AC, if you are going to force feed bacon to Muslims, will you also be making Jews eat ham?
But I draw the line at any suggestion which makes Paul1405 eat tapioca pudding, I hate tapioca pudding! Now if you want to force feed me lobster (you supply the lobster) now that's a different story.

A couple of clarifications to last night’s late rush-job of a post, Armchair Critic.

Firstly, your analogy regarding forcing Muslims to eat bacon is a false analogy for two reasons:

1. Forcing Muslims to eat bacon would be a pointless exercise in which no-one would benefit, and;
2. Bacon does not feel discriminated against because Muslims aren’t eating it.

Secondly, I would be happy for religious institutions to be granted legal protection to be bigots if they were to start paying taxes and open their books, but if they’re going to continue their free ride of unearned privilege, then they can be vulnerable to legal action.

I think that’s fair.

I am very concerned by the push by some to make others eat tapioca pudding! AC take note!
In my view this is an Un-American activity. and violates my constitutional rights of truth, justice and the pursuit of happiness! Not to mention how it rides roughshod over the principles enshrine in the Magna Carta, as espoused by Robin Hood. and written into the Doomsday book by Henry VIII and Nelson Mandella!

Toni Lavis writes:
“Aye, and that's grand and all, but you still stand in solidarity whether you like it or not. For when the call was made, your banners flew for House No - right alongside the banner of the Hanged Poofter.”

Well done. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied my position is the same as those who apparently want to hang poofters.
Will I now have to issue a press release avowing these troubling associations?

Millions of people across the political divide have varied opinions about SSM, and as far as I can see, no one has been hanged.

Additionally, I have no idea what others think about my position, but apparently, through some undisclosed psychic connection, you do.
It’s comical.

Dear Armchair Critic,

You expressed concern about religions and I assume
caterers et cetera not being forced to perform
or participate in same-sex marriage. I don't think
that is going to be a problem. As I understand it
the bills that will be being presented to Parliament
provided protections for these organisations and
people. So you need not be concerned. Also if you feel
so strongly and are against same-sex marriage - vote
no. Those that are for same-sex marriage will have a
chance to have their say. It will be interesting to
see what the end result will be. What Australia decides.
Hopefully people will at least express their opinions
via a vote - one way or the other. To not vote would
be foolish. How else will you let them know how you feel.

I wouldn’t be pinning too much on this vote, Foxy. Certainly not enough to refer to it as “what Australia decides”, given that the vote won’t be compulsory.

My guess is that the ‘No’ vote will win because of how organised and motivated religious groups are. They’ll be receiving their reminders to vote ‘no’ each Sunday after the sermon, and motivated by a belief that they have a divine obligation to vote as well as a social obligation.

Which, I suspect, is why even the plebiscite was never going to be compulsory. The polling clearly indicates what the result would have been otherwise, and this isn’t what most of those who pushed the hardest for a plebiscite want.