Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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.

As above, it's a fine line - I find looking at it from the other perspective helps - would you be comfortable printing stuff for Alive magazine or the Iona "Institute"?

I haven't seen any evidence that the bakery refused to bake the cake because the customer was gay (which is, correctly, against the law), but plenty to suggest that it was because they didn't like what they were being asked to do (which is not against the law).

Daith

bodice ripper wrote: »

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.

As a gay person and I think someone is breaking the law I should meekly accept it, go somewhere else and never mention it again.

Daith

robindch wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence that the bakery refused to bake the cake because the customer was gay (which is, correctly, against the law), but plenty to suggest that it was because they didn't like what they were being asked to do (which is not against the law).

Correct which is why I don't believe Ashers in NI were breaking the law (the issue was with the slogan, they wouldn't print it for anyone).

In this case it's not a slogan but a wedding invite. They do the same for straight couples, they should do the same for gay couples.

gozunda

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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

Take a read of the legislation - it is quite clear - discrimination is against the person otherwise you would have business up to all types of semantics & malarkey to get around the relevant legislation. "It wasn't that he was gay Judge, I don't like his lifestyle Judge so I refused to serve him coffee' :rolleyes: You havn't explained how an invite is a political message btw - I'm all ears ..

gozunda

robindch wrote: »

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.

And how does that equate with a civil Union invite. Are you equating such an invite with a sign for "Catholics Against Wife-swapping Sodomizers" seriously!?? Nice.

TheChizler

Daith wrote: »

Correct which is why I don't believe Ashers in NI were breaking the law (the issue was with the slogan, they wouldn't print it for anyone).

In this case it's not a slogan but a wedding invite. They do the same for straight couples, they should do the same for gay couples.

Depends what's written on the wedding invite I suppose; if it doesn't make reference to gender and just says something like, 'come to our wedding!' and it was unsigned, then it would be pretty obvious they were refusing because of the sexuality of the customer, but if names were given, which I imagine they were, then it could be based on the content of the invitation.

Still douchey but not illegal.

The ultimate test would asking the printers if they were willing to print something along the lines of 'Come to our wedding, signed ____ & ____'. Without any printer branding or obvious LGBT symbols of course.

As someone previously said, I'm a little skeptical of the running-to-the-media. Heard one of the fiancés on the radio this morning saying something about how the printers were acting illegally as it was a 'conflict of interest'. That term doesn't really make sense in this context, normally 'legal' and 'conflict of interest' only make sense together in corruption charges, not discrimination. IMO it felt like they were struggling to make more of an issue out of it than it was.

It's a shame because I think claims of discrimination like this might hurt the yes vote. And we're not short of valid examples of discrimination unfortunately. Big-news items like this will be what people remember, and many will associate what they perceive to be (rightly or wrongly) attention seeking individuals with the entire campaign, and possibly LGBT community.

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

Take a read of the legislation - it is quite clear - discrimination is against the person otherwise you would have business up to all types of semantics & malarkey to get around the relevant legislation. "It wasn't that he was gay Judge, I don't like his lifestyle Judge so I refused to serve him coffee' :rolleyes: You havn't explained how an invite is a political message btw - I'm all ears ..

So yes it is an opinion, The legislation can be tested in court. Again thankfully the baying mob of social media are not Lawyers or judges. Again I look forward to seeing this in the courts.

Kiwi in IE

robindch wrote: »

As above, it's a fine line - I find looking at it from the other perspective helps - would you be comfortable printing stuff for Alive magazine or the Iona "Institute"?

I haven't seen any evidence that the bakery refused to bake the cake because the customer was gay (which is, correctly, against the law), but plenty to suggest that it was because they didn't like what they were being asked to do (which is not against the law).

No to be honest I would not be comfortable printing propaganda for Alive or Iona. However that is because the content of their propaganda would in itself be discriminatory in nature against certain groups and promoting the marginalisation of others. A wedding invite or a cake for a conference promoting equal marriage is not discriminatory in nature or promoting the marginalisation of any other group.

What if gay couple were asked to leave a restaurant and the restaurant said that it was not because they were gay, it is because they were holding hands, they don't agree with men holding hands and don't allow heterosexual men to hold hands either?

darkpagandeath

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No to be honest I would not be comfortable printing propaganda for Alive or Iona. However that is because the content of their propaganda would in itself be discriminatory in nature against certain groups and promoting the marginalisation of others.

What if gay couple were asked to leave a restaurant and the restaurant said that it was not because they were gay, it is because they were holding hands, they don't agree with men holding hands and don't allow heterosexual men to hold hands either?

What about Gay/lesbian friendly as a distinction, That's discriminatory.

Kiwi in IE

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What about Gay/lesbian friendly as a distinction, That's discriminatory.

Why? Gay friendly is basically advertising the fact that their customers will not encounter staff, managers or owners with the appalling attitudes of these printers.

The fact that places would need to advertise that they are gay friendly is far more problematic in my view.

bjork

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why? Gay friendly is basically advertising the fact that their customers will not encounter staff, managers or owners with the appalling attitudes of these printers.

What about Gay only?


Does that mean all the staff are heterophobes?

darkpagandeath

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why? Gay friendly is basically advertising the fact that their customers will not encounter staff, managers or owners with the appalling attitudes of these printers.

The fact that places would need to advertise that they are gay friendly is far more problematic in my view.

Some people may not think so, They may take its as not family friendly and not bother availing of the services. So to coin a phrase "Indirect Discrimination" I do find it quite amusing the lengths people will go to defend Gay/lesbian Friendly as not Discrimination. One rule for some I guess.

And on the problematic view, That's just trying to defend the discriminatory practice.

I would assume you would have no problem with "Heterosexual/Family friendly"

TheChizler

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I would assume you would have no problem with "Heterosexual/Family friendly"

Just to nit-pick, families aren't confined to heterosexuals...

Edit: Sorry that wasn't necessarily the implication. My bad.

darkpagandeath

TheChizler wrote: »

Just to nit-pick, families aren't confined to heterosexuals...

True, But I think people well know what family friendly implies. Taking kids there.

Paramite Pie

Gay friendly is often just a discreet, rainbow sticker on shop windows that let's you know that you won't be kicked out for holding hands.

Most of us don't go running to the media when this happens -- and it has happened to many friends of mine. Just becuase something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's often a long dragged out progress to report it.

bjork wrote: »

What about Gay only?

That would be discriminatory. As I gay man I would give a place with that sign a wide berth. And if you've seen that sign, why haven't you reported it??

Kiwi in IE

gozunda wrote: »

And how does that equate with a civil Union invite. Are you equating such an invite with a sign for "Catholics Against Wife-swapping Sodomizers" seriously!?? Nice.

I am certain (unless his opinions have done a 360 since I last read his posts) that robindch is not arguing this point because he has any time for homophobes or religion, I am reasonably sure that his personal opinion of the behaviour of said printers and bakers would be similar to my own.

bjork

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Gay friendly is often just a discreet, rainbow sticker on shop windows that let's you know that you won't be kicked out for holding hands.

Most of us don't go running to the media when this happens -- and it has happened to many friends of mine. Just becuase something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's often a long dragged out progress to report it.



That would be discriminatory. As I gay man I would give a place with that sign a wide berth. And if you've seen that sign, why haven't you reported it??

I didn´t report it. I brought 4 instances of it to the attention of this thread and was told it was non discriminatory and to try being gay if I really wanted to use their services

Cuban Pete

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Some people may not think so, They may take its as not family friendly and not bother availing of the services. So to coin a phrase "Indirect Discrimination" I do find it quite amusing the lengths people will go to defend Gay/lesbian Friendly as not Discrimination. One rule for some I guess.

Well yes, there is one rule for some and frankly, I don't mind defending that. Straight people aren't discriminated against because of their sexuality, so they don't need safe spaces to express that sexuality.

I've never encountered "gay only" and I wouldn't be too comfortable with it. Once people know that insults or violence against sexual minorities isn't tolerated within the venue they're welcome.

And on the problematic view, That's just trying to defend the discriminatory practice.

I would assume you would have no problem with "Heterosexual/Family friendly"

Heterosexual, yes; family friendly, no. All "family friendly" really means is that there's no content (for lack of a better word) that would be inappropriate for children or that, unlike say a high-class restaurant, it's not catering to a particular clientèle where children causing noise and running amok would be frowned upon.

DEFTLEFTHAND

bodice ripper wrote: »

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.

What drive the owner out of his own business?

K4t

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What drive the owner out of his own business?

Yeah, I definitely would not support his business now that I know of his beliefs and practices, and I would hope that there are many more like myself. However, I wouldn't force him to go against his beliefs either. I'd simply allow his beliefs to kill his business, unless he changed them to conform to a modern and civilised society.

darkpagandeath

K4t wrote: »

Yeah, I definitely would not support his business now that I know of his beliefs and practices, and I would hope that there are many more like myself. However, I wouldn't force him to go against his beliefs either. I'd simply allow his beliefs to kill his business, unless he changed them to conform to a modern and civilised society.

Civilised as in ?

bodice ripper

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What drive the owner out of his own business?

Market forces. If you make your personal views a matter of business policy, they may affect your business.

Pedro Gonzalez

Is it true panti bar have a gay only policy?
Thought I read somewhere he wasn't overly welcome to some straight people wanting to enter.

K4t

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Civilised as in ?

Believing in equality.

One eyed Jack

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.

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.

The thing is though Rob, that what you call their ideas, they call their religious beliefs, and so if you refused to offer them the same standard of goods and services you offer to anyone else, they could indeed make a case that you are either directly or indirectly discriminating against them on the basis of their religious beliefs.

If you told them that your calendar is full for the next 2,000 years and they're welcome to come back then, well, they could hardly claim otherwise, and so they would have no case to claim discrimination.

gozunda wrote: »

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

2015, far more fundamentalism about these days with the prevalence of the Internet, makes the world a whole lot smaller, and social change happens much faster than in the Dark Ages, where y'know, there were no such things as equality laws and people could commit violent acts against those people who disagreed with them, pretty much indiscriminately. Nobody needed fundamentalism when they could pretty much obliterate people who got in their way.

K4t wrote: »

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.

These beliefs already have widespread attention and acceptance. it's your beliefs that don't have widespread attention, and quite frankly probably never will. Your 'modern society' notions are just that - your own idealistic notions about the way you think society should change, to suit you. Your ideas will never gain widespread acceptance though, because there are far too many people who disagree with your ideas, and nowadays with multiculturalism in 'modern society', you're likely to face an even more uphill battle for acceptance of your ideas about what you think should be a modern society.

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.

Nope, no I don't see that kind of agreement at all, I don't think anyone has referred to them as religious nutters only yourself. I also don't see how you can project your own prejudices to make the statement that "most people know the business owners are religious loons". I don;t think it's incredibly dangerous either to accuse them of breaking the law, you might have a point if they were brandishing machetes while they made the statement that they would not print the wedding invitations due to their religious beliefs though. In that case I think anyone might be a little more careful in how they choose their words... :pac:

FWIW btw, I wouldn't think comments on a social media website are in any way a reflection of social attitudes, they're usually an outlet for all sorts of extremist opinions that people would be too civil to air offline for fear of recriminations.

gozunda

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So yes it is an opinion, The legislation can be tested in court. Again thankfully the baying mob of social media are not Lawyers or judges. Again I look forward to seeing this in the courts.

No the legislation will not be "tested in court". No more than legislation is tested for someone brought to court for burglary or any other infringement of the law.

The Equal Status Act (2000) and the Equality Act (2004) are the most relevant law for this type of discrimination case. The facts of the case will be presented and a judgement reached if and when the matter goes to court/equality tribunal The law is the framework within which a judgement can be decided. it may also use precedent and legal interpretation as part of any case. That's it in a nutshell.

There has always been media reporting and latterly social media commentary but has no tie in with any legal action. I don't understand why the printers or anyone else would be surprised that there actions are not going to be criticised or commented on. They were ones that refused the customers order after all.

TheChizler

K4t wrote: »

Yeah, I definitely would not support his business now that I know of his beliefs and practices, and I would hope that there are many more like myself. However, I wouldn't force him to go against his beliefs either. I'd simply allow his beliefs to kill his business, unless he changed them to conform to a modern and civilised society.

You realize by doing that you'd be doing what many here are accusing the printer of doing? Discriminating against someone/a business because of their/the owner's characteristics? Practices fair enough.

I know it's not illegal this way round but it's food for thought.

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

No the legislation will not be "tested in court". No more than legislation is tested for someone rough to court for burglary or any other infringement of the law.

The Equal Status Act (2000) and the Equality Act (2004) are the most relevant law for this type of discrimination case. The facts of the case will be presented and a judgement reached if and when the matter goes to court. The law is the framework within which a judgement can be decided. The court may also use precedent and legal interpretation as part of any court case. That's it in a nutshell.

There has always been media reporting and latterly social media commentary but has no tie in with any legal action. I don't understand why the printers or anyone else would be surprised that there actions are not going to be criticised or commented on. They were ones that refused the customers order after all.

Are you sure about that, People are awfully co*k sure they are right on this, I have not heard a case being brought for freedom of Religion and Religious discrimination of Gay rights. And laws get challenged all the time that's how the legal profession works. You are charged with xyz does not mean you will be found guilty of xyz.

Kiwi in IE

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Some people may not think so, They may take its as not family friendly and not bother availing of the services. So to coin a phrase "Indirect Discrimination" I do find it quite amusing the lengths people will go to defend Gay/lesbian Friendly as not Discrimination. One rule for some I guess.

Why would someone think that a place advertising 'gay friendly' is not also 'family friendly'. If they do then it is they who clearly have a problem.

Gay/Lesbian friendly is not discrimination. It assures LGBT people that they will not face discrimination. There is a massive difference here.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I would assume you would have no problem with "Heterosexual/Family friendly"

Nope! I have a 6 year old and don't have the slightest problem with family friendly. If they want to add that it is heterosexual friendly then I don't have a problem with that either. In the context of a 'gay friendly' place/resort it would make sense for it to advertise that it is also heterosexual friendly to distinguish it from places that are 'gay only' which are discriminatory.

K4t

TheChizler wrote: »

You realize by doing that you'd be doing what many here are accusing the printer of doing? Discriminating against someone/a business because of their/the owner's characteristics? Practices fair enough.

Not all beliefs are equal, even if they deserve equal protection under the law. Now you might say, why are my beliefs right and his wrong! Well it's my opinion of course, and for others to decide. His beliefs actively advocate discrimination and opposition of equality, things which I believe are wrong. And thus I would not support his business as long as it runs in accordance to his beliefs