Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

BlaasForRafa

MadDog76 wrote: »

Thanks!!

You should write comedy scripts, you're wasted here

Cuban Pete

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Would the Gay/lesbian Friendly places not be doing the exact same by trying to dissuade the wider community to access the facilities ? As that's what the implication is.

They're not trying to dissuade the wider community. I know it might appear that way to some people but it really is just what it says: somewhere you won't have to worry about being on the receiving end of violence or even just insults for your sexuality (and, I would hope, gender).

Straight people aren't discriminated against for being straight, and so for the same reason it's not a protected class under legislation.

Baby Jane

MadDog76 wrote: »

I've often wondered how this would be received ........... would a Straight Pride-like march be acceptable for example .......... or a White Power march similar to the Million Man March in the States .......... or a White Entertainment Channel on TV ........... me thinks not.

What discrimination/segregation have white people/hetero people experienced to the same extent historically as black/gay people though?
This, whether people think it's relevant or not, is what's at the root of pride movements.

Caliden

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He refused to provide a service to a person based on the persons sexual orientation and civil status. 2 grounds for discrimination.

Wrong.

They printed for the person in the past so no issue with their sexual orientation.

The printer refused to print it as it conflicted with their beliefs, they even said themselves that they would refuse to print a picture of a naked woman.

Like the cake fiasco, it wasn't the person that was the issue, it was the request.

gozunda

Caliden wrote: »

Wrong.

They printed for the person in the past so no issue with their sexual orientation.

The printer refused to print it as it conflicted with their beliefs, they even said themselves that they would refuse to print a picture of a naked woman.

Like the cake fiasco, it wasn't the person that was the issue, it was the request.

And that like cake 'fiasco',the order for invitations cannot be separated from the customer. That whole 'idea' is a piece of fiction that has no application under anti discrimination law. The printers made it quite clear they refused the customer because of his sexuality.

Akrasia

MadDog76 wrote: »

You are quite the stereotype aren't ya!!

I never said I don't trust them with my children, in fact I have and do trust them implicitly ........ one issue has no bearing on the other.

You have a lot of cognitive dissonance going on if you can be so well disposed towards the gay people that you know personally, but still hold the political belief that gay couples would be incapable of raising healthy balanced children

baldbear

Did they refuse to do the invites because there was a picture of a man on the front with his lad hanging out or what?

oppenheimer1

gozunda wrote: »

And that like cake 'fiasco',the order for invitations cannot be separated from the customer. That whole 'idea' is a piece of fiction that has no application under anti discrimination law. The printers made it quite clear they refused the customer because of his sexuality.

They would also have refused a straight person making the same request on the basis of what they've said. So his sexuality was not the reason for the refusal but the nature of the request.

I imagine they would have refused to print pro choice banners as well, which wouldn't be discriminatory.

gandalf

Does this printer list printing "wedding invitations" as one of their services, if so then they should clearly indicate that they only cater for bible cleared weddings.

TBH they are hypocrites they took business from this guy for four years, he never hid the fact that he was gay, they were happy to take his cash then. If they have a moral issue with gay people they should not have done any business with them in the first place.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

So if any business won't serve single mothers, coloured people, people of other religions or none, red haired people, disabled etc then - is that's all fair and dandy? What kind of obstacle course type society would we inhabit if we have to check the list of prohibited people printed on each door of the premiseses we wished to do business in. What if the premises is the only general store in the area and you lack transport or are disabled or blind ...

There are 9 legal grounds for discrimination to protect specified vulnerable groups and to protect against historic prejudices that we as modern civilised society are trying to put behind us

gender
civil status
family status
age
race
religion
disability
sexual orientation
membership of the Traveller community[\Quote]

The discrimination laws are not open ended

bb1234567

gufc21 wrote: »

Just use a different printers

jesus thats not the point
people should never be refused services anywhere due to their seuality
THIS is the problem
not the fact that they didn't have anywhere to print their papers now
of course we could just to another printers but the point is that this ****ing nonsense shouldn't be happening in the first place.

bb1234567

MadDog76 wrote: »

I've often wondered how this would be received ........... would a Straight Pride-like march be acceptable for example .......... or a White Power march similar to the Million Man March in the States .......... or a White Entertainment Channel on TV ........... me thinks not.

Straight and white people have never been marginalised on a mass scale by society and been discriminated against under state law like gay and black people have been throughout of all history in the western world.
Go have your straight white pride day or whatever other BS you're talking about, you don't need rights or awareness parades/events like other minorities do because you already have it the best out of any us.

Daith

Their actual argument doesn't make sense.

They won't print Civil Partnership invites because apparently that shows support for Same Sex Marriage and the referendum

I'm not entirely sure it does but anyway, if the referendum fails and same sex marriage won't be touched for another 10 years would they still print the cards? It can't support marriage equality?

Anyway, if a business wants to be particular about what it prints fine. Just display it on your website or on a sign.

"Won't print civil partnership cards or birthday cards for children born out of wedlock. We value our Christian ethos."

Specialun

gozunda wrote: »

And that like cake 'fiasco',the order for invitations cannot be separated from the customer. That whole 'idea' is a piece of fiction that has no application under anti discrimination law. The printers made it quite clear they refused the customer because of his sexuality.

Still beating the same mis informed drum i see....ignoring what others including the printers have said just because it doesnt suit your agenda

Do you work for the journal, know the couple in question? Just one sided or what?

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you are jumping to extreme permutations there. It's extremely rare that a business will not do business with a same-sex couple. I think most businesses are more concerned with the bottom line which doesn't care for people's differences.

I say let the free market sort it out, and let businesses decide which customers to accept.

Its rare because of our equality legislation. Attitudes didn't change all on their own. If it wasn't for this legislation we would often see 'no blacks' signs on premises doors and women would routinely be refused employment because of their gender

Akrasia

MadDog76 wrote: »

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.

For how many people on Rosa Parks' bus would have told her to just sit at the back and quit making a fuss?

osarusan

gozunda wrote: »

And that like cake 'fiasco',the order for invitations cannot be separated from the customer. That whole 'idea' is a piece of fiction that has no application under anti discrimination law.

Can you back that up - it doesn't make sense to me.

A drunk homosexual being refused entry to a pub is not being discriminated against because of their sexuality - it is because they are drunk. In this case the discrimination is legal and unrelated to the sexuality of the person being refused entry.

That is just one example - my point is that even people from groups protected under equality law can be refused service for legitimate reasons.

Akrasia

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

“We are not against black people, however, we do not support interracial marriage, which printing wedding invitations would do.”

B_Wayne

To those who say that the fact they've served him in the past so it's not discrimination. A black person regularly being served for years but being refused invites because they're marrying a white person would clearly be discrimination. Or refusing invites to a Muslim marrying a Catholic?

So I'm pretty confident they've broken the law on this one. Happy to see them face the consequences of legal system and to lose out on business. If you refuse to follow the law when running a business them you accept what goes with doing so.

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

Or if they refused an order from a homosexual because they want to print racist literature - what about that scenario?

Jesus. Business refused to print civil partnership cards....ah yeah but what if an ISIS soldier walked in and asked them to print a card with a beheading on it. Same thing right?

Your analogy is wrong too. They don't print racist cards for anyone. So they're not discriminating. If they printed racist cards for white people but not black people then they would be.

Simply, they could have refused an order and not given a reason.

They gave a reason. The reason wouldn't hold up in any court because they would be found of indirectly discriminating against this couple probably on marital status or sexual orientation as only homosexual couples can avail of civil partnerships.

Specialun

If the printing company owners were gay and the salon owners asked them to print "no to equal rights for same sex couples" or "vote no in the referendum" would this story have gathered so much pace or caused so much of a stir

I bet 1/100 No

gozunda

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They would also have refused a straight person making the same request on the basis of what they've said. So his sexuality was not the reason for the refusal but the nature of the request.

I imagine they would have refused to print pro choice banners as well, which wouldn't be discriminatory.

They clearly stated the reason for refusing the order was the sexual orientation of the customer. Speculation on fictional scenarios is irrelevant. It remains illegal under the Equal Status Act. I really have to laugh at the squirming that is presented in hilarious attempts to avoid the issue. Simply the law does not allow order for the service or goods to be seperated from the customer.

bjork

Specialun wrote: »

If the printing company owners were gay and the salon owners asked them to print "no to equal rights for same sex couples" or "vote no in the referendum" would this story have gathered so much pace or caused so much of a stir

I bet 1/100 No

Some people are allowed discriminate against others and this is perfectly fine - but don't you dare to discriminate against them

Daith

Specialun wrote: »

If the printing company owners were gay and the salon owners asked them to print "no to equal rights for same sex couples" or "vote no in the referendum" would this story have gathered so much pace or caused so much of a stir

I bet 1/100 No

If they refused to print those slogans for anyone regardless of race, sexual orientation or whatever they aren't discriminating. They're refusing business which they are allowed to do!

So your stupid scenario would only work if they printed "No Equal Rights for same sex couples" for gay people and not straight people.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

There are 9 legal grounds for discrimination to protect specified vulnerable groups and to protect against historic prejudices that we as modern civilised society are trying to put behind us

gender
civil status
family status
age
race
religion
disability
sexual orientation
membership of the Traveller community[\Quote]

The discrimination laws are not open ended

I didn't say they were open ended! What I was indicating to the poster that allowing business to refuse who they wanted to would lead to an open seasonn on businesses refusing just about anyone they liked for any reason they could think of. Capice?

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

Jesus. Business refused to print civil partnership cards....ah yeah but what if an ISIS soldier walked in and asked them to print a card with a beheading on it. Same thing right?

Your analogy is wrong too. They don't print racist cards for anyone. So they're not discriminating. If they printed racist cards for white people but not black people then they would be.

I've since edited the post, but you missed my point completely, in your haste to construct a strawman.

Gozunda is arguing that the order cannot be separated from the customer. I am wondering if that is always true - the edited post gives an example a situation where I think it is not true.

Daith

bjork wrote: »

Some people are allowed discriminate against others and this is perfectly fine - but don't you dare to discriminate against them

Rubbish. If a gay couple refused to print marriage cards but printed civil partnership cards based on their beliefs they would be in the wrong too.

Drumpot

I am a bit at odds on this. On one hand it is clearly homophobic discrimination. Nobody should argue otherwise. On the other hand a person should have a right to do business with clients they want.

The key thing for me is disclosure. I think a company should be obliged to clarify what it won't do or whom it won't do business with if the owner has a target audience it won't facilitate.

People have the right to be ignorant dicks. As a society We have a right to frown on this ignorance and not give them business.

bjork

Daith wrote: »

Rubbish. If a gay couple refused to print marriage cards but printed civil partnership cards based on their beliefs they would be in the wrong too.

How about letting heterosexuals stay in their B&B? or use their sauna?


It's perfectly fine to discriminate apparently

Riskymove

gozunda wrote: »

The printers made it quite clear they refused the customer because of his sexuality.

but well, they didn't

The guy himself says he has done business with them for years

therefore they don't refuse business to someone based on their sexual orientation

I still don't agree with what they did but like others I cannot see how they could be done for discrimination

theoretically, based on what they said, they would refuse business from straight people looking to have banners supporting gay marriage