Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

Akrasia

K4t wrote: »

Yes, it does, though I can see how you might not understand. You've lost all sense of objectivity here.

For example, say a gay person asks a business to print leaflets in opposition to the 1993 decriminalising of homosexuality. And the business owner refuses to carry out the request due to his own belief that it was the correct decision to make homosexuality legal. The gay customer is very unhappy that his request has been declined and decides that he was discriminated against because of his sexuality. Now you, I and everyone else know that he was not discriminated against in anyway. Yet in the case in Drogheda somehow you are adamant that the person was discriminated against because of his sexuality, even though the principles of the case are the same.
If you think the business in Drogheda should have been forced by law to print the invitations, then you also think the business should have been forced to print the homophobic leaflets. If you think the gay guy in Drogheda was discriminated against, then you must also think the gay guy in the example was discriminated against.

Look, you're just making this overly complicated.

The reason for the refusal of service must be discrimination under one of the 9 grounds set out under the equal status Act.

The fact that the printer happily produces wedding invitations for straight couples but refuses to provide the same service for gay couples is clearly discrimination.

Trying to muddy the water by introducing convoluted scenarios involving political leaflets just shows that your position is wrong.

Declaring that these two people getting married is a 'political act' and therefore their invitations are political leaflets is just ludicrous

We're not talking about an arranged marriage between two royal families here, we're talking about two people who love each other who want to get married. It's not a political act for straight couples, it's not a political act for gay people. Your attempt to make this a political act shows that you have a belief that gay people should be denied the right to have a family of their own.

Akrasia

MadDog76 wrote: »

I didn't offer my opinion of your list ......... I just pointed out the fact that none of the 9 people listed covers discrimination of material goods in of themselves.

'Material' is not defined in legislation. You're trying to use a get out clause that is not there.

Printing services are a service, and the legislation clearly states refusal to provide services to members of these 9 groups on the basis of their membership of these groups is discrimination

The printer refused to print these wedding invitations because they were a gay couple. There is no other reason why they refused, they are clearly in violation of the equal status act.

K4t

Akrasia wrote: »

Look, you're just making this overly complicated.

The reason for the refusal of service must be discrimination under one of the 9 grounds set out under the equal status Act.

The fact that the printer happily produces wedding invitations for straight couples but refuses to provide the same service for gay couples is clearly discrimination.

Trying to muddy the water by introducing convoluted scenarios involving political leaflets just shows that your position is wrong.

Declaring that these two people getting married is a 'political act' and therefore their invitations are political leaflets is just ludicrous

We're not talking about an arranged marriage between two royal families here, we're talking about two people who love each other who want to get married. It's not a political act for straight couples, it's not a political act for gay people. Your attempt to make this a political act shows that you have a belief that gay people should be denied the right to have a family of their own.

Same sex marriage and gay people are not inextricably linked. Homosexuals can already get married, and straight people will be able to marry someone of the same sex under the new legislation. You're directly associating homosexuality with same-sex marriage, which is wrong, even if opposition to same-sex marriage obviously does discriminate mostly against gay people's right to marry. As I've said numerous times before, if I or yourself walked into that business on the same day asking for invitations to our same sex marriage to be printed, we'd have been refused too; And NOT because of our sexual orientation.

AudreyHepburn

To be honest there are two sides to this that both have legitimate arguments.

Of course I am dead set against discrimination of this sort, we all have the right to be treated equally regardless of creed, color, sexual orientation etc.

At the same time though, is it really right to try and force businesses to sell to clients to they don't want to?

Surely every business has the right to sell such products as they see fit, and to target such clients as they see fit? We don't have to like it but can we really force our ideas and beliefs on them?

Akrasia

MadDog76 wrote: »

The mistake you made was you offered up "evidence" to prove your opinion is fact which ironically proved quite the opposite ......... *me laughing*

So the way to win the internet arguments is to avoid citing evidence at all costs

Nice one

Also, it would be nice if you would provide any justification for your opposition to gay marriage given that you have already described yourself as non religious and non homophobic

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

Look, you're just making this overly complicated.
The reason for the refusal of service must be discrimination under one of the 9 grounds set out under the equal status Act.
The fact that the printer happily produces wedding invitations for straight couples but refuses to provide the same service for gay couples is clearly discrimination.
Trying to muddy the water by introducing convoluted scenarios involving political leaflets just shows that your position is wrong.

I think you're the one muddying the waters here;if he provides straight wedding invitations to gay couples, and doesn't provide gay wedding invitations to straight couples, then he is not discriminating illegally.

Akrasia wrote: »

Declaring that these two people getting married is a 'political act' and therefore their invitations are political leaflets is just ludicrous

Maybe, but ludicrous is not the same as illegal discrimination.

Akrasia wrote: »

Printing services are a service, and the legislation clearly states refusal to provide services to members of these 9 groups on the basis of their membership of these groups is discrimination

Only if the service is one you would provide otherwise; in this case invitations to gay civil ceremonies is not a service the printer provides.

Akrasia wrote: »

The printer refused to print these wedding invitations because they were a gay couple. There is no other reason why they refused, they are clearly in violation of the equal status act.

No, the printer refused to print the invitations because he objected to what was on them; he had already demonstrated that he didn't discriminate against the gay customer by serving him for four years. He clearly wasn't in violation of the equal status act.

Akrasia

bjork wrote: »

Hey, if anyone want to join, I just set up a Heterosexual club >>We can go do heterosexual stuff: relax in Sauna's and stuff.


All Welcome > * Except gay people

I'd Join but I find the 'NoHomers' club takes up all my free time

Akrasia

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be honest there are two sides to this that both have legitimate arguments.

Of course I am dead set against discrimination of this sort, we all have the right to be treated equally regardless of creed, color, sexual orientation etc.

At the same time though, is it really right to try and force businesses to sell to clients to they don't want to?

Surely every business has the right to sell such products as they see fit, and to target such clients as they see fit? We don't have to like it but can we really force our ideas and beliefs on them?

Substitute 'same sex' with interracial to see why it's wrong.

Racist business owners are forced to sell to minorities and everyone is better off because of it.

You can target your clientelle if you want to be a niche supplier. Nobody is going into a Veritas book shop looking for the latest Dan Brown novel. They are a speciality book shop. This printer was not a speciality printer, they were a printer that are happy to sell services for everyone except for people who they are prejudice against for their own religious reasons.

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

You can target your clientelle if you want to be a niche supplier. Nobody is going into a Veritas book shop looking for the latest Dan Brown novel. They are a speciality book shop.

So if a gay person walks into Veritas looking for a Dan Brown novel, is it or is it not illegal discrimination (in your opinion) for Veritas not to sell it to them?

Akrasia wrote: »

This printer was not a speciality printer, they were a printer that are happy to sell services for everyone except for people who they are prejudice against for their own religious reasons.

They were happy to sell services to that specific gay customer for four years. What do you think was different about this occasion?

Akrasia

K4t wrote: »

Same sex marriage and gay people are not inextricably linked.
Homosexuals can already get married, and straight people will be able to marry someone of the same sex under the new legislation.

Huh?

Are you trying to say that because straight people could theoretically marry people of their own gender, that gay marriage is not 'inextricably linked' to being gay?

You're directly associating homosexuality with same-sex marriage, which is wrong,

Mad mad argument. While not all gay people will want to get married, 'civil partnerships' are intended exclusively for gay and bisexual people. The point of the constitutional referendum in May is to remove any difference between Civil partnerships and normal civil weddings, so that a man and a woman who get married in a civil marriage are exactly the same as two men or two women under the eyes of the law.

While some people might conceivably engage in a 'civil partnership of convenience' in order to scam the system or avail of tax benefits or something, the intended purpose of the existing civil partnership law is entirely to facilitate gay people in loving relationships who wish to get married.

even if opposition to same-sex marriage obviously does discriminate mostly against gay people's right to marry. As I've said numerous times before, if I or yourself walked into that business on the same day asking for invitations to our same sex marriage to be printed, we'd have been refused too; And NOT because of our sexual orientation.

If I walk into a printer asking for invitations to my friends gay marriage, ultimately, even If I was the person handing over the money, the service is still intended to be supplied to the gay couple.

When Traveller couples are looking for a venue to get married, they'll often book the venue through a third party so that the venue does not know they are from the travelling community. If the venue declines to hiold the wedding because they know that it is actually a traveller wedding, they can still be prosecuted under the equality legislation even though the person trying to make the booking is a 'settled person'

Cuban Pete

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be honest there are two sides to this that both have legitimate arguments.

Of course I am dead set against discrimination of this sort, we all have the right to be treated equally regardless of creed, color, sexual orientation etc.

At the same time though, is it really right to try and force businesses to sell to clients to they don't want to?

Surely every business has the right to sell such products as they see fit, and to target such clients as they see fit? We don't have to like it but can we really force our ideas and beliefs on them?

What are all laws but codified beliefs and ideas that are forced on people?

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

If I walk into a printer asking for invitations to my friends gay marriage, ultimately, even If I was the person handing over the money, the service is still intended to be supplied to the gay couple.

You may be intending to supply the service to the gay couple, but that doesn't have anything to do with the printer; he's supplying the service to you. You can tell by the fact that you're the one paying him. What you ultimately do with what is yours is not his responsibility, no more than if you use the invitations to choke someone to death.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

So if a gay person walks into Veritas looking for a Dan Brown novel, is it or is it not illegal discrimination (in your opinion) for Veritas not to sell it to them?

If they don't have the book, they can't sell it and its not discrimination. If they do have the book and they refuse to sell it to a gay person, then it is.
Printers are in the job of publishing their own material. They can't say 'Sorry we don't stock civil marriage invitations' because they print them and can print any words they like on the invitations.

They were happy to sell services to that specific gay customer for four years. What do you think was different about this occasion?

Presumably all the other transactions were business related and were nothing to do with being gay.

If a gay person buys coffee in a hotel bar every day at lunch for 4 years without issue, but is refused a room when he tries to book a double room for him and his partner. Do you consider that he was discriminated against?

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

You may be intending to supply the service to the gay couple, but that doesn't have anything to do with the printer; he's supplying the service to you. You can tell by the fact that you're the one paying him. What you ultimately do with what is yours is not his responsibility, no more than if you use the invitations to choke someone to death.

Are you honestly trying to say that a printer refusing to print something for me, because I will later give it to a gay couple is not discrimination against the gay couple?

Imagine you try to buy a bus ticket from a bus driver at the bus stop and he says 'No, I'm, not serving you because you're gay'

So you step to the side and when someone else comes, you ask them to buy the ticket for you. The driver sells them their own ticket but refuses to sell them the ticket you asked them to buy for you.

Are you honestly saying the fact that party b isn't gay, and was refused service, that this proves that the bus driver wasn't homophobic?

darkpagandeath

We can come up with all the hypothetical's in the world, Until this has gone to trial and proven it was discrimination. I'm sorry no law was broken. Or does the internet make one Guilty till proven innocent ?

Akrasia

darkpagandeath wrote: »

We can come up with all the hypothetical's in the world, Until this has gone to trial and proven it was discrimination. I'm sorry no law was broken. Or does the internet make one Guilty till proven innocent ?

The Northern Ireland Equality commission are confident enough that this kind of discrimination is illegal that they are taking the Ashers Bakery to court because they refused to make a cake supporting Gay Marriage.
That case will be heard next month.

The Ashers case is muddier than this one, because the cake was specifically for a political campaign to make something legal which is currently illegal, while the couple in Ireland were having invitations printed to their own civil partnership ceremony, something that is currently fully legal and not subject to any political process at the moment.

darkpagandeath

Akrasia wrote: »

The Northern Ireland Equality commission are confident enough that this kind of discrimination is illegal that they are taking the Ashers Bakery to court because they refused to make a cake supporting Gay Marriage.
That case will be heard next month.

The Ashers case is muddier than this one, because the cake was specifically for a political campaign to make something legal which is currently illegal, while the couple in Ireland were having invitations printed to their own civil partnership ceremony, something that is currently fully legal and not subject to any political process at the moment.

Again I need to point out, Taken to court. Innocent till proven Guilty.

Pumpkinseeds

Akrasia wrote: »

The Northern Ireland Equality commission are confident enough that this kind of discrimination is illegal that they are taking the Ashers Bakery to court because they refused to make a cake supporting Gay Marriage.
That case will be heard next month.

The Ashers case is muddier than this one, because the cake was specifically for a political campaign to make something legal which is currently illegal, while the couple in Ireland were having invitations printed to their own civil partnership ceremony, something that is currently fully legal and not subject to any political process at the moment.

Is it only gay people who have rights now? I fully support gay rights and equality for all, that being said I'm getting a tad pissed off with the way that some gay people are publically 'outing' businesses. Fcuks sake, just take the business elsewhere.

darkpagandeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Is it only gay people who have rights now? I fully support gay rights and equality for all, that being said I'm getting a tad pissed off with the way that some gay people are publically 'outing' businesses. Fcuks sake, just take the business elsewhere.

I think it has more now to do with the claim culture than anything else.

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Here we go again! Because a business can't have 'religous beliefs' : rolleyes: I know what you are trying to say but businessss are legally obliged not to discriminate against customers in the provision of goods and services (see Equal Status Act). It's a 'story' because it would appear that he discriminated against the customer by refusing to print invitations - a service he provides to others.

It is a given that an individual can hold whatever religious brliefs' they wish in their home or place of worship. My 'religous' beliefs may include a dogma of only driving at 150 kpm - that does not mean I'm going to escape been done for speeding. Haven't heard the Equality Authority being referred to as the 'PC' brigade ...

Businesses are owned by people and people are entitled to their Religious Beliefs both legally and morally ........

MadDog76

Akrasia wrote: »

Look, you're just making this overly complicated.

The reason for the refusal of service must be discrimination under one of the 9 grounds set out under the equal status Act.

The fact that the printer happily produces wedding invitations for straight couples but refuses to provide the same service for gay couples is clearly discrimination.

Trying to muddy the water by introducing convoluted scenarios involving political leaflets just shows that your position is wrong.

Declaring that these two people getting married is a 'political act' and therefore their invitations are political leaflets is just ludicrous

We're not talking about an arranged marriage between two royal families here, we're talking about two people who love each other who want to get married. It's not a political act for straight couples, it's not a political act for gay people. Your attempt to make this a political act shows that you have a belief that gay people should be denied the right to have a family of their own.

Why "must" it be?? Because you want it to be but it doesn't work like that .......

MadDog76

Akrasia wrote: »

'Material' is not defined in legislation. You're trying to use a get out clause that is not there.

Printing services are a service, and the legislation clearly states refusal to provide services to members of these 9 groups on the basis of their membership of these groups is discrimination

The printer refused to print these wedding invitations because they were a gay couple. There is no other reason why they refused, they are clearly in violation of the equal status act.

The printer refused to print these wedding invitations because of the content .......

Annasopra

MadDog76 wrote: »

Businesses are owned by people and people are entitled to their Religious Beliefs both legally and morally ........

Yes people are entitled to their person and religious beliefs. They are not entitled to use those beliefs to discriminate. Either in state institutions or privately owned businesses. Thats the law.

darkpagandeath

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes people are entitled to their person and religious beliefs. They are not entitled to use those beliefs to discriminate. Either in state institutions or privately owned businesses. Thats the law.

Who's broken the law ?

Annasopra

MadDog76 wrote: »

Why "must" it be?? Because you want it to be but it doesn't work like that .......

Prove it. Prove your opinion of how the Equal Status Act should be interpreted is correct.

Annasopra

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Who's broken the law ?

I'm talking about the Equal Status Acts 2000-2014

MadDog76

Akrasia wrote: »

So the way to win the internet arguments is to avoid citing evidence at all costs

Nice one

Also, it would be nice if you would provide any justification for your opposition to gay marriage given that you have already described yourself as non religious and non homophobic

I have no interest in "winning" an internet argument .......... what difference would it make if I did somehow "win"?

I'm just here to have an open honest discussion regarding this particular incident, I find the debate interesting as it's not as clear-cut a case of legal discrimination as you (and others) would like to portray it as being ......... your "evidence" or opinion or my opinion will have no bearing whatsoever on the eventual outcome of this case anyway.

darkpagandeath

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm talking about the Equal Status Acts 2000-2014

Fair enough, once these 2 recent cases are brought to trial and proven Discrimination I will happily agree with the ruling. Unfortunately it's not most people's place to interpret the law, That's why we have laws and courts. And not the court of public opinion.

MadDog76

Akrasia wrote: »

Substitute 'same sex' with interracial to see why it's wrong.

Racist business owners are forced to sell to minorities and everyone is better off because of it.

You can target your clientelle if you want to be a niche supplier. Nobody is going into a Veritas book shop looking for the latest Dan Brown novel. They are a speciality book shop. This printer was not a speciality printer, they were a printer that are happy to sell services for everyone except for people who they are prejudice against for their own religious reasons.

Well he obviously isn't prejudiced against gay people, sure didn't he have at least one long term gay customer!

Annasopra

MadDog76 wrote: »

I have no interest in "winning" an internet argument .......... what difference would it make if I did somehow "win"?

I'm just here to have an open honest discussion regarding this particular incident, I find the debate interesting as it's not as clear-cut a case of legal discrimination as you (and others) would like to portray it as being ......... your "evidence" or opinion or my opinion will have no bearing whatsoever on the eventual outcome of this case anyway.

But you're not willing to engage in an open honest discussion on this. All you are saying is. "You're wrong. I'm right la la la la No. You're wrong. I'm right" That is not an open honest discussion. That is just belligerently restating your opinion And refusing to listen to any opposing opinion.