Tony Lavis,
Yes and the voters in 2013 installed three major parties which were publicly opposed to same sex marriage, neither the Coalition or Labor have a mandate to change the marriage act.

Craig Minns, Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek don't support same sex marriage they are using the issue to drive a wedge into the coalition, nothing more, Shorten even goes as far as quoting the Irish decision as proof that it's time for change, enough said we might think. It's a one shot political manouvre being employed by a desperate and unpopular opposition against an equally unpopular, weak and fractured government, in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with human rights or homosexuals full stop.

strangely enough no one labelled Ms Gillard a bigot when she supported the traditional view of marriage.

//Thus the urgency of the lesson about the hysterical SA "Gay elite" and their promiscuously Gay leaders Hitler and Roehm.//

(Sung to the tune of the 'Colonel Bogey March')

Hitler! Liked to suck men's balls;
Roehm! Liked fellas if they were tall;
Himmler! Preferred something similar;
Whilst poor Goering got no balls at all.

//Yes and the voters in 2013 installed three major parties which were publicly opposed to same sex marriage, neither the Coalition or Labor have a mandate//

If they want a man date, I'm happy to take them out for dinner. But they have to pay, because they earn more than me.

Craig Minns:

"phanto, just taking a wild stab in the dark here, but I reckon that if someone says they prefer to have sex with people who they share a gender with, then there isn't any need to look any further into it."

Well of course there is if you are going to base the law on the fact that someone has a homosexual orientation. Facts have to be substantiated - we can't just take someone's word for it. The Irish Equality Commission just took Lee's word for it and he may not even have a homosexual orientation. Someone could lose their business or even be fined on the word of the claimant.

james505
“how do we know that this baker holds 'christian' beliefs? maybe she just wanted to hurt the couple?”

Well we don’t know but he is not the one who went to the Commission claiming discrimination against him.

“perhaps you could list a few reasons why two people of the same-sex would be standing before a marriage celebrant other than wanting to get married?”

Well they might be two heterosexual men and the law would have been changed to accommodate homosexuals and not two same-sex heterosexuals. People marry for all kinds of reasons. Homosexual people would not want same-sex heterosexuals getting married because there would be no way of telling the difference between same-sex heterosexuals and same-sex homosexuals and they want equality with heterosexuals but not same-sex heterosexuals.

“maybe another question you could wrangle with is: "how is it your business?"

Of course it is my business if the fundamentals of justice are being denied. If the law is being changed on the basis of sexual orientation we need to be very clear what sexual orientation means and that those who apply to take advantage of the law are indeed people with a homosexual orientation.