many people to vote Yes for SSM: ie, “same sex couples getting married doesn’t affect me in any way, so why would I want to stop it?”
I don’t like tyrannies, and that includes tyrannies of the self-righteous majority. And we’re seeing quite a bit of that sort of tyranny in the western world today: a really good example was the retired and unlamented Gillian Triggs’s bizarre comment that implied that she’d like to be able to exercise judgement on what people say to their families in the privacy of their own homes.
If umpteen cake shops are happy to bake cakes for gay marriages, why not leave the one who won’t do so alone? I’m not sure I want to see legislation to protect cake shops, but gee I’d like to see some leaders of the gay movement come out today and reassure the devout people of all religions in Australia – including many refugees who have come here to escape forms of persecution unimaginably worse than that experienced by people who have to shop around a bit to buy a cake – that they aren’t about to go through a period of harassment by various people in authority until they expunge their minds of the “thought crime” that their God believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
I vehemently disagree with that view, but – on the grounds of “live and let live” – I don’t want to persecute those who hold it. It’s the same way I feel about burqas: I am disturbed by the world view that demands them, but I would be prepared to go out into the street and march for the right of people to wear whatever clothing they want.
a certain irony in that a lot of the opposition to marriage equality is from “newer Australians” with financial, marketing and other support from USA fundamentalists.
howards aussie value of marriage segregation and foundation of Australian society has most of its support from these new migrant and imported USA values.
Mein Gott! Campbell in the Hun of all places has got it.
Implications for Labor in large immigrant especially Muslim communities that vote no? Nil.
Implications for the Libs in being run by loons way out on the fringes of the community? Have a look at the polls you knuckleheads.
What he doesn’t pick up though is that these loons are representative of the party membership. They are like the Republicans. In order to get preselection they have to take positions that are repellent to the middle. Which decreases the chances of the membership becoming more representative.
I see that you’ve never been discriminated against meher baba
sonar @ #844 Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 8:32 am
My good man, he said, with an obviously forced and false Dutch Uncle demeanor, Turnbull as you so succinctly put it, has work to do.
Thursday is upon us and the magic of a magnificent return to glory is just around the corner.
♪Just you wait, ♫’Enry ‘Iggins, just you wait ❗ ♫♪
The man is fearless (Keating) and will not hesitate.
He has no judgement (Keating) and so, children, we can anticipate with hearts that feel as though they will burst (only one heart each for us (not including Time Lords)), while we wait for the deluge as the now aging warrior falls from the sky to acclamation from 38.4% of the population and 99.99% of the accredited dickheads of the graduates of the Sycophants of Austraya Institute.
Leave us now repair to the sun room to enjoy our coffee and toast with Australian made © vegemite.
Come along now, Daddy will read you a lovely story about the man who would be king.
♡ ☮ ☕
a final post before I go
I think lamb is gone unless she can show that she could not get a copy of the certificate.
meher baba (AnonBlock)
Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 8:58 am
Comment #854
If you are marching in my neighborhood, I will be pleased to don my green (it’s really purple, but that’s another story) top hat and join you.
Do you like to sing ❓ 😵
mb
Well, of course they were discriminated against.
To not be allowed to complain that you’ve been discriminated against is surely a violation of free speech, at the very least.
If your religious convictions conflict with your ability to do your job, maybe you should change your job — you don’t hear vegetarian butchers complaining about having to supply meat to customers….
boris: “a certain irony in that a lot of the opposition to marriage equality is from “newer Australians” with financial, marketing and other support from USA fundamentalists.”
Evidence?
I was under the impression from the media coverage and the distribution of votes that the strongest no voting elements of the population were Asians: Middle Eastern Muslims, South Asians of all religions, and Christians from East Asia. I don’t think USA fundamentalists hold a great deal of sway with any of those groups.
One of the things I like about this result (apart from the obvious) is that it should put to rest the canard that it is ‘ordinary Australians’ and ‘bogans’ who stand in the way of progress. Hopefully we see less sneering about them on this site as a result.
Zoomster, ‘Sometimes I don’t get religious types at all, which is probably the reason I’m no longer one..’
It may help if you look into how cults operate. I once listened to a fellow who became a cult buster. Normal guy whose son got involved. He imported help from America to rescue his son from a cult and then set up his own business as he saw a glaring need for such a service here.
He started his talk by saying ‘it doesn’ matter what the cult calls itself, they all operate the same way’.
Strangely, as he went through the things they do, I realised, that no matter what the religion called itself, they were cults and operated no differently from other, less mainstream, cults.
Your religious family member acted like she was indoctrinated by a cult as ostracisation is a favoured method of manipulation inside a cult.
mb
…the crucial bit of the comment was the bit about financial support. It was not saying that US Australians voted ‘no’.
The sleuths should be called in to verify how Pyne’s Facebook page was (allegedly) hacked.
Good Morning
Peter Strong from the small business council was on newsradio this morning.
He is salivating. He is talking about a wedding led recovery for retailers. Far from worrying about refusing to bake a cake he is telling his business base to gear up for it.
Wedding cakes can cost $5oo
Peter Strong said the only people business wants to avoid is the creep. Most small business certainly won’t be avoiding same sex weddings. They will be pursuing it. Lost of money to be made especially as he put it when people are having fun. They tend to spend more money than they would otherwise.
So much for the mythical baker refusing to bake a cake for gay people.
zoomster
I agree with you about the bogan myth.
craigjack36: Someone had a gay old time last night …
#auspol twitter.com/abcnews/status…
abcnews: .@cpyne says hacker liked porn tweet ab.co/2hC2Qy5 pic.twitter.com/FwvIXI0KnI
As far as I am concerned who cares. Pyne was a strong yes campaigner. If he did this its not hypocritical and is only his private concern.
zoomster: “To not be allowed to complain that you’ve been discriminated against is surely a violation of free speech, at the very least.”
I completely agree that people should absolutely be allowed to complain about being discriminated against, and make public criticisms of businesses who do so.
I’m less comfortable with what seems to be a somewhat Orwellian state apparatus that then comes in and treats the business owners who so discriminate as if they have committed a thought crime, requiring them to undergo “comprehensive” retraining and report quarterly to someone about what they have done.
I lived for a time in the Sydney suburb of Campsie. There are umpteen Arabic cakeshops in that area, many run by devout Muslims. There might be some highly unorthodox way of reading the canons and teachings of Islam that suggests that that religion is tolerant of homosexuality, but it wouldn’t be one for which you’d find much support among practising Muslims.
So these Muslim cake shop owners are going to be extremely reluctant (to say the least) to bake wedding cakes for same sex marriages. And the same applies to Christians and others.
So what I’m asking is this. Will it be necessary to seek out these business owners and drag them through quasi-legal tribunals and courts to compel them to change their ways, even though this would conflict with these deeply-held views?
Or, in the interests of tolerance, and given that there will be many dozens of cake shop owners who will be delighted to bake cakes for same sex marriages, could we just all agree to live and let live?
And do the same thing for wedding planners, marriage celebrants, etc, etc.
BK @ #831 Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 7:47 am
It doesn’t matter which side of the electricity wars you’re on, you’d have to hope this particular prediction is wrong:
MB
The first rule in discrimination law is common sense. Their is mediation as a first step.
The vexatious litigant forcing an issue gets as much attention as someone doing the discrimination.
The fact is those cake bakers who you mention may be reluctant but they will do it if they have to. It will only be if its unreasonable to force them to do so that this will happen.
Same applies now to doing birthday parties. Its not as if its suddenly new law. All that is new is that for a business their is more business opportunity not less.
Or, in the interest of tolerance, and given that there will be many of dozens of taxi drivers who will be delighted to carry gay couples to their destination, could we all just agree to live an let live?
Or, in the interest of tolerance, and given that there will be many of dozens of cake shop owners who will be delighted to bake cakes for mixed-race couples, could we all just agree to live and let live?
workmanalice: Dean Smith is up first.
Then Penny Wong.
Then Janet Rice.
Watch online here > aph.gov.au/News_and_Event…
My understanding of meher baba’s argument is that discrimination should be tolerated. It appears that those who are discriminated against should adopt a “live and let live” response.
Three questions.
How one sided is this “live and let live”principle you propose?
Why, if religious belief is the issue, should it only allow discrimination in the case of weddings? If it is a sound proposition, should it apply not only to weddings, but to all actions in life?
And if it is a sound principle, why should it apply only to SS weddings. Why should the principle not apply to all actions with respect to anything, against anyone, if the person discriminating claims a religious objection?
What I want is the well reasoned argument that provides for discrimination against SSM, limited to weddings. To me, it looks like arbitrary discrimination, and is thus not a sound principle and should be rejected.
zoomster @ #863 Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 9:14 am
I hope that you are right. I love the language. A “canard” a duck’s quack. Looovely.
So called bogans, I guess would be the less well educated and country boy/girl types. Well, maybe so – but not stupid .
The sneering is probably not liking the reflection in the mirror because, once again, lots of us think mistakenly we are men/women of the soil. Hardy bushies, at home outback, camping out, telling tall tales and true with the best of them (whoever they are) around the campfire at night, where the wild dingoes call.
♫♪Sing me be home, to the place I long to be ♪♫♫
I think I have gotten off track here and will now retire to ponder the mysteries off life. ☮
This.
The HC has a range of options open to it in a case like this. The preference should be for a reading that corresponds to the wording of the law, but in a way that enhances the intent and spirit of it, and also provides a just and equitable without creating further problems and allows a consistent application in the future.
This decision in Hughes seems to take the first and the last part and completely ignore the middle. There can be no argument that somehow Hughes by accepting a government job 11 months after she was defeated at the election was conflicted at the time of her election. It’s just nonsense. The sort of legalistic bullshit that brings the law into disrepute.
As others have pointed out if rather than being found ineligible Nash had been just resigned and Hughes was selected as the replacement there would be precisely zero issue. Nash was a Senator if she eligible or not. The AEC declared her, she was sworn in, her votes counted and still count, and she pocketed the pay. Hughes has never ever ever been a Senator. She was excluded in the count, never sworn in, never voted, never got paid a zack.
The Hughes decision doesn’t enhance the intent or spirit of the law, and it is not just or equitable to a person who has done no wrong and was not conflicted at any time during an actual election or term of service as a Senator. A decision to say that period between the declaration of the election and reopening of the selection process via the recount was not relevant to the purposes of s44 in this case was completely open to the court, would have complied with the letter and intent of the section, would have been just, and would not have created any difficulties of unforeseen precedents or problems of consistency. They could have, and easily. It would have been good law and good sense. It would have been a decision that produced the best outcome for Australian governance. They didn’t.
It’s the HC, so it stands now. But it stands as a testament to the stupidity of narrow focus when a step back and look at the big picture is required.
Meher baba
I think the “conscientious” objection to baking a cake for someone is absurd and false.
For example, Christianity and Islam are antogonistic religious world views on many levels. To muslims belief in the “incarnation”, the bedrock of Christianity, is false and therefore evil. Likewise the denial of the incarnation by muslims is obviously the major deficiency of islam, from a Christian perspective.
No one thinks that a Christian serving a Muslim, and vice versa, in any way means that either is compromising their beliefs and that a “consciencious” objection is warranted.
To me the so called “religious” objection to supplying a cake is a fig leaf for prejudice. Absolutely nothing more.
Baking a cake is not a religious rite. Therefore baking a cake for a gay (or jewish, black, disabled, or female) person is not an act of religious observance. It is not an infringement of religious freedom to require someone to treat all people equally in delivering services to them. And if their religion did require them to discriminate against people in everyday, civil matters, then the religious freedom is too broad and infringes the rights of others and should be curtailed in a secular society.
michaelkoziol: Smith says any amendments to this bill that deal with extraneous issues or seek to diminish gay rights “will be strenuously opposed”
My big objection is that religion of all stripes continually maintains ‘specialness’ in society when it is divisive in doctrine.
In religion there is always those who are part of the group and those outside yet by having taxation exemptions and status that allows it exception in other areas of life, it gains a specialness that ALL of society must participate in, i.e. we all pay more tax wise (for instance), even if we are not adherents, to allow those with this religious specialness to benefit.
This exercise has highlighted for me how lopsided our society is in this way.
I’m getting the feeling that very few amendments to the Smith bill will be possible now. If most of Labor and the Greens oppose every amendment then it only takes a very small number of conscience voters from the government benches to will be needed to vote them down. Is this how bludgers see it playing out? Or is there mischief yet to be made?
Watching this is so moving. The humanity of legislators is on show. Such a contrast from what we normally see.
Meher
The case in the USA is about prejudice, not about wedding cakes or gays.
As far as I’m concerned, a business or person that refuses to provide an ancillary service (such as catering or cleaning or even a wedding dress) for a same sex wedding is purely exhibiting anti-homosexual prejudice.
The fact is that these services are not necessary for the wedding – only the person who solemnises the wedding is. The other services go to the amount of pleasure that can be derived by the partners, their family and friends from the occasion. By denying services on the ground of sexuality these people are saying that they do not want the partners and guests to have a good time because the couple is gay. If that is not anti-gay prejudice I don’t know what is!
Now Senator Wong
Leaving aside the issue of bakers and wedding planners for the moment, marriage celebrants are in a completely different category because their authority to conduct marriages is conferred by the Government itself.
shiftaling @ #883 Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 9:48 am
Guaranteed, I would think. But I don’t think it will ultimately succeed in doing anything except delaying the inevitable. For Mal, this whole thing makes a great distraction from discussion of the illegitimacy of his government – I expect he will drag it out as long as he can.
Our laws should be secular, not based on religion.
shiftaling @ #883 Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 9:48 am
The conservatives and their IPA fellow travellers will use this debate to recruit for their brand of ‘Liberalism’. But they won’t get their changes up and they know it. I expect that they will abstain when the final vote comes up as their way of ‘respecting’ the plebithingy result. The amount of grace and fuss with which they do it will reflect on Trumble’s leadership. The more squawking by them and the more backing and filling and placation by him the worse it is for him.
Could we please have less talk about cake.
My senior, executive, managing daughter (favourite when present) may hear about or read the ridiculous arguments and decide to bring me some cake.
Generally speaking, I am not highly regarded by the cake eating fraternity. Given a choice I just like the fresh cream and let the regimental dog (now sadly departed) have the rest.
Senior daughter then, may bring me some cake. The cake will invariable be horrible dry and tasteless .
Aha ❗ The cake is a metaphor for the way she feels about my false bonhomie, smart man about town, bullshit stories and pretend knowledge. She, senior favorite daughter, is punishing me, as she likes to watch me pretend to enjoy the cake and the accompanying Maccas coffee (which is quite nice).
Repent KayJay. Repent The kingdom of Maleficent is at hand.
Sackcloth and ashes, hair shirts for me. ♫Down, down down, and the♪ flames went higher ……..☮☮
Out of my window I can see the joker from across the road (where, according to the white pages I live) taking in the big rubbish bins. He’s ninety something. Likes to climb ladders and potter about. Good bloke. I don’t know his views about same sex marriage and I don’t care.
lizzie @ #892 Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 9:59 am
These people are insane. The rocks are in the head. This sort of talk is so patently dickheadness gone off the planet that nobody would give any credence to it. Why do they say this stuff ❓
Perhaps it’s the old “any publicity is good publicity, chief, story”.
shiftaling Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 9:48 am Comment #883
Yep.
Lots of suggested amendments will be put up but unless something comes up that actually requires seeing to I think the bill will be passed on the current bare-bones basis.
There won’t be any amendments. Like TPOF says the loons will be doing some virtue signaling to their target audiences, but the ALP and Greens are already accepting Smith’s Bill despite it providing exemptions for civil celebrants that they wouldn’t have if they had their way.
The Smith Bill will sail through and any attempts to nobble it or tack on discrimination will be swept aside.
This is worth noting.
This is where I grew up.
sluntz: Twenty years ago, in the electorate of Braddon, polls showed 70% of the population supported 25 years jail for homosexual sex. It just voted 54% for marriage equality. Don’t ever let anyone tell you change doesn’t come.
Tasmania as a whole beat the national average.
MarkDiStef: He’s running. twitter.com/ljayes/status/…
ljayes: Minister @PeterDutton_MP tells @2GB873 he will vote yes in the Parliament after 65% of his electorate of Dickson voted yes. #SSM2017 @SkyNewsAust
Now we’ve achieved equality for everyone else, isn’t it time we gave REAL equality to the native peoples?
Lizzie
Yes. Indeed so. That and the humanitarian crisis on Manus has to be addressed at the barest minimum