Yuyutsu,
Have you ever met a homosexual who was involved in Gay rights activism?
I can say that even though for the duration of the 1990's almost all of my male co-workers in the hospitality industry were Gay I've never met a homosexual who was at all interested in anything beyond their own immediate wants and desires, I've found them to be a singularly focused sub set of people in that regard.
Human rights is a circus show for middle class White women and a display of misdirected maternal instincts, that motherly urge to protect anyone and anything which can be seen as weak or in peril.
Marriage equality, as I stated before is primarily for the benefit of White middle class Lesbians, who as evidenced by statistics from states where such unions are legal will make up 75% or more of same sex couples.

Dear Jay,

Indeed, I know a number of homosexual people, none of which to the best of my knowledge is involved in the gay movement.

However, you write: "I've never met a homosexual who was at all interested in anything beyond their own immediate wants and desires"

- perhaps so, but I have met some who are also interested in their long-term future and career as well as the welfare of others, including their children. Other than their sexual orientation which should not mean much anyway, they are just ordinary people.

Yuyutsu,
I guess in terms of hedonism it takes one to know one, all of the homosexuals I've known were to be blunt, from the scummier end of the spectrum if not outright criminals but truth be told I went looking for that "low life" in my twenties. As I've said before we can't judge groups by their outliers, Bevan von Einem or Miller and Worrell aren't representative of all homosexuals and neither are Michael Kirby and Bob Brown however there are "clusters" along the axis from outright perversion to clean living.

Dear david f,

>>On the question of rights for homosexuals those against those rights can accuse those who are for those rights as bullies. <<

I am sorry again, but I was not commenting on rights for homosexuals, but rather on the right of the baker (or printer) to refuse to provide a service he cannot, for whatever reasons. In Communist countries you had not only censorship but if you wanted to provide a service - e.g. publish a magazine - you had to include services (articles) dictated by the Party, whether or not you liked its contents.

>>In the case of the cake I think it was. It was enforced with a rigidity that I think was oppressive.<<

In that case we are in agreement except that I am afraid that this is not an isolated case where “political correctness” is “rigidly enforced”, as can be easily checked on internet. This is what Babette, for better or worse, called “bullying” by law (or else) of those e.g. bakers, printers or just employees. Is this criticism - and warning of where it could lead - a “denigration” of those law enforcers? (I admit that I am over-sensitive in these matters because of my experience with the Stalinist system.)

Let me repeat, this has nothing to do with discrimination of the customer. It would be a discrimination - call it violation of the customer’s rights - if the baker refused to sell an ordinary loaf of bread with an explanation that the customer was black, homosexual, too fat or what. This was the case where a hotelier refused to rent out a room to a homosexual pair (or maybe a heterosexual couple who could not prove that they were legally married).

By the way, I tried to sketch my view of same sex marriage - or more precisely of the brouhaha around it - in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17393#307196 .

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>Private employers should be able to employ whoever they want, whenever they want and not those they do not want, for whatever reason or even for no reason at all - it's their money which they should be free to spend as they wish.<<

The right to refuse to employ somebody without having to give reasons? I tend to agree although it goes further than what I was defending, Would it include the right of the hotelier not to rent out a room in my example above?

Dear George,

A hotelier is firstly an individual, only then a hotelier: it is wrong to command an individual, under threat of violence (which is what police, courts and prisons are all about) to do something against their will.

Nevertheless, there are circumstances when an individual is rightly deemed to have voluntarily given up some of their freedoms in exchange for some freely-accepted benefits from public bodies. These include:

* Direct business subsidies.
* Subsidised business inputs.
* Tax relief.
* Public contracts.
* Solicited listings on public boards/directories/maps.
* Incorporation, if the business operates as a company, because for example it enjoys limited-liability.

In such cases it is not unacceptable to apply anti-discrimination laws on the business, though I think it should be used sparingly.

Besides, individuals should keep their freely-given promises (otherwise it's a fraud), so if they ever stated for example that the hotel welcomes anyone, then anyone means anyone and the law would be right to protect people against fraud.