Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

Daith

bjork wrote: »

Stop oppressing Gay people when they break the law

The thing is. If a gay person was breaking the law, I wouldn't be blindly supporting them.

Nerdlingr

Daith wrote: »

Stop oppressing the Christians when they break the law!

https://spagmonster.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/christian-persecution.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/81/67/39/816739ea2e073ef02282ae59b9d84f74.jpg

"Je suis Charlie"

Daith

Nerdlingr wrote: »

"Je suis Charlie"

In Ireland we don't have free speech. Not that it has anything to do with equality laws but well you might as well grasp at straws.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

Race or Ethnicity is one of the grounds that you can't be discriminated on. Like sexual orientation.

I find it speaks volumes when people are ok with

It's ok not to produce stuff for a same sex wedding

but this a strawman.

It's ok not to produce stuff or an interracial wedding

And that's the law, grand, but how enforceable that law is, and even how it is interpreted and applied is open to interpretation and all sorts of context, and people's attitudes and opinions are going to differ in relation to that depending on the circumstances involved.

I'll give you another real life example -

A friend of mine went into a chippy in London and the people behind the counter simply told him "We don't serve the Irish in here", it was discriminatory of course, and my friend expected me to be outraged. I didn't particularly give a fiddlers. I actually managed to do a good job of keeping a straight face tbh.

Can you guess what colour the lads behind the counter were? That's why I found it rather humorous than outrageous, because I've always said that everyone, no matter who they are, is a member of a minority group in one way, and a member of a majority group in another way, and no amount of legislation can legislate for people's attitudes towards each other.

We can draft legislation to promote equality and all the rest of it, but you're never going to be able to accommodate everyone in a society equally, and that's why people have to take some responsibility for themselves, otherwise they're constantly going to feel persecuted in one way or another and people will just get tired of their attitude and then be unable to take them seriously.

Getting upset over a cake, a wedding invitation, or even a bag of chips, when people are denied equal recognition by the State, shows a severe lack of perspective.

bjork

Daith wrote: »

Daintree? The shop I was in a few weeks ago? When did that close down?

Under different management
http://www.thejournal.ie/daintree-cake-topper-1369894-Mar2014/
The store met with a storm of criticism last year after it emerged that the owner removed a wedding cake-topper of two grooms holding hands from display in his store.

Barnes stepped away from the business at the end of January and the new owners, Gerard and Laurence Barron, officially took over last Friday.

All of the staff who remain have worked in the store for years but Doyle said it has downsized and a number of staff left of their own accord because of abuse they received over the cake-topper controversy.
“People were getting stuff on their personal Facebook accounts, everyone had to take down from their accounts where they worked and some people left because they couldn’t handle the abuse,” she explained.

Nerdlingr

Daith wrote: »

In Ireland we don't have free speech. Not that it has anything to do with equality laws but when you might as well grasp at straws.

I'm all for everyone having a right to choose what they believe in.
If a business doesnt want to print something because it conflicts with what they believe in then so be it. Go somewhere else and get it done and let them worry about the money they lost out on.

Daith

bjork wrote: »

Under different management

So the shop is open now?

gozunda

Nerdlingr wrote: »

What happned to the 'je suis charlie' brigade from a few weeks back?
Where's free speech gone to?
Is this business not entitled to choose what it feels comfortable producing?
If it does not agree with gay marraige so be it, thats their choice.
Talk about forcing the issue on someone.

Daft analogy # 6

What exactly has 'free speech' got to do with running a business according to the law? As it stands businesses cannot discriminate against customers (as detailed in the Equal Status Act) in the provision of goods and services.

Daith

Nerdlingr wrote: »

If a business doesnt want to print something because it conflicts with what they believe in then so be it. Go somewhere else and get it done and let them worry about the money they lost out on.

Why does the customer have to go somewhere else? Why shouldn't the business go somewhere else where it can operate without breaking a law?

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

The guy with the cake topper in Dublin didn't break any laws. He was still hounded out of business and a lot of his staff were left without jobs because of abuse they received.

And exactly what's that got to do with what I said? The guy made a poor business decision and unfortunately his trade suffered. Who would have guessed?

bjork

Daith wrote: »

So the shop is open now?

>>>Ignore the context that this man didn't even break the law!! According to the Gay community Network as quoted earlier>>



Yes, the shop is open :rolleyes:

Pedro Gonzalez

bjork wrote: »

Under different management

The store met with a storm of criticism last year after it emerged that the owner removed a wedding cake-topper of two grooms holding hands from display in his store.

Barnes stepped away from the business at the end of January and the new owners, Gerard and Laurence Barron, officially took over last Friday.

All of the staff who remain have worked in the store for years but Doyle said it has downsized and a number of staff left of their own accord because of abuse they received over the cake-topper controversy.
“People were getting stuff on their personal Facebook accounts, everyone had to take down from their accounts where they worked and some people left because they couldn’t handle the abuse,” she explained.

Reading posts like this would sway a lot of undecided voters towards the no camp,id imagine.
I know im strongly thinking of it.

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

And exactly what's that got to do with what I said? The guy made a poor business decision and unfortunately his trade suffered. Who would have guessed?

He didn't refuse to serve anyone. He removed a cake topper from display.

B_Wayne

Now people are complaining about the negative pr that results from being homophobic in business practice? Lols...

Nerdlingr

Daith wrote: »

Why does the customer have to go somewhere else? Why shouldn't the business go somewhere else where it can operate without breaking a law?

The customer has to go somewhere because the business does not provide the service they are seeking. I thought that was rather obvious!
Thats what usually happens anyway. If a shop doesnt have something you want, go somewhere else and get it!! :P

shruikan2553

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The customer has to go somewhere because the business does not provide the service they are seeking. I thought that was rather obvious!
Thats what usually happens anyway. If a shop doesnt have something you want, go somewhere else and get it!! :P

This place did wedding invitations.

They didnt go to the deli counter and ask for a suit.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

Why does the customer have to go somewhere else? Why shouldn't the business go somewhere else where it can operate without breaking a law?

Crux of the issue, either side can go it is or is not. Problem is this has not reached a stage where the law is applied. Or is a social media witch hunt legal proceedings now. We have laws many have point out the Equality act, That's for the courts to decide whether it applies to this case. But sadly it will not reach the courts, Business will probably go down the pan due to poor thought out policy's.

Nerdlingr

gozunda wrote: »

Daft analogy # 6

What exactly has 'free speech' got to do with running a business according to the law? As it stands businesses cannot discriminate against customers (as detailed in the Equal Status Act) in the provision of goods and services.

What law have they broken though. They can just say we do not provide a service for something that is illegal in this country no?

darkpagandeath

shruikan2553 wrote: »

This place did wedding invitations.

They didnt go to the deli counter and ask for a suit.

Yup, Do we know if they supplied the Civil ceremony ones ?

shruikan2553

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yup, Do we know if they supplied the Civil ceremony ones ?

Has anyone managed to explain the difference between the two that would mean they were unable to provide them? I would image it wouldnt require that much difference, like providing invites to an interracial marriage.

Daith

Nerdlingr wrote: »

What law have they broken though. They can just say we do not provide a service for something that is illegal in this country no?

Which is why they're shooting themselves in the foot.

They were asked for Civil Partnership invitations. It's the business equating civil partnership to marriage.

Therefore they're breaking the equality act because they are supplying marriage cards for straight couples and not for gay couples.

It's the business deciding what to say and by doing so they are on very shaking ground.

darkpagandeath

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Has anyone managed to explain the difference between the two that would mean they were unable to provide them?

So no need for a referendum then sorted...

shruikan2553

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So no need for a referendum then sorted...

So you agree the invites are the same now?

One eyed Jack

Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »

Reading posts like this would sway a lot of undecided voters towards the no camp,id imagine.
I know im strongly thinking of it.

I doubt it tbh, most people aren't so spiteful that they would punish the majority for the actions of a minority. They're able to maintain some sense of perspective, even if a minority of people aren't.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So no need for a referendum then sorted...

Read above. It's the business comparing a civil partnership with a marriage.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

Which is why they're shooting themselves in the foot.

They were asked for Civil Partnership invitations. It's the business equating civil partnership to marriage.

Therefore they're breaking the equality act because they are supplying marriage cards for straight couples and not for gay couples.

It's the business deciding what to say and by doing so they are on very shaking ground.

Nope, that's why we are having a referendum.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope, that's why we are having a referendum.

Then if a civil partnership isn't a marriage why is the business saying it doesn't print civil partnership cards because they don't support same sex marriage.

Shooting themselves in the foot!

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

Read above. It's the business comparing a civil partnership with a marriage.

Can do all they want, Only one is recognised as such.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

Then if a civil partnership isn't a marriage why is the business saying it doesn't print civil partnership cards because they don't support same sex marriage.

Shooting themselves in the foot!

No Idea I'm not a Religious person.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Can do all they want, Only one is recognised as such.

As the business is saying they're the same but not supplying cards for one, it's a pretty easy and basic case of discrimination.