Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

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.

That's why we have law's, saying so does not make it so.

K4t

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

If a devout Muslim owned a grocery shop and refused to handle ham at the deli counter because of their adherence to their faith and beliefs it could be considered ridiculous by the majority but wouldn't be labelled as bigotry and discrimination. People would just shop elsewhere if they wanted a few slices of ham for their sambo.

A follower of the Christian faith with a moral objection to same sex union refuses to produce an instrument or aid requested by a same sex couple to facilitate their union and everyone rolls out the labels and indignation.

Get over yourselves. The couple were refused their request but instead of spending their money with a business prepared to oblige, they whooped it up in the press and mobilised the flock of sheep to draw attention to something which is not newsworthy.

All credit to the owners of that printing business for following their moral compass. I wouldn't object were I in their shoes but fair fecks to them for putting their principles before profit.

To the unhappy couple, stop bitching. Plenty of other printing works will produce what you need. The classy and self respectful action would have been to stop giving them your business entirely, based on your own principles. Feeding a media circus with your non-event is melodramatic horsecrap.

Agree with most of that, except for the parts in bold. This kind of behaviour on the part of these owners absolutely does deserve to be drawn attention to. These business owners and others need to realise that their extreme religious beliefs are outdated and have no place in modern society. I am delighted that this has made national news and that everyone is now aware that these views exist in Ireland, otherwise things will take a lot longer to change; Better the devil you know, and the bigger the boycott the better in this scenario. I still strongly object to anyone saying the business broke the law in any way however.

Atomic Pineapple

Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »

For the vast majority of businesses, money is what drives and motivates.
These printers are driven by belief and that should be respected.

Do they provide their services for free or something? Did they get into the printing business to spread the word of Jesus? No, they charge money for putting ink on paper and make a profit doing it just like every other business.

Their personal agenda is driven by their beliefs and not their business, that is respected and in others respecting that they should be professional about how they run their business.

One eyed Jack

K4t wrote: »

Agree with most of that, except for the parts in bold. This kind of behaviour on the part of these owners absolutely does deserve to be drawn attention to. These business owners and others need to realise that their extreme religious beliefs are outdated and have no place in modern society. I am delighted that this has made national news and that everyone is now aware that these views exist in Ireland, otherwise things will take a lot longer to change; Better the devil you know, and the bigger the boycott the better in this scenario. I still strongly object to anyone saying the business broke the law in any way however.

So their beliefs DO have a place in modern society then, but you think most people aren't aware of their existence when 92% of schools in ROI are Catholic ethos schools?

That's some bubble you live in.

darkpagandeath

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Do they provide their services for free or something? Did they get into the printing business to spread the word of Jesus? No, they charge money for putting ink on paper and make a profit doing it just like every other business.

Their personal agenda is driven by their beliefs and not their business, that is respected and in others respecting that they should be professional about how they run their business.

And work within the Laws of this state. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, Or a lawyer. Can anyone link a case that has tested this legislation in the courts, In relation to Religious views. As there may or may not already be a Precedent set. Either way again it's for the courts to decide if the Shop broke the law not Social media.

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

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

I didn't say he refused to serve anyone. He made a poor business decision based on his religous 'beliefs' that had reprocussions for his business. I believe this is the model being proposed by some posters here that instead of anti discrimating laws, business should be 'free' to do whatever they wish and let the market sort it out, not a model I would advocate but there you go / the market in action ...

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That's why we have law's, saying so does not make it so.

That's if it gets to court. The gay couple may be far more christian than the Christians and not sue them.

Forgive the sinner and all that.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And work within the Laws of this state. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, Or a lawyer. Can anyone link a case that has tested this legislation in the courts,

Not in Ireland but in the UK. Our laws are generally similar though.

Though the recent case about a Traveller family suing for discrimination may be similar.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

That's if it gets to court. The gay couple may be far more christian than the Christians and not sue them.

Forgive the sinner and all that.



Not in Ireland but in the UK. Our laws are generally similar though.

Though the recent case about a Traveller family suing for discrimination may be similar.

So Yet to be tested Grand, Will await the outcome on this one. Yeah they may not Sue due to it not being legally sound and possibility of loosing the case.

K4t

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So their beliefs DO have a place in modern society then, but you think most people aren't aware of their existence when 92% of schools in ROI are Catholic ethos schools?

That's some bubble you live in.

They have no place in modern society, as I said.

The majority of schools are Catholic ethos schools but you are mad if you think they are promoting the same beliefs as those business owners hold in this situation. It seems you are in your own bubble...

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Will await the outcome on this one. Yeah they may not Sue due to it not being legally sound and possibility of loosing the case.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And work within the Laws of this state. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, Or a lawyer.

Ok so! It's not legally sound but you're not a lawyer. Kudos! Saying it so does not make it so and all that.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

Ok so! It's not legally sound but you're not a lawyer. Kudos! Saying it so does not make it so and all that.

Well if that's the level of retort... You got me I Said I'm not a lawyer and will await the courts to decide.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Well if that's the level of retort

Nah, it's the fact you're saying it might be legally unsound in one breath than saying you're not a lawyer in the other.

Kind of hard to take you seriously.

If they decide not to sue, it will not be because it's legally unsound.

Atomic Pineapple

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And work within the Laws of this state. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, Or a lawyer. Can anyone link a case that has tested this legislation in the courts, In relation to Religious views. As there may or may not already be a Precedent set. Either way again it's for the courts to decide if the Shop broke the law not Social media.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm not arguing whether they broke the law or not, I'm saying that in my opinion they are being unprofessional in allowing their religious beliefs dictate how they run their business.

darkpagandeath

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm not arguing whether they broke the law or not, I'm saying that in my opinion they are being unprofessional in allowing their religious beliefs dictate how they run their business.

Yet to be Illegal, Bad practice yes.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

Nah, it's the fact you're saying it might be legally unsound in one breath than saying you're not a lawyer in the other.

Kind of hard to take you seriously.

If they decide not to sue, it will not be because it's legally unsound.

I see, Do we have to be lawyer now to have an opinion on this ? Is that the level of debate this has reached. Due to having no further arguments in retort ?

conorhal

K4t wrote: »

Agree with most of that, except for the parts in bold. This kind of behaviour on the part of these owners absolutely does deserve to be drawn attention to. These business owners and others need to realise that their extreme religious beliefs are outdated and have no place in modern society. I am delighted that this has made national news and that everyone is now aware that these views exist in Ireland, otherwise things will take a lot longer to change; Better the devil you know, and the bigger the boycott the better in this scenario. I still strongly object to anyone saying the business broke the law in any way however.

I fear that the disproportionate villification of anybody disagreeing on this current hot button issue is going to see a backlash in the SSM referendum though.

darkpagandeath

conorhal wrote: »

I fear that the disproportionate villification of anybody disagreeing on this current hot button issue is going to see a backlash in the SSM referendum though.

I playing the Victim card on this one so early in the game, I can only see this having a bad impact on the Yes vote.

K4t

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm not arguing whether they broke the law or not, I'm saying that in my opinion they are being unprofessional in allowing their religious beliefs dictate how they run their business.

Maybe you should offer your services as a business consultant to them? They might consider themselves extremely professional in the manner they conduct their business so don't be shocked if they send you packing.

They are however uncivilised and wholly unenlightened, but thankfully we live in a society where neither of those things are punishable by law.

One eyed Jack

K4t wrote: »

They have no place in modern society, as I said.

But Irish society IS a modern society, and people with these beliefs DO exist, so I'm not sure what your point is in saying their beliefs have no place in a "modern society" when in 2015 people with these beliefs are as much a part of society as you are with your beliefs that they have no place in society.

The majority of schools are Catholic ethos schools but you are mad if you think they are promoting the same beliefs as those business owners hold in this situation. It seems you are in your own bubble...

Oh I'm not mad at all, in fact, you shouldn't take my word for it, check out the SPHE curriculum for yourself, there's no mention of same-sex relationships, and you're aware of the recent story in the media where the school Board of Management decided they didn't want an organisation promoting LGBT equality in their school. Plenty of teachers as individuals have some very funky views about what they will and won't promote in their own classrooms.

It's because I'm NOT in my own bubble that I'm aware of this everyday discrimination that doesn't get reported in the media, like that story about the Muslim children in the ET school who objected to the teacher showing a picture of Mohammed. The ET school over-wrote their own ethos to try and claim that free speech should be prioritised over it's own ethos.

Mmm, modern society, eh?

robindch

Sonics2k wrote: »

They refused a service based on his sexual orientation. That's basically the definition of discrimination.

No, they didn't. They refused to print a political message which they did not support. As they are likely to have objected to the same political message being requested by a heterosexual person, it seems unlikely that they were discriminating.

It's little or no different to me, for example, refusing to do software work for -- god forbid -- the Iona Institute. In such a case, I wouldn't be discriminating against them as human beings with some attribute I found distasteful, but discriminating against their ideas.

It's a fine distinction and I'm sure that plenty of examples could be dreamed up which make it even less easy to make a call on whether it's discrimination against the person or discrimination against the idea.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But Irish society IS a modern society, and people with these beliefs DO exist, so I'm not sure what your point is in saying their beliefs have no place in a "modern society" when in 2015 people with these beliefs are as much a part of society as you are with your beliefs that they have no place in society.

Oh I'm not mad at all, in fact, you shouldn't take my word for it, check out the SPHE curriculum for yourself, there's no mention of same-sex relationships, and you're aware of the recent story in the media where the school Board of Management decided they didn't want an organisation promoting LGBT equality in their school. Plenty of teachers as individuals have some very funky views about what they will and won't promote in their own classrooms.

It's because I'm NOT in my own bubble that I'm aware of this everyday discrimination that doesn't get reported in the media, like that story about the Muslim children in the ET school who objected to the teacher showing a picture of Mohammed. The ET school over-wrote their own ethos to try and claim that free speech should be prioritised over it's own ethos.

Mmm, modern society, eh?

Dark ages => Thataway. Great place for fundamentalists I believe

Kiwi in IE

Why is the customer being criticised for going to the media? I would rather be informed about these incidents so I can avoid such businesses and choose to spend my money in establishments owned by decent people instead.

K4t

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But Irish society IS a modern society, and people with these beliefs DO exist, so I'm not sure what your point is in saying their beliefs have no place in a "modern society" when in 2015 people with these beliefs are as much a part of society as you are with your beliefs that they have no place in society.

And they exist in the US as well (a lot worse in fact), and they will exist in a hundred years time too. That still doesn't mean they are modern or belong in a modern society. The best thing that can happen is that these beliefs are brought to widespread attention and those who hold them are challenged and questioned on such beliefs.

You'll notice in this thread that there is almost universal agreement that the business owners are religious nutters and so the whole *condemnation of such behaviour has been bypassed* to the question of whether they were within their rights under the law to behave in such a manner. Most people know the business owners are religious loons in this scenario, but we also know that it is incredibly dangerous to accuse them of breaking the law for refusing to act in opposition to their religious belief as private business owners.

darkpagandeath

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why is the customer being criticised for going to the media? I would rather be informed about these incidents so I can avoid such businesses and choose to spend my money in establishments owned by decent people instead.

Because saying "Discrimination" does not make it so, rightly or wrongly what ever the printer did has yet to be proven Illegal. Pretty simple Social media has far to much power to dictate popular hot button subjects. Don't like their Religious beliefs that's fine. But don't berated the FB page that just make the aggrieved side look like clowns chucking their toys out the pram. And Most people are very suspicious of peoples motive when Social media and the media are the first port of call rather than legal proceedings.

gozunda

robindch wrote: »

No, they didn't. They refused to print a political message which they did not support. As they are likely to have objected to the same political message being requested by a heterosexual person, it seems unlikely that they were discriminating.

Wow back! What political message? Are we talking celebratory cake or an invite to a civil Union?

How the frack is an invite a 'political message' for crying out loud. That's the best I've heard yet

robindch wrote: »

It's little or no different to me, for example, refusing to do software work for -- god forbid -- the Iona Institute. In such a case, I wouldn't be discriminating against them as human beings with some attribute I found distasteful, but discriminating against their ideas.

It's a fine distinction and I'm sure that plenty of examples could be dreamed up which make it even less easy to make a call on whether it's discrimination against the person or discrimination against the idea.

But all such examples are bogus - you cannot seperate the customer from an order of goods and services. There is no provision for that whatsover ...

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

Wow back! What political message? Are we talking celebratory cake or an invite to a civil Union?

How the frack is an invite a 'political message' for crying out loud. That's the best I've heard yet



But all such examples are bogus - you cannot seperate the customer from an order of goods and services. There is no provision for that whatsover ...

Have the Courts Ruled on this case ? Or is that just an opinion ? Thankfully we don't have Trial by social media.

Kiwi in IE

robindch wrote: »

No, they didn't. They refused to print a political message which they did not support. As they are likely to have objected to the same political message being requested by a heterosexual person, it seems unlikely that they were discriminating.

I don't agree Robin. The invites this this mans' civil ceremony are no more a political message than the invites to yours or my heterosexual weddings were political messages.

gozunda

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Because saying "Discrimination" does not make it so, rightly or wrongly what ever the printer did has yet to be proven Illegal. Pretty simple Social media has far to much power to dictate popular hot button subjects. Don't like their Religious beliefs that's fine. But don't berated the FB page that just make the aggrieved side look like clowns chucking their toys out the pram. And Most people are very suspicious of peoples motive when Social media and the media are the first port of call rather than legal proceedings.

Customers of all types of establishments and business regularly use social media and online forums to report on dodgy, bad, illegal goods and services. See tripAdvisor for details. Why the heck should this bunch of fundamentalists get a free pass?? It is quite normal for individuals to report such problems. It doesn't make them bad or wrong doing so.! The business took the decision to refuse goods and service and they will have to bear the consequence.

robindch

gozunda wrote: »

Wow back! What political message? Are we talking celebratory cake or an invite to a civil Union? How the frack is an invite a 'political message' for crying out loud. That's the best I've heard yet [...]

Well, would I be discriminating on grounds of religion if I were a signmaker and refused to print a sign for the "Iona Institute" which said "Catholics Against Wife-swapping Sodomizers"?

Nope, I wouldn't be.

bodice ripper

If it were my business refused, I would not go the legal route, but I would go public with the incident. Any luck and it'll go the way of Daintree.