Alcohol and Good Friday (reloaded)

Flukey

mloc wrote: »

Em, you do realise most pubs want the business (some even open anyway, illegally) and its the government, not the pubs, that are inflicting the law on us?

Governments bringing in laws. Tsk tsk. Like pubs closing on 2 days in the year, that is a terrible thing too.

Saibh

Jakkass wrote: »

1) Letting pub workers off 2 days in the year.

Even if the pubs want the business, the workers should still be given some consideration.

Are you trying to say that pub workers work 363 days of the year without any days off?

Flukey

koolkid wrote: »

Ehh?? Letting pub workers off 2 days in the year.
Didnt realise bar men etc had to work 363 days a year..
Are they not entitled to the same time off as the rest of us.?

Of course they are off more than that. But outside of the emergency services, there are not too many workplaces that are open 365 days a year and 366 in leap years, yet some think it is disgraceful that this one type of business have the brass neck to close themselves on 2 whole days a year!

KoolKid

Flukey wrote: »

yet some think it is disgraceful that this one type of business have the brass neck to close themselves on 2 whole days a year!

They don't close themselves... They are made close.:P
Belive me if they were allowed publicans would open..

Blackpitts

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

While I agree that the law is fvcked up, I think it's more fvcked up that the pubs close for one night and everybody in this God-foresaken country is completely screwed for something to do.

that' soooo true...and soooooo SAD as well... :rolleyes:

Saruman

I brew my own beer and wine so I have about 80 something pint bottles of beer and a dozen or so bottles of wine at home Im set

KoolKid

Put some up on adverts.ie I'll collect later....
........Hang on ! would that be illegal??
What about the priests having their alter wine??

Flukey

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

the pubs close for one night and everybody in this God-foresaken country is completely screwed for something to do.

Come on, be fair. That is not true. When the pubs are closed people go drinking.:rolleyes: Yes, tonight they will be giving out about how they can't go to the pub and have a drink... as they finish off yet another can!

Saruman

koolkid wrote: »

Put some up on adverts.ie I'll collect later....
........Hang on ! would that be illegal??
What about the priests having their alter wine??

That would be very illegal yes.

KoolKid

Thought so!!

mloc

Jakkass wrote: »

Nice use of terms, "inflicting". I don't see how:
1) Letting pub workers off 2 days in the year.
2) Not allowing people to purchase drink on Good Friday.
is really all that bad a thing.

Even if the pubs want the business, the workers should still be given some consideration.

Dude, your arguments are getting ridiculous. They are not slaves; they are workers. They get time off like anyone else. It's like Good Friday is one day of respite for the whole year. I've yet to hear one compelling argument for the ban. Not one decent argument so far.

philologos

mloc wrote: »

Dude, your arguments are getting ridiculous. They are not slaves; they are workers. They get time off like anyone else. It's like Good Friday is one day of respite for the whole year. I've yet to hear one compelling argument for the ban. Not one decent argument so far.

An argument is better than no argument at all. I've given quite a few different reasons at this stage.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Philistine wrote: »

Pub raided by EIGHT gaurds at 12:40. Talk about overkill!!! Is there no one being stabbed, mugged, raped or killed tonight??? So much for them saying they are under resourced or don't have sufficent manpower. Maybe these public sector workers are trying to claw back some of the pension levy by working overtime!!!

Was this reported in the media at all ? Where was it ?


I want drink not communion.

Flukey

mloc wrote: »

Dude, your arguments are getting ridiculous. They are not slaves; they are workers. They get time off like anyone else. It's like Good Friday is one day of respite for the whole year. I've yet to hear one compelling argument for the ban. Not one decent argument so far.

Yes they do get time off like everyone else. That is not the point. Of everyone else, with the exception of the emergency services, not very many of their workplaces are open 363 days a year. Why should the pubs be? Loads of workplaces are closed today, but we don't see threads here from people complaining about how their solicitor's office is closed today or how their accountant isn't open for business, or that they can't find an architect to help them design their house etc. If you wanted a solicitor, architect or accountant today, you'd find it a lot harder to get one than to get a drink. There are lots of places where you can legally get a drink today, but you'll find it tough to get an architect. Most people that want to drink today will be able to do so, even if it is not in the pub. They'll do it at home or in a friend's house. They'll probably save themselves a fortune over what they would spend on a usual Friday night. They'll avoid the many hassles that they have on a normal Friday night when they go out for a drink.

But if you want we can open lots of other places 365 days a year. We'll do it for schools. They'll open seven days a week with late opening at weekends. All lessons will have to stop at 12:30am, but you will be allowed a half an hour of study up time. Then, if you want, there will be a few places allowed to open where you can get a few late night lessons and study until 2pm or 3pm. We'll have big rooms where people can get out on the floor and have a guy there playing those wonderful sounds that we all love. Yes, there'll be readings of Wordsworth's poetry, and Shakespeare's plays and you can go up and request something by Seamus Heaney, as your best mate is celebrating his birthday.

To get in to some places, you'll need ID. You will have to produce your Junior Cert to get in, and for some of the other places you'll need to have a Leaving Cert. In some of these places you will be able to chat to members of the oppposite sex, to see if there is any chemistry between you. People can then study physics, by seeing can they get it up, followed by a practical lesson in biology. You can give her the history of your relationships. Accountancy will be there too, as you make sure you don't run out of money. You can then do a bit geography as you try to find your way home, maybe followed by a grind in biology.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

You have to admit there is a bit of hypocrisy on the issue however.

No there's not.

Holidays are necessary, we should have X amount of days off per year. For there to be any hypocrisy involved, it would have to be a fact that if Ireland became a secular state, we'd have less days off. I don't see any evidence of this.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Holidays are necessary, we should have X amount of days off per year. For there to be any hypocrisy involved, it would have to be a fact that if Ireland became a secular state, we'd have less days off. I don't see any evidence of this.

I never said that it wouldn't. I consider Ireland a state that affords freedom of conscience without going to extremes like we've seen in the UK, France and Turkey in particular. I don't see how asking people not to purchase alcohol for a single day stops anyone from practicising their respective religions and beliefs.

mikemac

I could be wrong but....

As a young lad I seem to remember something called "Holy Hour".
And I was in a pub one Sunday playing pool I think and they'd close the door and close the blinds but people still stayed.

Now this was the early 1990's but was there such a thing as pubs closing on Sunday afternoons for an hour or two? I think it was maybe didn't want people going drinking straight after Mass

I vaguely remember this, I could be entirely wrong as I was only young at the time

javaboy

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that it wouldn't. I consider Ireland a state that affords freedom of conscience without going to extremes like we've seen in the UK, France and Turkey in particular. I don't see how asking people not to purchase alcohol for a single day stops anyone from practicising their respective religions and beliefs.

Asking? What do you mean asking? Nobody's asking. It's enforced by the Gardaí.

Ciaran500

Flukey wrote: »

not very many of their workplaces are open 363 days a year. Why should the pubs be?

Why not, it should be their choice.

Flukey wrote: »

Loads of workplaces are closed today,

Closed by law?


You seem to be completely missing the reason most people are complaining.

doonothing

The fact of the matter is that if I want to drink today, I'll drink, if I don't want to, I wont, but it shouldn't be any more or less convenient to do so because of a religion I feel no obligation to. It's a matter of principle. Of course it's not that bad to not drink for one day, but that should be my decision and no one elses! Why is it legal to sell meat and not drink today anyway?

bleg

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that it wouldn't. I consider Ireland a state that affords freedom of conscience without going to extremes like we've seen in the UK, France and Turkey in particular. I don't see how asking people not to purchase alcohol for a single day stops anyone from practicising their respective religions and beliefs.

it doesn't. its the religious beliefs of others that are preventing me from buying alcohol, which i should be free to do if i want.

this whole argument that it's for the barstaff and publicans doesn't wash. the ban is there due to antiquated irish legislation which came about due to religious dogma. if it was removed the pubs could still close and a few might. the vast majority, especially in uban areas would not close and would remain open.

put it this way, would the publicans be lobbying for another day off if the ban was lifted?

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that it wouldn't. I consider Ireland a state that affords freedom of conscience without going to extremes like we've seen in the UK, France and Turkey in particular. I don't see how asking people not to purchase alcohol for a single day stops anyone from practicising their respective religions and beliefs.

You're going off on a tangent. You said it was hypocrisy, I explained why it's not.

But to reply to your post. You're missing the point. I've stated multiple times on this thread that it's not a big inconvenience or anything, but it is still unjust (btw, for those of you thinking that people are making too big a deal out of not being able to drink on Good Friday - welcome to the internet, where petty things no one really is too bothered by are debated on their principle).

mloc

Flukey wrote: »

More point missing

You are entirely missing the point. The point here is that religious views should not influence our laws to this extent. Any other factors are irrelevant.

Flukey

Fair enough Mloc, so we'll allow murder as a lot of religions think that is wrong too.

Flukey

Doonothing wrote:

if I want to drink today, I'll drink, if I don't want to, I wont, but it shouldn't be any more or less convenient to do so because of a religion I feel no obligation to.

Hey Mloc, if Doonothing wants to murder someone today, let him murder someone, and if he doesn't want to, then he won't, but it shouldn't be any more or less convenient to do so because of a religion he feels no obligation to.

How about that?

javaboy

Flukey wrote: »

Fair enough Mloc, so we'll allow murder as a lot of religions think that is wrong too.

Flukey wrote: »

If Doonothing wants to murder someone today, let him murder someone, and if he doesn't want to, then he wont, but it shouldn't be any more or less convenient to do so because of a religion he feels no obligation to.

How about that?

Are you really using that line of reasoning? Really?

doonothing

Flukey wrote: »

Hey Mloc, if Doonothing wants to murder someone today, let him murder someone, and if he doesn't want to, then he won't, but it shouldn't be any more or less convenient to do so because of a religion he feels no obligation to.

How about that?

Hahahahaha!

Flukey

javaboy wrote: »

Are you really using that line of reasoning? Really?

I am not, but others apparently are. They do not want anything the church agrees with to be dictated to us by the state.

doonothing

NOTHING to do with the church AT ALL should have ANYTHING to do with the state!
Whether the church agrees with the state is inconsequential, coincidental and irrelevent, no one is talking about getting rid of this archaic rule just to get a dig in at the church, our lives are being affected (however minimally) by something we have no attachment to! Simple!

javaboy

Flukey wrote: »

I am not, but others apparently are. They do not want anything the church agrees with to be dictated to us by the state.

I don't know if you're missing the point or deliberately misunderstanding it.

It is not that we don't want laws that the church happens to agree with. It is that we don't want laws just because the church agrees with them.