Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

Options
1…1415171920…57

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.

    Yup - The country does not have enough bigots. We definitely need more ...


  • Options
    #483
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    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

    The print shop owners think that they have the moral high ground.

    They think that there is virtue in upholding these archaic religious beliefs.

    They're dinosaurs, of a different era and while they may never change their own minds, their beliefs will go extinct with them.

    They're not bad people, they just picked the wrong side.Instead of choosing humanity, they chose imaginary sky god.


  • Options
    #484
    Pedro Gonzalez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Pedro Gonzalez


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Ah yes, the old switcheroo argument.
    Theres no argument here.
    They don't like it,believe in it or want to have anything to do with it.
    I can accept it,I mightn't agree with it,so why shouldn't you or anybody else?


  • Options
    #485
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,610 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Drumpot wrote: »
    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.

    It's not clear cut because you have to be able to say that they discriminated against him because of who he is rather than what the purpose of the material was.

    Again, I wholly disagree with their stance and their reasons for it, but I don't believe it to be discrimination against a person.


  • Options
    #486
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    gozunda wrote: »
    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.

    This! A business should not operate on religious beliefs, it should operate on it's decision to serve its customers no matter who they are and what they want as long as what they want is reasonable and legal. Just like in education there should be no reason for a religious belief to be involved in the running of a business.

    Religious belief is a personal choice and it should be kept personal and should not impact others in anyway, especially in providing a service. Our laws need to be clarified to reinforce this and make the printers refusal a criminal offence.

    This wouldn't be discrimination against their religious belief because it doesn't affect their religious belief in any logical way. They are not partaking in anything against their beliefs nor are they supporting anything against their beliefs they are simply providing a service and their religious belief should not allow them to refuse that service to people who have different beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,611 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Brutalitops wrote: »
    It's not clear cut because you have to be able to say that they discriminated against him because of who he is rather than what the purpose of the material was.

    Again, I wholly disagree with their stance and their reasons for it, but I don't believe it to be discrimination against a person.

    Not direct discrimination, but indirect discrimination.


  • Options
    #488
    Shenshen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    Theres no argument here.
    They don't like it,believe in it or want to have anything to do with it.
    I can accept it,I mightn't agree with it,so why shouldn't you or anybody else?

    So the Muslim corner shop keeper should be allowed to refuse to serve women if it's his religious belief that women should never leave the house?

    Personal beliefs should not be used as an excuse by a business (a business, not a person, mind!) to refuse to provide services.
    As a person, the fellow is free to hold whatever opinions he likes, he can join a political party to try and get all gays transported off to Saudi Arabia if he so chooses. His business, however, is bound by different laws.


  • Options
    #489
    Pedro Gonzalez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Pedro Gonzalez


    gozunda wrote: »
    Yup - The country does not have enough bigots. We definitely need more ...
    I don't see bigotry,what I see is people sticking to what they believe in.

    What I do see,however is a lot of people trying to force their opinions down other peoples throats and becoming sneery and dismissive when someone doesn't agree with their views.

    Id offer an opinion that it is a form of bullying and maybe it will be potentially counter productive when the vote on same sex marriage comes around.


  • Options
    #490
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    Theres no argument here.
    They don't like it,believe in it or want to have anything to do with it.
    I can accept it,I mightn't agree with it,so why shouldn't you or anybody else?

    Because they are running a business which has to comply with certain laws in this country (as it would in almost any other developed world country) and those laws include a raft of anti-discrimination legislation.

    If you allow businesses to discriminate against customers you will end up in a fractured society where people are denying access to services to others based on all sorts of 'strongly held personal views'.

    It's a slippery slope that can lead to situations where minority groups are frozen out of society and it's somewhere that Ireland's been in the past too. The laws are there to prevent sectarianism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism and quite a few other things from creating major problems within society.

    Societies need certain rules to function. Making up your own rules is a bit like playing football and then deciding that you've an entirely different idea of what the game should be about, picking up the ball and going home with it.

    Let's not forget that Ireland comes from a situation where we've had boycotts of businesses and shunning of people who were in mixed marriages, not all that many decades ago.
    Single mothers were shunned and basically funnelled into horrendous situations / exiled because of a bunch of religious zealots exercising their own moral views on the rest of society in the past too.

    I mean, if you can refuse to do business with gay people, what's next?
    Single mothers?
    Unmarried couples?
    Atheists?
    Protestants?
    Catholics?
    Non-Chrsitians?
    Jews?
    Black people?
    English people?
    French people?

    You can see where I'm going.. it's a very slippery slope.


  • Options
    #491
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Brutalitops wrote: »
    It's not clear cut because you have to be able to say that they discriminated against him because of who he is rather than what the purpose of the material was.

    Again, I wholly disagree with their stance and their reasons for it, but I don't believe it to be discrimination against a person.


    They make wedding invitations. They singled out Gay weddings and chose not to supply invitations for this group of people. The company provides a service but chooses to not provide a specific service for a specific target group for a specific personal reason.

    Its discrimination against a target group. What difference does it make why they do it ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,610 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    osarusan wrote: »
    Not direct discrimination, but indirect discrimination.

    Agreed. But to class it as just 'discrimination' is erroneous.


  • Options
    #493
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Brutalitops wrote: »
    Agreed. But to class it as just 'discrimination' is erroneous.

    That's a very absolute statement to make.

    What is your definition of discrimination?


  • Options
    #494
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    They should be fully entitled to refuse business from anyone they choose, and the refused customers are fully entitled to plaster it all over social media and the news so that they, and other people may choose not to give the company business.


  • Options
    #495
    Pedro Gonzalez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Pedro Gonzalez


    Shenshen wrote: »
    So the Muslim corner shop keeper should be allowed to refuse to serve women if it's his religious belief that women should never leave the house?
    .
    His shop,his rules and if it doesn't suit you,then go elsewhere.
    What gives anyone the right to trample on anyones elses beliefs?


  • Options
    #496
    Shenshen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    His shop,his rules and if it doesn't suit you,then go elsewhere.
    What gives anyone the right to trample on anyones elses beliefs?

    The law, actually.

    Generally speaking, as soon as your religious beliefs start infringing on the rights of others, your religious beliefs will have to take a back seat.

    And every citizen has the right to purchase legal products in a shop. Nobody has the right to deny and entire group that right.


  • Options
    #497
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,611 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    gozunda wrote: »
    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.
    Not an analogy - an example.

    An example of a situation where a homosexual person can be refused service and the reason not be connected to their sexual orientation.

    And it doesn't have to be a matter of legal or illegal either - a pub not allowing a big party of people celebrating a gay couple's engagement because there are simply too many of them for the bar to cater for is another example.

    You have argued plenty of times that the order cannot be separated from the person's sexual orientation, but that is obviously not always the case.

    If a business has a legitimate reason for refusing service, it has that right regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer. It is only when the reason for refusing service is the sexual orientation of the customer, that their orientation becomes relevant.

    As an aside, do you think this is a case of direct or indirect discrimination?


  • Options
    #498
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭Daith


    TwoShedsJackson wrote: »
    They should be fully entitled to refuse business from anyone they choose

    They can!

    Their justification for doing so is breaking the law though.
    osarusan wrote: »
    As an aside, do you think this is a case of direct or indirect discrimination?

    Honestly it would probably come down to a Judges feelings on the matter.


  • Options
    #499
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,610 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Drumpot wrote: »
    That's a very absolute statement to make.

    What is your definition of discrimination?

    The same as the law. However, in order to prove it as being discrimination, you need to be able to prove they were refused service because of their sexual orientation as opposed to what they were being asked to print, and there is an important distinction there.

    The fact that he was a customer of theirs for 4 years means you cannot prove he was refused service because of his sexual orientation.


  • Options
    #500
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    His shop,his rules and if it doesn't suit you,then go elsewhere.
    What gives anyone the right to trample on anyones elses beliefs?

    When providing a service you have no right to do so based on your religious beliefs, you are a professional running a business that should provide said service in a professional manner where your own personal religious beliefs don't come into it. Someone making use of this service who has different beliefs to those providing the service does not amount to trampling on anyones personal beliefs.
    Brutalitops wrote: »
    The same as the law. However, in order to prove it as being discrimination, you need to be able to prove they were refused service because of their sexual orientation as opposed to what they were being asked to print, and there is an important distinction there.

    The fact that he was a customer of theirs for 4 years means you cannot prove he was refused service because of his sexual orientation.

    But they gave no valid reason for refusing to print what the customer wanted? If I wanted to get leaflets printed explaining evolution should they be allowed to refuse me because of irrelevant personal beliefs of theirs?


  • Options
    #501
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,611 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Brutalitops wrote: »
    The same as the law. However, in order to prove it as being discrimination, you need to be able to prove they were refused service because of their sexual orientation as opposed to what they were being asked to print, and there is an important distinction there.
    Only in a case of direct discrimination, nor for a case of indirect discrimination.*(as came up repeatedly in the 'gay cake' thread).
    Brutalitops wrote: »
    The fact that he was a customer of theirs for 4 years means you cannot prove he was refused service because of his sexual orientation.
    Perhaps they just found out he was gay - we don't know what they knew or didn't know before this incident.


    *Which makes me wonder - if a heterosexual person is refused service in that shop when they order the same kind of cards, who exactly being discriminated against? The customer placing the order, or their homosexual friends?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Pedro Gonzalez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Pedro Gonzalez


    I dislike peanut butter but ive no problem with other people enjoying it.
    Should you force me to have it in my kitchen press,because you just cannot understand why I don't like it?


  • Options
    #503
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭Daith


    Brutalitops wrote: »
    The same as the law. However, in order to prove it as being discrimination, you need to be able to prove they were refused service because of their sexual orientation as opposed to what they were being asked to print, and there is an important distinction there.

    The fact that he was a customer of theirs for 4 years means you cannot prove he was refused service because of his sexual orientation.

    Those other cases are irrelevant. His discrimination is about civil partnerships and same sex unions.

    He prints marriage cards but not civil partnerships cards. It's actually that simple.

    If a hotel allowed one gay person to book a room but not two gay people it's discrimination if he allows two straight people to book a room too.

    The only difference is their sexual orientation.


  • Options
    #504
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭Daith


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    I dislike peanut butter but ive no problem with other people enjoying it.
    Should you force me to have it in my kitchen press,because you just cannot understand why I don't like it?

    Your home is not business and does not follow equality law. Any more stupid analogies you want to make?


  • Options
    #505
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,611 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Daith wrote: »
    Honestly it would probably come down to a Judges feelings on the matter.
    For a case of direct discrimination, wouldn't they have to prove that the printers knew the customer's sexual orientation?


  • Options
    #506
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    I dislike peanut butter but ive no problem with other people enjoying it.
    Should you force me to have it in my kitchen press,because you just cannot understand why I don't like it?

    Irrelevant annology because that is a personal choice in a personal setting. I'm sure many shop owners dislike the products they sell but still sell them to the customers that want them.


  • Options
    #507
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭Daith


    osarusan wrote: »
    For a case of direct discrimination, wouldn't they have to prove that the printers knew the customer's sexual orientation?

    Well in this case they would?


  • Options
    #508
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Brutalitops wrote: »
    The same as the law. However, in order to prove it as being discrimination, you need to be able to prove they were refused service because of their sexual orientation as opposed to what they were being asked to print, and there is an important distinction there.

    The fact that he was a customer of theirs for 4 years means you cannot prove he was refused service because of his sexual orientation.

    Nobody knows if they knew the clients sexual orientation before they requested the gay wedding invitations so please stop mentioning it.

    Lets break this down:

    1. The company prints wedding invitations as part of its business
    2. The company openly refuses to print wedding invitations for same sex couples

    The company openly refuses to provide a service to one target minority based on their sexual preference.

    And again I ask, what is your definition of discrimination ?


  • Options
    #509
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    I dislike peanut butter but ive no problem with other people enjoying it.
    Should you force me to have it in my kitchen press,because you just cannot understand why I don't like it?

    I have tea in my press even though I do not drink it. But then, I am a reasonable person.


  • Options
    #510
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,610 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Daith wrote: »
    He prints marriage cards but not civil partnerships cards. It's actually that simple.

    Agreed. Printing civil partnership cards is not a service he provides. So how is it discrimination for him to tell a customer that?

    When same-sex marriage is legal and he refuses to print marriage invitations for same-sex couples, but still does for heterosexual couples, then you have him bang to rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Generic Dreadhead
    Registered Users Posts: 10,870 ✭✭✭✭Generic Dreadhead


    Links234 wrote: »
    What sort of things? Make onigiri? And katsudon?

    I want to say.... eat Ramen, watch Studio Ghibli, listen to Maximum the Hormone and play some Nintendo.... My OH does these things with me, but there's a reason the made the Wii U 4 player :)
    Also I suspect she's just humouring me when I play MTH *shifty suspicious eyes*


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement