Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

desertcircus

MadDog76 wrote: »

It wouldn't be fair to force anybody to do business with anybody else that they choose not to ......... to force the printer to print the invitations in this case would be discriminating against his right to choice ......... or are you only concerned about discriminations that suit your biased views and opinions?

God, the total lack of perspective on this thread is staggering.

Specialun

Specialun wrote: »

Here is piece from printers statement


“We are not against homosexuals, however, we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invitations would do.”

Saying you "don't support same sex marriage" does not equal "I am against same sex marriage".

I don't support gay marriage but that doesn't mean I will vote against it in a referendum.

uck51js9zml2yt

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I hope the owners of this business are obeying all the rest of the stuff in Leviticus too

If one of them gets a spot then they'll have to go to a priest or someone called Aaron and be examined



No blood sausage



And no bacon of course, no full irish breakfasts for you mr Beulah printer!



And whatever you do, don't sacrifice one of your children to Molek!!!



I'm guessing that the printers won't do any work for Rob Halford of Judas Priest, he's gay AND he's a metal god!



I hope they're making sure not to wear polyester/cotton blends



You can find even more of this mentalist crap at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019&version=NIV

So are the printers at Beulah consistent in their observance of the bible? Or are they being a la carte in how they use the bible to justify their bigotry?

Its new testament as well. Just read Romans

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Your 'fair' or illegal? - btw I include all forms of discrimination. I'll go with it being illegal.

Well the printers actions in of themselves are not illegal ........

On the subject of discrimination ........... let's discriminate against the printers religious views and his rights as a self-employed business owner by forcing him to print these invitations shall we? Because there's no way we can let this monster get away with this outrageous travesty .......... the injustice!!! :eek:

I bet for every homosexual "outraged" by this incident there are 9 other gay lads/gals saying "ffs get over it, there's other bigger issues in the Gay Community to deal with" .......... in fact I bet there are more straight people upset about this than there are gay people.

gozunda

Specialun wrote: »

Here is what the printer says

“We are not against homosexuals, however, we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invitations would do.”

So is it the case the printers statement is bull bcoz it doesnt suit your agenda?

Well it depends who the bigot is in this case. This what the customer said. I'll take the customer account over the bigot tbh.

I have given them my business for over 4 years now and when I asked them to design my wedding invitations he refused as himself and his business partner don’t believe in same sex civil partnerships and homosexuality and they are ‘devoted Christians’ I can’t believe how they can discriminate against gay people.

Evidently had the printer been aware the guy was homosexual then he would have refused to serve him earlier because the printer clearly believed in neither SSM or Homosexuality.

desertcircus

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well the printers actions in of themselves are not illegal ........

Equal Status Act. It's illegal.

Lollipops23

MadDog76 wrote: »

I bet for every homosexual "outraged" by this incident there are 9 other gay lads/gals saying "ffs get over it, there's other bigger issues in the Gay Community to deal with" .......... in fact I bet there are more straight people upset about this than there are gay people.

Ignoring "smaller" instances such as this is part of a bigger issue and feeds the rhetoric that homosexuality shouldn't be accepted as a perfectly normal part of society, which it is.

A_Sober_Paddy

MadDog76 wrote: »

there are more straight people upset about this than there are gay people.

Maybe there is, and the reason there is, is because we would like to move into the 21st century were everybody is treated equally and its embarrassing that some moronic religious arse water is getting in the way of equality

Kiwi in IE

The printers don't 'believe' in marriage equality? I wonder do you have to believe in Santa to print Xmas cards with his picture?

Specialun

gozunda wrote: »

Well it depends who the bigot is in this case. This what the customer said. I'll take the customer account over the bigot tbh.



Evidently had the printer been aware the guy was homosexual then he would have refused to serve him earlier because the printer clearly believed in neither SSM or Homosexuality.

So yes you believe whichever side suits your agenda..glad we got that cleared up

Why would the printer refuse to print material not related to homosexuality/civil partnerships ???? His clearly stated where his issue is

Specialun

desertcircus wrote: »

Equal Status Act. It's illegal.

Is the guy taking the case to higher authority so then? Surely its a home run for him no??

Kiwi in IE

Specialun wrote: »

You need glasses mate..ive not said to avoid relegeous premises..

You implied that the customer should have known better than to do business with this printer because it was somehow obvious that the company owner is religious.

bjork

Specialun wrote: »

Is the guy taking the case to higher authority so then? Surely its a home run for him no??

He went to the media before going to the solicitors, surprisingly

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well the printers actions in of themselves are not illegal ........

I bet you a barristers wig their actions are indeed illegal. but hey believe whatever you wish ...

MadDog76 wrote: »

On the subject of discrimination ........... let's discriminate against the printers religious views and his rights as a self-employed business owner by forcing him to print these invitations shall we? Because there's no way we can let this monster get away with this outrageous travesty .......... the injustice!!!

The law doesn't work that way. A business cannot discriminate against a customer in the provision of goods and services. Now the printer can go home or his temple and worship /believe in god / satan / the spaghetti monster in whatever way he wants but he cannot use those beliefs to discriminate against other.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I bet for every homosexual "outraged" by this incident there are 9 other gay lads/gals saying "ffs get over it, there's other bigger issues in the Gay Community to deal with" .......... in fact I bet there are more straight people upset about this than there are gay people.

It's much more than about gay people. It's about discrimating against people because someone a bigot for whatever reason. If it wasn't a gay person, but a disabled person, a coloured person a blind person - would you advocate them to get over it ffs?

Nice world you live in there ...

Lollipops23

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Ignoring "smaller" instances such as this is part of a bigger issue and feeds the rhetoric that homosexuality shouldn't be accepted as a perfectly normal part of society, which it is.

The horse has already bolted. There is widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage, culture etc. This is reflected in the polls around same-sex marriage.

MadDog76

desertcircus wrote: »

Several distinct points of disagreement with this:

1. Tolerance of religious beliefs and tolerance of religiously inspired behaviours are wildly different concepts. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't impact negatively on my rights.

2. What happens if all the businesses decide they don't want to print things for civil partnerships? The whole point is that doing so unfairly limits the choices open to certain people based on their sexuality.

3. "Go to another printer" isn't an option that exists in a lot of Irish towns.

4. "Playing the victim card"? Seriously? The business in question refused to provide a service based on the sexuality of the people involved. Getting angry about that isn't "playing the victim card", it's standing up for your right to be treated as equal.

5. If a business is operated as a limited company, it has no religious beliefs. It cannot have religious beliefs. The personal convictions of the owners and directors are not the same thing as the personal convictions of the company, because a company is a completely legally separate construct. That's the entire point of a limited company: it separates the business from the people operating it. If the company's debts are not the owner's debts, the owner's beliefs are not the company's beliefs.

6. The quick test for arguments about gay rights: if you made the same argument about black people or about interracial marriage, would you sound like a raging bigot? If the answer is yes, then making the same argument in relation to LGBT people or gay marriage makes you sound like a raging bigot. On that count, "shops should be allowed to refuse to serve black people, and black people need to stop playing the victim card and just go to another shop", is the argument of a raging bigot. Switched for gay rights, what makes it any more legitimate?

1. What if you exercising your rights impact negatively on their religious beliefs?

2. Printers have the right to refuse to print anything they want ........ maybe we need more gay printers in this country?

3. Order on-line ............

4. In this situation the "victim" wasn't persecuted ......... he is making a bigger deal out of it than it actually is ........ ie. playing the victim card.

5. If a business owner wants to interject his religious beliefs into every aspect of his daily life including his business then he does indeed have that right and nobody has the right to tell him he can't.

6. If a black guy walked into the printer's shop and asked the printer to print "Black Power" leaflets then the printer has the right to refuse .......

desertcircus

Specialun wrote: »

Is the guy taking the case to higher authority so then? Surely its a home run for him no??

If he elects to pursue it, yes, it probably would be. If the company survived as a going concern for long enough, which is doubtful given what happened to the Camden St one.

gozunda

Specialun wrote: »

So yes you believe whichever side suits your agenda..glad we got that cleared up

Why would the printer refuse to print material not related to homosexuality/civil partnerships ???? His clearly stated where his issue is

Twist the printers bigotry anyway you want. Lame duck defence btw. The printer had already admitted to refusing to serve the customer because of his sexuality. Tbh It matters not a tot that he served him before. A murderer could have called to a persons house a thousand times and not murderd the house owner but if he does it on the 1001 time he is still guilty of murder.

desertcircus

MadDog76 wrote: »

1. What if you exercising your rights impact negatively on their religious beliefs?

2. Printers have the right to refuse to print anything they want ........ maybe we need more gay printers in this country?

3. Order on-line ............

4. In this situation the "victim" wasn't persecuted ......... he is making a bigger deal out of it than it actually is ........ ie. playing the victim card.

5. If a business owner wants to interject his religious beliefs into every aspect of his daily life including his business then he does indeed have that right and nobody has the right to tell him he can't.

6. If a black guy walked into the printer's shop and asked the printer to print "Black Power" leaflets then the printer has the right to refuse .......

Did you just not read what I wrote? The printer does not have the legal right to refuse custom on this basis: it's a violation of the Equal Status Act. And a company, being a legally distinct person from its owners, doesn't have beliefs or convictions. Your wishing that it were otherwise doesn't make it so.

MadDog76

desertcircus wrote: »

Equal Status Act. It's illegal.

That Act covers people not material .........

shruikan2553

Specialun wrote: »

Here is piece from printers statement


“We are not against homosexuals, however, we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invitations would do.”

I am not against black people, I just dont support their right to vote.

Agree or disagree with their actions but dont pretend that they aren't prejudiced.

Specialun

bjork wrote: »

He went to the media before going to the solicitors, surprisingly

Rofl

He is on his jacksie

He knows his not got aleg to stand on it court, thats y his gone to the mobs

desertcircus

MadDog76 wrote: »

That Act covers people not material .........

Refusing to print invitations to a civil partnership when you've printed invitations to weddings is about as clear a violation as you can get. Again, your hope that it's not the case doesn't change the reality.

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

I bet you a barristers wig their actions are indeed illegal. but hey believe whatever you wish ...



The law doesn't work that way. A business cannot discriminate against a customer in the provision of goods and services. Now the printer can go home or his temple and worship /believe in god / satan / the spaghetti monster in whatever way he wants but he cannot use those beliefs to discriminate against other.



It's much more than about gay people. It's about discrimating against people because someone a bigot for whatever reason. If it wasn't a gay person, but a disabled person, a coloured person a blind person - would you advocate them to get over it ffs?

Nice world you live in there ...

How much time did those bakers get who refused to put the Groom & Groom on the wedding cake .......... or was it just a hefty fine they got??? :rolleyes:

Specialun

gozunda wrote: »

Twist the printers bigotry anyway you want. Lame duck defence btw. The printer had already admitted to refusing to serve the customer because of his sexuality. Tbh It matters not a tot that he served him before. A murderer could have called to a persons house a thousand times and not murderd the house owner but if he does it on the 1001 time he is still guilty of murder.

Good grief mate go visit specsavers.nowhere did the printers say they refused him because his gay

“We are not against homosexuals, however, we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invitations would do.”

CAN YOU READ THE ABOVE

Rofl you comparing the printers to muderers

desertcircus

MadDog76 wrote: »

How much time did those bakers get who refused to put the Groom & Groom on the wedding cake .......... or was it just a hefty fine they got??? :rolleyes:

The Equality Commission in NI is in the middle of legal proceedings against them.

darkpagandeath

The amount of lionel hutz on here is amazing, If it is such an Issue I'm sure this will go to court and be a very cut and dry case to win. Which I highly doubt due to dealing with the people in the past and only refusing to print material they do not agree with.

desertcircus

Specialun wrote: »

Good grief mate go visit specsavers.nowhere did the printers say they refused him because his gay

“We are not against homosexuals, however, we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invitations would do.”

CAN YOU READ THE ABOVE

Rofl you comparing the printers to muderers

If you refuse to print civil partership ceremony invitations but don't refuse to print wedding invitations, then you're discriminating on the basis of sexuality. We can read, but can you comprehend?

darkpagandeath

desertcircus wrote: »

If you refuse to print civil partership ceremony invitations but don't refuse to print wedding invitations, then you're discriminating on the basis of sexuality. We can read, but can you comprehend?

Who's rights trump who's in this case that's what it will come down to in a court case.

hotmail.com

You can have your beliefs but you can't discriminate against people in a business environment. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married. You can't discriminate against a same sex couple even if you disapprove of their love.