Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

gozunda

Specialun wrote: »

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?

Ignoring what several posters have taken as their own 'interpretation' of the law?
Well you can ignore the actual law as it stands that's just fine but don't expect to be clapped on the back for s head in the sand type attitude :rolleyes:

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

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

Nonsense, your original linking of civil partnerships to racists cards is enough.

In terms of this case and not other analogies the print shop is in the wrong. Based on their reason they would be indirectly discriminating against couple based on sexual orientation.

Marriage cards and civil partnership cards would be the same thing. By refusing to print one and not the other you are discriminating.

Daith

Riskymove wrote: »

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

A Civil Partnership card is not a banner supporting gay marriage!

If they refused to print a "Support Gay Marriage" banner for anyone, they would not be in the wrong. It's a different thing.

They print marriage cards, they don't print civil partnership cards. They are not directly discriminating but indirectly.

If a hotel only allowed a married man and woman but not a civil partnered man and man they would also be indirectly discriminating.

hairycakes

Which is worse, a man being intolerant of homosexuality or a man being intolerant of a persons religious beliefs? A lot of people seem to think it is worse to be intolerant of homosexuality. I think it is equally bad. Either way it is intolerance and I think society's goal should be to remove intolerance and to be respectful of other people.

bb1234567

Drumpot wrote: »

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.

Makes me sad to see so many people on this thread arguing otherwise and seemingly trying to protect the printers Its just so unfair that people are okay with this but everyone would be outraged if they said they didn't supply cards for weddings of black people

gozunda

osarusan wrote: »

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.

The customer was not 'drunk'. Go back and read the section where the actual law on discrimination was being discussed. I'm not even going to bother explaining it here as it had been explained many times already. Have fun with your rewriting of the Equal Status law ...:rolleyes:

Baggy Trousers

This is a mad story. I wonder will support for both businesses rocket between the various 'factions'. The salon owners were dead right to go public with this and the printer statement was like something from the 1960s. This childishness by the printers can only be good for the referendum vote.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

Nonsense, your original linking of civil partnerships to racists cards is enough.

Still strawmanning.

Daith wrote: »

In terms of this case and not other analogies the print shop is in the wrong. Based on their reason they would be indirectly discriminating against couple based on sexual orientation.

Marriage cards and civil partnership cards would be the same thing. By refusing to print one and not the other you are discriminating.

If a heterosexual person had made the order, would the printers have a right to refuse business to that heterosexual person?

Daith

hairycakes wrote: »

Which is worse, a man being intolerant of homosexuality or a man being intolerant of a persons religious beliefs?

Which is why we have equality laws so a certain level of tolerance and law is required. Nothing to do with peoples beliefs.

As I said, they could have just refused to do business. They didn't. They gave a reason and that reason does not hold up.

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

If a heterosexual person had made the order, would the printers have a right to refuse business?

They always have a right to refuse business.

They don't have to give a reason. However in THIS case they gave a reason.

bb1234567

I dont understand why a business would deliberately cause such bad publicity for themselves. Im sure they knew refusing these gay people would cause an awful fuss

Drumpot

Riskymove wrote: »

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

Ah that's splitting hairs.

Does the business print invitations for weddings? Yes

Does the business print invitations for Gay weddings? No

At its basic interpretation, discrimination can be described as an act of making a distinction which is clearly the case here. There is a clear distinction being made based on sexual preference specifically for Gay Weddings.

Baggy Trousers

bb1234567 wrote: »

I dont understand why a business would deliberately cause such bad publicity for themselves. Im sure they knew refusing these gay people would cause an awful fuss

They probably didn't think the salon owners would go public...Drogheda is not a 'normal' Irish town.

Daith

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

They probably didn't think the salon owners would go public...Drogheda is not a 'normal' Irish town.

Nah, they knew what they were doing. They were making a stand.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

They always have a right to refuse business.

They don't have to give a reason.

So you can pretty much discriminate against anybody, as long as you're not dumb enough to give a reason which will get you in trouble (and you are under no obligation to give a reason)?

Penn

I think that in fairness to them, they didn't discriminate based on his sexuality, but rather the purpose of what they were being asked to print, and I think that is a valid distinction which needs to be made. So as much as I support same-sex marriage, I don't think what the printers did was discrimination, especially since the guy they turned away had been a customer for a number of years before that.

That being said, if they lose business and find their reputation irrevocably damaged because of this, well, that's their own fault. That's the consequence of the choice they made.

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

So you can pretty much discriminate against anybody, as long as you're not dumb enough to give a reason which will get you in trouble?

Yes. They could have just refused the order.

gozunda

hairycakes wrote: »

Which is worse, a man being intolerant of homosexuality or a man being intolerant of a persons religious beliefs? A lot of people seem to think it is worse to be intolerant of homosexuality. I think it is equally bad. Either way it is intolerance and I think society's goal should be to remove intolerance and to be respectful of other people.

A business is not a person and therefore does not 'have' religous beliefs'. Businesses are not permitted to discriminate against a customer by law (detail is contained in the ES Act) in the provision of goods and services. As a point I made earlier allowing businesses to discriminate would create an obstacle course of service provision where a customer would have to check the list printed on the door as to whether tthe business served coloured, gay, other religions etc etc.

Daith

Brutalitops wrote: »

I think that in fairness to them, they didn't discriminate based on his sexuality, but rather the purpose of what they were being asked to print, and I think that is a valid distinction which needs to be made.

A marriage card and a civil partnership card are essentially the same thing. You print one and not the other, give your reason that you don't support homosexual unions and that's a pretty easy discrimination case.

The only difference can be their sexual orientation. It's not direct discrimination but indirect I believe but still.

SpaceTime

Daith wrote: »

They always have a right to refuse business.

They don't have to give a reason. However in THIS case they gave a reason.

I think you'll actually find that legally speaking, you most certainly cannot.

9 grounds: Gender, Civil Status, Family Status, Age, Race, Religion, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Membership of the Traveller community.

The Equal Status Act 2000 came into force on the 25th October 2000.
It was amended by the Equality Act 2004 on the 19th July 2004.

The Acts apply to people who:
Buy and sell a wide variety of goods,
Use or provide a wide range of services,
Obtain or dispose of accommodation,
Attend at, or are in charge of, educational establishments,
There are separate provisions on discriminatory clubs.

There are rules and regulations that you must meet in order to be allowed to operate a business in any country. You have to keep accounts, pay taxes, comply with health and safety law, comply with employment law, comply with environmental law and comply with equal opportunities / equal status law.

If you don't want to do that, then don't operate a business and just get a job somewhere else and you can discriminate in your own personal time in the comfort of your own home, provided it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights!

I mean, lets just say I decided that it was against my religious beliefs to pay tax or to implement Safety at Work law?
How would that go down?

Ghost Buster

What always intrigues me is the amount of ire some Christians reserve for homosexuality. It only gets (correct me if I'm wrong) one fleeting mention in the bible. Equally irksome to the omnipotent one is pork, shell fish, male grooming, stick gathering, adultery/divorce, mixed fabric. Ive never heard of a Christian refusing service to committers of these abominations. I suppose Christians find these offences to god less.............. icky.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

Yes. They could have just refused the order.

And it is up to the person refused service to argue that it the decision was made based on their sexual orientation/colour/religion/etc?

Shenshen

osarusan wrote: »

So you can pretty much discriminate against anybody, as long as you're not dumb enough to give a reason which will get you in trouble (and you are under no obligation to give a reason)?

Same way as you can refuse to give a job to a woman or a black person - perfectly fine and within your rights as employer, and you don't need to give any reason at all.
But if you go and tell them or make a statement that you didn't give them the job BECAUSE they were female or black - you can be dragged to court for it.

gozunda

osarusan wrote: »

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.

If you are referring to 'racist cards' then that would be illegal as it would be dealth with under incitment to hatred law and is not even close to a comparable analogy.

Drumpot

Brutalitops wrote: »

I think that in fairness to them, they didn't discriminate based on his sexuality, but rather the purpose of what they were being asked to print, and I think that is a valid distinction which needs to be made. So as much as I support same-sex marriage, I don't think what the printers did was discrimination, especially since the guy they turned away had been a customer for a number of years before that.

That being said, if they lose business and find their reputation irrevocably damaged because of this, well, that's their own fault. That's the consequence of the choice they made.

Just because they did business with that man, doesn't mean they knew his sexual orientation.

Discrimination includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category





Again. .

They print wedding invitations, just not for gay marriages. I'm not sure how anybody could interpret this as anything other then a business singling out a certain group and choosing not to do business with them. That's as clear an example of discrimination as you can get.

Daith

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think you'll actually find that legally speaking, you most certainly cannot.?

It's a about proving it though which is they key.

You mightn't hire the black guy because you're a racist but proving it is another thing.

In this case, the reason is pretty clear cut.

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

And it is up to the person refused service to argue that it the decision was made based on their sexual orientation/colour/religion/etc?

Yes! I think there was an example recently about a Traveller couple refused service in a hotel. Manager claimed it wasn't discriminating and they would do the same to any member of the public.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/hotel-discriminated-against-traveller-couple-court-rules-252157.html

Pedro Gonzalez

Are the shop owners themselves not being discriminated against?
They don't want to have anything to do with gay marriage because it goes against what they believe in.
Fair enough and each to their own.I mightn't agree with it,you mightn't agree with it but so what?
They have as much right to refuse to do something that they don't believe in as gays have in doing something they believe in.

Id actually admire their stance for not being hypocritical and standing up for what they believe in.
This country needs more people like them.People who will stand up for what they believe in and not be swayed.

SpaceTime

OK, let's think about it another way.
Let's say you went into a bakery in London and you wanted to a cake with a nice shamrock on it because your kid's birthday coincides with Paddy's Day.

The shop keeper said : No mate, we don't do Irish symbols for cultural reasons.

I suspect there'd be a bit of a problem...

SpaceTime

Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »

Are the shop owners themselves not being discriminated against?
They don't want to have anything to do with gay marriage because it goes against what they believe in.
Fair enough and each to their own.I mightn't agree with it,you mightn't agree with it but so what?
They have as much right to refuse to do something that they don't believe in as gays have in doing something they believe in.

Id actually admire their stance for not being hypocritical and standing up for what they believe in.
This country needs more people like them.People who will stand up for what they believe in and not be swayed.

Ah yes, the old switcheroo argument.