NNN,

You didn't look it up at all, had you done so you'd have known that it's called a "Permit to Acquire".

Is Mise
Making allowance for your evasive style , I looked up " Request for Firearms Licence Application Form" which is obviously the same bleeding thing with 10 days notice . Cecil had the signed permit in his pocket and well you know it .

OK OK OK he got the licence 28 days later - 38 days, that's why he had blood alcohol of 1.8 waiting for the divorce. What do you care?

Not_Now.Soon,

«Medicine and the utilities are services that should be equally given. If you can pay for it you can have it.»

If such services are so important that they ought to override my freedom of religion/conscience, then surely they ought not to depend on your ability to pay for them - otherwise, you would be claiming that money is more important than my freedom... which is quite an insult.

Nevermind, medicine and utilities are typically provided by companies and/or governments, not by individuals.

«This comes down to the rights of the costumer, verses the rights of the business owner/ service worker.»

Even when a customer had rights to receive a particular service (on what grounds?), this doesn't make them eligible to demand this service from a particular individual. Think of it this way: if push comes to shove, the provider could simply quit and close their business. Can retirement ever be considered a crime?

«Does a service of any kind have the right to refuse service to a costumer?»

I assume that you are asking about the moral right (rather than about the current Australian law):

If a business received any public favours, then the public has a right to impose conditions in return, including anti-discrimination laws. Such favours include incorporation, registration, subsidies, tax-relief, right to operate/advertise in public areas, etc.

But if a business is truly private, operates solely on private property, is not incorporated, is not registered, and never received any public incentives, etc., then it should be able to freely select who comes in its gates.

AJ Phillips,

<<Such bizarre and unlikely hypotheticals could only be dreamt up by someone getting caught up in the post-survey hysteria and panic>>

No. If I was running a retail business for example, and getting people coming in regularly that I don't like, I would simply close down the business. I know people locally that easily fit into the 'don't like' category.

<<Let's alter the scenario a little: Let's say you live in a small town and the baker is the only one for hundreds of kilometers. Why should the customer suffer because of the baker's superstition?>>

Simple. People should not think they have a right to whatever they want or have any right to force a business into providing something the business does not want to, including for reasons some may consider spurious.

<<Things are not always as simple as 'My business, my rules.'>>

Sorry, but yes they are, in regards to business. Businesses make their own decisions. If it was your business however then you can be as open minded as you like.

In reality I have visited Leigh Creek in South Australia. It's a very remote community with no bakery at all. There is a supermarket (and no they do not provide wedding cakes) so if you so desperately need cake to scoff down, you either need to buy a cake at the supermarket or buy a cake mix! You'll also pay through the nose for either product, due to the high delivery costs. Sorry these are the rules.

Also some people also need to get out a bit more in terms of 'small town' and 'hundreds of kilometers' away.

NathanJ,

I’m not sure what this has to do with my labelling of Yuyutsu’s hypothetical as “bizarre”.

<<If I was running a retail business for example, and getting people coming in regularly that I don't like, I would simply close down the business.>>

Okay, but his hypothetical was still bizarre. Whether you would close your business, in the event that such occurrences happened frequently, is irrelevant to that. In fact, the fact that such occurrences would not happen frequently makes it even less relevant.

<<Simple. People should not think they have a right to whatever they want or have any right to force a business into providing something the business does not want to, including for reasons some may consider spurious.>>

Ah, but it’s not that simple, and that’s why there are anti-discrimination laws.

You see, this hypothetical bakery did not spring up off the blood, sweat, and tears of its owner alone. The baker was able to establish his bakery because he lived in a society that made this possible. He did not do it all by himself (c.f. the myth of the ‘self-made man’). Therefore, it can be argued that the baker does not get to be a monumental arsehole to the people who make up the society that helped make his bakery possible. This argument is further strengthened if the baker is receiving government benefits or tax breaks at the expense of the public.

Anyway, I doubt you’d be arguing the same if this hypothetical baker didn’t like n!ggers or Jews.

<<I have visited Leigh Creek in South Australia. It's a very remote community with no bakery at all. There is a supermarket (and no they do not provide wedding cakes) so if you so desperately need cake to scoff down, you either need to buy a cake at the supermarket or buy a cake mix!>>

Yes, but those people chose to live there. People who are discriminated against do not choose to be who they are, nor should they be expected to check the prejudices of their local retailers before moving somewhere. This comparison is invalid.