People today do whatever they want and the trend amongst
first time mums seems to be the more unusual the name
the more it appeals. Just as an example, some of the
most popular baby names are:

Ariellah, J'kobie, Jaylah, Emilianah, Brilla, Ashlyn,
Tamija, Kayleigh, Aalijah, Talyse, Jaylah, Ryhan,
Feenix, Daeshaun, Levi, Tobin, Jett, Treydan, and so
on.

Then of course there's the really unusual. Jamie Oliver's
children range in names from - 15 year old Poppy,
to Daisy Boo, 14, Petal Blossom, eight, and Buddy Bear, six,
and River Rocket, almost one.

cont'd ...

Unusual names have always been a tradition in this
country. Think of how many towns and places are given
Aboriginal names? Should we shorten or change
them? Uluru comes to mind. Should it revert back to
Ayers Rock?

What's in a name after-all. Right?

Actually, Armchair Critic, I’ve been giving your point about protection from legal action some thought, and I’ve decided that, in my view, until religious institutions start paying tax, they should be vulnerable to legal action for discrimination.

Stuff ‘em.

Organisations that rely on tax breaks and benefits should be answerable to the public by making themselves vulnerable to legal action if they discriminate against a group of people, so the same principle should apply to organisations that are afforded the privilege of existing without paying their fair share.

Hey AJ Philips,
I guess it is a little bit more complicated than I first thought, maybe.
I thought about it in the context of 'Refusing Service' because of religious beliefs.
In the instance of forcing a Christian Pastor to marry a gay couple in their church, that really is as bad as forcing a Muslim Imam to eat bacon in their Mosque, (in fairness sake) so that's a step too far, in my opinion.
In the argument of the right of a Christian Bakery not to make a rainbow coloured dick cake that says 'We love and wholeheartedly support gay marriage everywhere', it gets more complicated because then (in fairness sake) a Muslim taxi or Uber driver might argue that they cannot allow a blind persons guide dog in the vehicle.
And I know that that in that example the taxi or ride company may have their own policy, but I'm sure you could find other examples of private business that might find some crossover, maybe?
So in the sake of fairness it probably does get a little complicated, and that issue (example of bakeries refusing service) might be worthy of a closer look.

I am opposed to forcing people with Christian beliefs to marry gays in their churches, but I'm less opposed to the idea of making some of the so-called non-profits paying tax.

Because a lot of todays non-profits exist for purely political means or other interests and pose as non-profits when they aren't really doing much charity work.

This doesn't necessarily mean I support taxing churches mosques or synagogues themselves, but if you think that there's a fair case that maybe they should be paying tax I'd hear the arguments; the pro's and con's, though I'm not sure whether or not I'd be convinced.
I might be, I might not.

Hey AJ Philips,
Other people argue things like 'change for the sake of change' and you argued that a point I raised was a separate issue.

I believe if we are going to the rules on something then we should just think of it as just one tunnel-vision look at the single issue.

You said my point about forcing Christian Pastors to marry gays in their churches was a seperate issue, but to me this is all important 'fine print' in the deal in which we are considering.

And I'm in no way inclined to support a change from the old deal 'change for the sake of change' without reading ALL of the fine print.
There might be something in there that I don't like.
Why would I not want to check and read all the fine print before I sign and support something.
It doesn't make sense.

If you want my support, then we have to go through all the fine print, and maybe, hammer out a deal.
And at this point I still say you've got to get rid of safe-schools and the indoctrination of kids, and provide protection for the pastors etc to refuse to marry gays in their churches, (though I'll agree the bakery example needs further consideration) before I'll change my vote from 'No'.

Armchair Critic,

Firstly, I have never seen anyone argue 'change for the sake of change'. Ever. And I have seen a lot of this debate. Why would anyone need to, after all, when equality is an adequate reason in itself? Secondly, you’ll note that I changed my wording to “secondary issue” in my next post, because the two aren’t completely separate.

Still, you had presented it as though it were fundamental when it’s not. Equality is the primary issue. What happens as a flow-on effect from that is secondary.

<<I believe if we are going to [change] the rules on something then we should [not?] just think of it as just one tunnel-vision look at the single issue.>>

I agree.

The risks and benefits should always be assessed when deciding on matters of equality. For example, the risks of releasing all prisoners in the name of equality should be weighed up with the benefits of doing so (which are non-existent).

The issue is still secondary, though, and I don’t think you have presented a case where the concern for bigoted institutions is grave enough to actually continue treating an entire demographic as second-class citizens - and for something they did not even choose, for that matter.

<<And I'm in no way inclined to support a change from the old deal 'change for the sake of change' without reading ALL of the fine print.>>

I wouldn't support change merely for the sake of change, even if there were NO “fine print”. That would be a waste of resources.

<<Why would I not want to check and read all the fine print before I sign and support something.>>

You WOULD want to, and I have outlined why above.

<<If you want my support, then we have to go through all the fine print, and maybe, hammer out a deal.>>

If I honestly thought that this was your only concern, then, believe me, I would try.

<<And at this point I still say you've got to get rid of safe-schools and the indoctrination of kids …>>

Now this IS a completely separate issue.