Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

Specialun

Fook me how has the thread reached 57 pages

gozunda

Clandestine wrote: »

Whats wrong with that A business should be allowed to discriminate if they wish.

I'm not saying I'd support any business that would (in fact, I think the company in this case handled this terribly) but a business is like a home - an owner should be allowed to refuse admission or service on private property.

You say 'A businees is like 'a home' - is Tesco 'a home' ? No It's a professional place of business that serves the public. You do know that is your opinion - In other words - completely fictional.

Currently it is illegal for customers to discriminate against customers in the provision of goods and services (detailed Equal Status Act)

That is what we are talking about in relation to the Printer who refused the customers order. And thats what's wrong with it. So are you still advocating that the customer walks away, does nothing, keeps quite and let's the business away with contravening the law as it stands? In effect putting the blame on the customer

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

So when you go to Tesco for your shopping you 'target' them do you?

Personally I go to a shop / business to buy or order something

Doesn't mean I should crawl away with my tail between my legs if I get poor service / faulty goods or heaven forbid discriminated against :rolleyes:

gozunda wrote: »

You say 'A businees is not like 'a home' - is Tesco 'a home' ? No It's a professional place of business that servers the public. You do know that is your opinion - In other words - completely fictional.

Currently it is illegal for customers to discriminate against customers in the provision of goods and services (detailed Equality Status Act)

That is what we are talking about in relation to the Printer who refused the customers order. And thats what's wrong with it. So are you still advocating that the customer walks away, does nothing, keeps quite and let's the business away with contravening the law as it stands?

The law as it stands is to be proven in a court of law. Not on social media, how is the Cake case in the North going ? Calling Discrimination does not make it so, That has to be taken to the Courts and proven. Pretty simple really.

Clandestine

gozunda wrote: »

Currently it is illegal for customers to discriminate against customers in the provision of goods and services (detailed Equality Status Act)

That is what we are talking about in relation to the Printer who refused the customers order. And thats what's wrong with it.

I'm saying the business "should" be allowed to... not that they are currently allowed to. Two different things.

gozunda

Clandestine wrote: »

I'm saying the business "should" be allowed to... not that they are currently allowed to. Two different things.

Then answer why you have placed the entire onus for the customer targeted for being gay and refused service by printers?

P_1

Personally I think that a business should have the freedom to tie the knot and drape the rope for themselves in a similar manner to those chaps in Drogheda.

What court is fairer than the one of public opinion?

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

Then answer why you have placed the entire onus for the customer targeted for being gay and refused service by printers?

False statement, NO one was targeted. A person was refused a particular service. Which will have to goto court to dictate whether it was discrimination or not.

B_Wayne

darkpagandeath wrote: »

False statement, NO one was targeted. A person was refused a particular service. Which will have to goto court to dictate whether it was discrimination or not.

The odds weigh heavily in favour of it being discrimination. The business said the sexual orientation of the couple dictated their decision.....

gozunda

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The law as it stands is to be proven in a court of law. Not on social media, how is the Cake case in the North going ? Calling Discrimination does not make it so, That has to be taken to the Courts and proven. Pretty simple really.

Bollochs. The law does not 'have to proven'. The law is already clearly written. A decision on whethe or not the business discriminated against the customer would have to be decided. clandestine seems to think the customer should just walk away, take no case and publicise nothing. Why the hell would he do that? That's the question ...

darkpagandeath

P_1 wrote: »

Personally I think that a business should have the freedom to tie the knot and drape the rope for themselves in a similar manner to those chaps in Drogheda.

What court is fairer than the one of public opinion?

Yeah that always works well, how is that shop in town doing ? after doing nothing Illegal ? Why not just go for mob rule and be done with it. That's what social media has become. That's why we actually have courts.

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

Bollochs. The law does not 'have to proven'. The law is already clearly written. A decision on whethe or not the business discriminated against the customer would have to be decided. clandestine seems to think the customer should just walk away, take no case and publicise nothing. Why the hell would he do that? That's the question ...

People do know how the Justice system works yes ? Or are we caught up in people saying one thing and that not being the case. Tell me what happens when people break the law, They get charged and taken to court yes ? it does in fact have to be proven the law was broken. Or we advocating shouting charges and holding public opinion.

P_1

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah that always works well, how is that shop in town doing ? after doing nothing Illegal ? Why not just go for mob rule and be done with it. That's what social media has become. That's why we actually have courts.

There's a difference between mob rule and people deciding not to give somebody their business after seeing an action a business. A fine Mayo man came up with the idea I believe...

gozunda

darkpagandeath wrote: »

People do know how the Justice system works yes ? Or are we caught up in people saying one thing and that not being the case. Tell me what happens when people break the law, They get charged and taken to court yes ? it does in fact have to be proven the law was broken. Or we advocating shouting charges and holding public opinion.

You said "The law as it stands is to be proven in a court of law.". Wrong. So evidently the answer to your question is no.

This would not be a criminal case. Discrimination falls under civil law. There will be no 'charge'. A case will be brought which wil be decided on the evidence presented as to whether discrimination did occur to a reasonable degree of certainty.

It has been advocated the customer do nothing but walk away with their tail between their legs. They also have a perfect right to make the matter public if they so wish.? If the business did not want a bad reputation for customer service perhaps they should have thought about the ramifications of Refusing the customers order. It would appear that the printers are aslo publicising their position. Are they wrong in doing that or are you only blaming the customer?

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

You said "The law as it stands is to be proven in a court of law.". Wrong. So evidently the answer to your question is no.

This would not be a criminal case. Discrimination falls under civil law. There will be no 'charge'. A case will be brought which wil be decided on the evidence presented as to whether discrimination did occur to a reasonable degree of certainty.

It was advocated the customer did nothing but walk away with their tail between their legs. They also have a perfect right to make the matter public if they so wish.? If the business did not want a bad reputation for customer service perhaps they should have thought about the ramificatiobs of Refusing the customers order. It would appear that the printers are aslo publicising their position. Are they wrong in doing that or are you only blaming the customer?

And If it was found not to be discrimination ? what then the business would have already been ruined. This is my problem with Social media torch and pitchforks. Do you agree with what happened in the town incident ?

gozunda

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And If it was found not to be discrimination ? what then the business would have already been ruined. This is my problem with Social media torch and pitchforks. Do you agree with what happened in the town incident ?

And what if discrimination is proven to have taken place? The printers iniated the process by refusing the customers order. Hardly good business acumen imo especially the statement they made to the customer. They are also publicising the matter. The matter is on their heads one way or the other.

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

And what if discrimination is proven to have taken place? The printers iniated the process by refusing the customers order. Hardly good business acumen imo especially the statement they made to the customer. They are also publicising the matter. The matter is on their heads one way or the other.

If they are found guilty I will respect that, but trial by social media and ruining a businesses on perceived denying of rights is the problem. Do you advocate social media dictates what is and what is wrong ? Would you like to be on the receiving end of it for example or would you want your day in court ?

bridster007

No discrimination here.
Didn't refuse to serve a particular person or group.
Refused a particular design.
Very simple.

One eyed Jack

B_Wayne wrote: »

Can you prove the bolded statement is anywhere near being a serious issue? Being required to operate a business within the law,not refusing customers for skin colour, sexual orientation and even religion etc seems pretty fair.

Not really a surprising display of sheer ignorance there.

To be so blinded by your own prejudices that you aren't even aware of the fact that people who are religious can also suffer from depression and suicidal ideation because of discrimination against them really doesn't come as a surprise to me personally, as I don't expect you think much about anyone else beyond yourself and the issues that affect you personally.

The person in this case was not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They were simply told that their order conflicted with the other person's religious beliefs. That might not seem fair to you personally, but it doesn't seem fair to me personally that people are lambasting this person all over social media without so much as a thought as to how it may affect that person.

osarusan

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yes it is, even the owner stated the man was a customer for a several years. Like most people, he never asked the guys sexuality because it doesn't really matter what your sexuality is. He was previously happy to provide the service to this man and his company for years, but when he discovered the purpose of the personal cards he refused the job, based on his opinion of homosexuality.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I am asking if it has been established as fact that the printer was unaware that the guy was homosexual until this particular order.

We know that he had been a customer for years, but i haven't seen any link or quote highlighting whether he was aware or unaware of the customer's sexual orientation until this order arrived.

gozunda

bridster007 wrote: »

No discrimination here.
Didn't refuse to serve a particular person or group.
Refused a particular design.
Very simple.

Yeah you got that wrapped up sure...

Never knew gay individuals were a 'design' :rolleyes:

B_Wayne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not really a surprising display of sheer ignorance there.

To be so blinded by your own prejudices that you aren't even aware of the fact that people who are religious can also suffer from depression and suicidal ideation because of discrimination against them really doesn't come as a surprise to me personally, as I don't expect you think much about anyone else beyond yourself and the issues that affect you personally.

The person in this case was not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They were simply told that their order conflicted with the other person's religious beliefs. That might not seem fair to you personally, but it doesn't seem fair to me personally that people are lambasting this person all over social media without so much as a thought as to how it may affect that person.

Well, I'm a straight male so this doesn't directly affect me. Now, can you prove that equality law and the requirement to serve customers is a common causative factor for depression and suicidal ideation? What I said it's well established. You've made an outlandish claim that being expected to print some invites would lead to it...

By your logic, you've justified refusing to serve black people due to conscience... Single mothers, they should also be able to refused, person having an interracial marriage, same thing. Refusing people from businesses is how we historically ostracised people. I will never condone it.

Akrasia

MadDog76 wrote: »

That'll be that paranoia I referred to in a previous post ......... you know, a lot of people make assumptions about the Gay Community, it's called stereotyping.

So you're not going to explain your reasons for opposing gay marriage then?

DeadHand

If the company were such rabid homophobic bigots why did they happily deal with the man for four years?

He wasn't refused on the grounds of being gay, he was refused on the grounds that the material would support indirectly a political cause (gay marriage is still a political cause) that people within the company found totally at odds with their personal convictions. I certainly wouldn't print material promoting Sharia law in Ireland or any Catholic misery from the Iona institute. Not because I despise all Muslims and Catholics for being what they are but because I firmly oppose those causes. If a printing company run overwhelming by homosexuals refused to print material supporting a No vote in the upcoming referendum would anyone bat an eyelid? Doubtful.

In a free democracy, people should be just as free to follow the courage of their own convictions as they are to live happily and openly with any sexual orientation they may possess. Irregardless of how distasteful or wrong some others may find those convictions or orientations.

Hope that people within this company don't become subjected to the type of cowardly, personalised vitriol we've seen suffered by people in a similar position from unthinking, bovine "social justice" warriors. Abuse that eventually led them to lose their jobs and businesses. Abuse through a new medium but of a similar dogmatic character that we'd have seen against anyone defying Catholic teaching in the last century.

New dogma. New technology. New direction. Still a herd.

One eyed Jack

B_Wayne wrote: »

Well, I'm a straight male so this doesn't directly affect me. Now, can you prove that equality law and the requirement to serve customers is a common causative factor for depression and suicidal ideation?

I never said that.

What I said it's well established. You've made an outlandish claim that being expected to print some invites would lead to it...

I never said that either.

By your logic, you've justified refusing to serve black people due to conscience... Single mothers, they should also be able to refused, person having an interracial marriage, same thing. Refusing people from businesses is how we historically ostracised people. I will never condone it.

Lynch mobs were a much more effective ostracisation method, historically speaking. You claimed I was wrong in suggesting that Ireland hasn't changed since the 70's, yet this incident proves that Ireland hasn't changed, ever. You'll still get people who think it's their "duty" to "teach people a lesson" when they don't think the same way they do.

SILVAMAN

"We, at Beulah Print, are Bible-believing Christians who are committed to standing by our conscience and God’s Word."

Deuteronomy Chapter 21

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


Anyone who commits blasphemy should die!!!

Leviticus 24:16

16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.


Leviticus 19:19

"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.



And so it goes...are they the Louth cumann of ISIS?

B_Wayne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said that.




I never said that either.





Lynch mobs were a much more effective ostracisation method, historically speaking. You claimed I was wrong in suggesting that Ireland hasn't changed since the 70's, yet this incident proves that Ireland hasn't changed, ever. You'll still get people who think it's their "duty" to "teach people a lesson" when they don't think the same way they do.

The implication of your statement was that it would be the knock on effect of expecting them to not abide by their religious beliefs in this situation would have that knock on effect.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should I instead condone discrimination that contributes to depression and suicidal ideation in the religious community?

I expect businesses to abide by the law, this includes not rejecting custom for clearly discriminatory reasons. If you do so, it will get massive press wherever you are in the western world. The negative response is because the owners believe it is their right to treat this couple like **** because of their beliefs. They have no right to do so. If a business owner refused single mothers, an interracial couple etc. This would also provoke the exact same response.

I don't wish Ireland to be a place where people will get rejected from jobs because of their sexual orientation. A place where certain people won't get served because they're viewed negatively by a religion. I support one's right to have these beliefs but that doesn't include discriminating against customers because of them.

uck51js9zml2yt

B_Wayne wrote: »

The implication of your statement was that it would be the knock on effect of expecting them to not abide by their religious beliefs in this situation would have that knock on effect.



I expect businesses to abide by the law, this includes not rejecting custom for clearly discriminatory reasons. If you do so, it will get massive press wherever you are in the western world. The negative response is because the owners believe it is their right to treat this couple like **** because of their beliefs. They have no right to do so. If a business owner refused single mothers, an interracial couple etc. This would also provoke the exact same response.

I don't wish Ireland to be a place where people will get rejected from jobs because of their sexual orientation. A place where certain people won't get served because they're viewed negatively by a religion. I support one's right to have these beliefs but that doesn't include discriminating against customers because of them.

But they have served homosexuals. They printed for him for 4 years.
They were asked to print something they dusagreed with based on their religious principles. What about their right to freedom of religion under the constitution?

I'm amused but not surprised by those telling us what the Bible says. I'd hazard that these same people have never actually read it.
If they did they'd know the difference between old and new testament and what things transferred over to the new covenant.
Shaving and eating shellfish wasn't one of them. I do both.I've read the Bible and I defend the right to believe the homosexual act is contrary to the will of God but nowhere in the new testament does it say I've to stone them.
Do I discriminate against homosexuals? No. If I did I'd have nothing to do with my niece and her wife. They know I don't agree with them but it doesn't stop use having a relationship.

If people are going to pontificate about what the bible says at least do so from a point of knowledge

One eyed Jack

B_Wayne wrote: »

The implication of your statement was that it would be the knock on effect of expecting them to not abide by their religious beliefs in this situation would have that knock on effect.



I expect businesses to abide by the law, this includes not rejecting custom for clearly discriminatory reasons. If you do so, it will get massive press wherever you are in the western world. The negative response is because the owners believe it is their right to treat this couple like **** because of their beliefs. They have no right to do so. If a business owner refused single mothers, an interracial couple etc. This would also provoke the exact same response.

I don't wish Ireland to be a place where people will get rejected from jobs because of their sexual orientation. A place where certain people won't get served because they're viewed negatively by a religion. I support one's right to have these beliefs but that doesn't include discriminating against customers because of them.

Not much point in trying to discuss anything when it's become clear you're not just misunderstanding anything I've said, you're purposely twisting it to suit your own point of view. One standard for you, and another for those people who don't think the same way you do.

Your first point alone was that refusal to fulfil the order was discrimination which contributes to depression and suicidal ideation among the LGBT community, and I merely substituted the word 'LGBT' for 'religious'. After that, I wasn't sure if you'd accidentally missed the point, or if you were deliberately trying to be obtuse.

Again, he didn't discriminate against the customer, he told the man he would not be able to fulfill the order as it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Instead of simply taking his business elsewhere as anyone with any common sense would have done, he decided to whip up a storm in the media, knowing full well that they'd lap it up.

Nice payback after the guy knew the owners were religious, having dealt with them for four years, like he didn't consider for a minute that they might have an issue with the wedding invitations. Nah, all he was thinking about was himself. I don't condone that sort of thinking in business, or in society either. That's not how you foster good relationships in business, and certainly not how you foster good relationships in society.

Specialun

DeadHand wrote: »

If the company were such rabid homophobic bigots why did they happily deal with the man for four years?

He wasn't refused on the grounds of being gay, he was refused on the grounds that the material would support indirectly a political cause (gay marriage is still a political cause) that people within the company found totally at odds with their personal convictions. I certainly wouldn't print material promoting Sharia law in Ireland or any Catholic misery from the Iona institute. Not because I despise all Muslims and Catholics for being what they are but because I firmly oppose those causes. If a printing company run overwhelming by homosexuals refused to print material supporting a No vote in the upcoming referendum would anyone bat an eyelid? Doubtful.

In a free democracy, people should be just as free to follow the courage of their own convictions as they are to live happily and openly with any sexual orientation they may possess. Irregardless of how distasteful or wrong some others may find those convictions or orientations.

Hope that people within this company don't become subjected to the type of cowardly, personalised vitriol we've seen suffered by people in a similar position from unthinking, bovine "social justice" warriors. Abuse that eventually led them to lose their jobs and businesses. Abuse through a new medium but of a similar dogmatic character that we'd have seen against anyone defying Catholic teaching in the last century.

New dogma. New technology. New direction. Still a herd.

Stop with the facts ..it doesnt go down well amoungst the spitting mob

B_Wayne

So just to confirm if a business owner has a religious belief that interracial marriage is wrong, you guys support a business' right to refuse to print their invites? Because that the exact logic you guys are operating under.