Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

Options
1…3536384041…57

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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?

    But the printer refuses to sell that "ticket" to anybody and everybody ..........


  • Options
    #1113
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Prove it. Prove your opinion of how the Equal Status Act should be interpreted is correct.
    In fairness Akrasia is the one making the claim in this exchange.


  • Options
    #1114
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    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.

    The 2 cases are entirely separate legal jurisdictions.

    It's funny earlier I suggested Maddog read case law on this and you refused to do so.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1115
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    TheChizler wrote: »
    In fairness Akrasia is the one making the claim in this exchange.

    Maddog made claims from the start in this thread. He has continuously presented his opinion as fact with nothing to back it up.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1116
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    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.

    ........... and nobody is entitled to discriminate against a person's (even if he/she is a small business owner) Religious Beliefs ......... I believe that's in the constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Maddog made claims from the start in this thread. He has continuously presented his opinion as fact with nothing to back it up.

    Fair enough if that's the case! I must admit I had the energy to scroll up only a handful of posts.


  • Options
    #1118
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


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

    I'm not a solicitor or legal expert and neither are you judging by your interpretations ......... we are both just voicing our opinions :)


  • Options
    #1119
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I'm not a solicitor or legal expert and neither are you judging by your interpretations ......... we are both just voicing our opinions :)

    No. You are continuously attempting to present your opinion as fact.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1120
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    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.

    I believe I have been open and honest ........ in fact it's my honest opinion that's upsetting you as it opposes your belligerently restated opinion.


  • Options
    #1121
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Maddog made claims from the start in this thread. He has continuously presented his opinion as fact with nothing to back it up.

    MadDog has offered his opinion from the start of this thread, no differently to yourself and everybody else who has contributed to this discussion ...........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    The 2 cases are entirely separate legal jurisdictions.

    It's funny earlier I suggested Maddog read case law on this and you refused to do so.

    how about the guy in Daintrees and the staff?


    oh, yeah, he didn't break the law, the social media warriors got rid of him with a hate campaign


  • Options
    #1123
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    No. You are continuously attempting to present your opinion as fact.

    Let me be quite clear here ......... anything I have posted or will post on this thread is simply my opinion, it has no more or less legal weight than your opinion.


  • Options
    #1124
    Greenmachine
    Registered Users Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭Greenmachine


    This is just another case of trial by social media. If the customer in question, had atempted to continue to use the printer for his business needs, then there would clear proof if there was or wasn't discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. While I appreciate the customer may be angry and not want to provide business, "IF" he believe he has been discriminated against, it would provide proof, if there was any actual discrimination. The fact the printer has not been afforded such an opportunity speaks more, for a political motive for this complaint, where it may have no merit whatsoever.


  • Options
    #1125
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    The 2 cases are entirely separate legal jurisdictions.

    It's funny earlier I suggested Maddog read case law on this and you refused to do so.

    And what is the point of me reading case law ? I'm not a judge or a lawyer, It will have 0% bearing on any of these case. And tbh unless your in the legal profession there is no point, As the interpretation will most lightly be wrong. Other people brought up the cake case.


  • Options
    #1126
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,501 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    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 ?

    lolllll. And Darren Wilson wasn't racist either, black people were just overreacting. The law is always right if thats one thing we've learned from history :)


  • Options
    #1127
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    bjork wrote: »
    how about the guy in Daintrees and the staff?


    oh, yeah, he didn't break the law, the social media warriors got rid of him with a hate campaign

    Yeah, but don't smartphones and tablets look so much cooler and worldly than pitchforks?

    We've come a long way...


  • Options
    #1128
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    lolllll. And Darren Wilson wasn't racist either, black people were just overreacting. The law is always right if thats one thing we've learned from history :)

    Not to derail the thread but Have you read completely different evidence in the case whether to indite ? If you have any extra evidence other than social media outrage to present im sure the relevant authorities will be happy to listen to it.


  • Options
    #1129
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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.
    And just as the bookseller doesn't have the book, the printer doesn't have gay marriage invitations, so by your logic it's not discrimination.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Printers are in the job of publishing their own material.
    Booksellers are in the job of selling their own material. They're as capable of ordering a book for a customer as a printer is of printing a card for one.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    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.
    And booksellers can order any book they like, and can, as easily as a printer, say "Sorry we don't stock that product because we don't want to." As you say, they can sell anything they like, but that doesn't mean they have to sell anything they don't like just because the person who asks them for it is gay.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Presumably all the other transactions were business related and were nothing to do with being gay.
    So... you're presuming the other transactions were business related, and this one wasn't? Why? In what way is a gay wedding invite less business related than a straight wedding invite? The customer was gay during the other transactions, and he was gay during this one; that didn't change. The transactions themselves were neither gay nor straight, they were simply business transactions; that didn't change either.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    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?
    I don't. I try to find out why he was refused a room before I presume the hotel is guilty of discrimination. For instance, if the hotel is full, it's probably got nothing to do with the customer being gay. Ditto if his credit card is declined, the hotel is closed that day, etc etc. Leaping to a conclusion deprives you of an opportunity to consider the facts.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    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?
    Nope; I'm saying that if he's not refusing to supply them with a service on the basis of their sexual orientation he's not illegally discriminating against them. And lest we wander too far astray, the printer didn't refuse to supply the invitations because they would ultimately be used by gay people; he refused to supply them because they were for a same sex marriage; an event he is opposed to.
    Regardless, the Equal Status Act applies to those who are buying or selling goods and services; there is no provision I'm aware of that that extends it to those who may ultimately benefit from them, even if the vendor could be reasonably certain of who that might be.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    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?
    I'm not; but if you construct your hypothetical so that the vendor is illegally discriminating in the first place, then of course he's illegally discriminating. But that's not what you proposed in your initial analogy is it? Anyway, if the bus driver refuses to sell a second ticket to party b without any reference to party a, you've no reason to believe he's discriminating against party a, other than your own bias based on your knowledge of person a's sexual orientation.
    Nor is it what actually happened; the printer never said 'I'm not serving you because you're gay', or 'I'm not serving you because you're buying something for a gay person'. He said he wouldn't print an invite for a gay marriage.
    So, if you want an analogy a little closer to the events on question, 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 I don't sell tickets to the destination you want. Would you like one for the destination this bus is going to? You know where that is, you've been buying tickets off me for four years.' Realistically, should he have to change the bus route just because the customer is gay?
    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.
    Well, they're confident there there must have been some kind of discrimination; they're just not so sure which kind. According to Ashers they amended their complaint to what is basically a fishing expedition on whether Ashers illegally discriminated a) based on the customers sexual orientation, b) based on the customers political opinion or c) based on Ashers own religious beliefs. They're confident some kinds of discrimination are illegal, but they don't seem so confident that they had grounds to prosecute for sexual orientation discrimination alone!
    Akrasia wrote: »
    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.
    Not really any muddier; the invitations requested from the printer were for an event which the printer disagrees with; an event which whilst not illegal in Ireland is legally distinctly different from marriage. The printer is not legally obliged to condone or support it, nor is it something which is protected under the Equal Status Act.


  • Options
    #1130
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Cuban Pete wrote: »
    What are all laws but codified beliefs and ideas that are forced on people?

    So prohibiting for example murder is forcing beliefs on people - seriously?


  • Options
    #1131
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.

    The Shoe I believe is firmly on the other foot. Two fundamental christian businesses 'just' happen to have moral dilemmas out of the blue about SSM - just as the issue of SSM is being brought forward for ratification. Who has the real power in this country? Think about the last 50 years and the scandals that went with that abuse of power. I can tell you for certain it's not any LGBT group or individual .,,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    gozunda wrote: »
    The printers provide an invite printing service - split hairs much?
    The printer provides a printing service, but no one is offering the argument that if the printer prints anything at all then he is obliged to print everything he is asked to print regardless of it's content.
    To then say that he provides an invite printing service so if he prints any invites then he must print all invites regardless of their content is splitting hairs, and in a rather disingenuous fashion too, if you don't allow the argument that there are specific kinds of invites he has always printed, and specific kinds he has never printed. Why should he accept your arbitrary line drawn at invites, instead of kinds of invites?
    gozunda wrote: »
    An 'event' cannot be 'discriminated' against.
    Of course it can. It's just not illegal to do so.
    gozunda wrote: »
    The printer discriminated against a person by refusing that persons order. Just as the 'order cannot be seperated from a customer.
    No, the person claims they were illegally discriminated against when their order was refused. The order can easily be separated from the customer; anyone could have made the order, regardless of whether they were gay or straight.
    gozunda wrote: »
    I really have to laugh at the lengths some individuals go to in order to justify discrimination and in this case homophobia - "'twas not the cat he disliked judge - twas the meow" :rolleyes:
    Trite but somewat misleading... no one is justifying discrimination or homophobia, though I can see you think throwing some tar on a brush might improve your argument :rolleyes:
    gozunda wrote: »
    Btw I will not reply to any more of your posts as ime your posts in the past tend towards incitment for amusement. Hilarious. I am adding you to my ignore list again. Thanks ..,
    I know... your previous posts have demonstrated a disinclination towards cogent discussion coupled with a preference for drive by potshots, so I'm a little worried my standards have dropped somewhat if you took me off your 'ignore list' for the brief period it took you to reply to what I said... even if it was hilarious incitement for amusement.


  • Options
    #1133
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Businesses are owned by people and people are entitled to their Religious Beliefs both legally and morally ........

    Erurh! wrong I'm afraid

    A business is an organisation or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial or professional activities. A business could be owned by the entire population of Balllyhaunis (for example) but that does not give a 'business' the rights of an individual.
    What a 'business' can't do is contravene the law of the land and refuse goods and services to a customer in relation to the Equal Status Act

    If someone in a 'businees' happens to believe that for example that all women are evil, then that's their belief in their home / place of worship. What they can't legally do is use those beliefs to discriminate against prople in the REAL world Gedit!


  • Options
    #1134
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Absolam wrote: »
    The printer provides a printing service, but no one is offering the argument that if the printer prints anything at all then he is obliged to print everything he is asked to print regardless of it's content.To then say that he provides an invite printing service so if he prints any invites then he must print all invites regardless of their content is splitting hairsOf course it can. It's just not illegal to do so.No, the person claims they were illegally discriminated against when their order was refused. The order can easily be separated from the customer; anyone could have made the order, regardless of whether they were gay or straight.Trite but somewat misleading... no one is justifying discrimination or homophobia, though I can see you think throwing some tar on a brush might improve your argument :rolleyes:
    I know... your previous posts have demonstrated a disinclination towards cogent discussion coupled with a preference for drive by potshots, so I'm a little worried my standards have dropped somewhat if you took me off your 'ignore list' for the brief period it took you to reply to what I said... even if it was hilarious incitement for amusement.

    Twas not me - you appeared unbidden . Button now re activated. Same old ... Same old. The law does not seperate the order or services from the customer. Homophobia indeed ?Btw It twas a simple invite and not offensive in any way (eg no Mickey on show) . Still Makey uppy :

    :rolleyes: Good riddence


  • Options
    #1135
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    gozunda wrote: »
    Same old ... Same old. The law does not seperate the order or services from the customer.
    Well... that's an interesting notion indeed! The law specifies that:
    "5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public."
    Can you provide us with evidence of where the law says the customer is indistinguishable from the goods or services they request? I think you're making it up :D
    gozunda wrote: »
    twas a simple invite and not offensive in any way (eg no Mickey on show) . Still Makey uppy :rolleyes:
    I think you're the one coming up with the 'Makey uppy :rolleyes:'. Where did I say anything about whether it was offensive?


  • Options
    #1136
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    gozunda wrote: »
    Erurh! wrong I'm afraid A business is an organisation or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial or professional activities. A business could be owned by the entire population of Balllyhaunis (for example) but that does not give a 'business' the rights of an individual. What a 'business' can't do is contravene the law of the land and refuse goods and services to a customer in relation to the Equal Status Act
    But a business, nonetheless, can be owned by people, and those people are indeed entitled to their Religious Beliefs both legally and morally. So, quite correct, insofar as what was actually said, rather than what you took from it, I'm afraid.
    gozunda wrote: »
    If someone in a 'businees' happens to believe that for example that all women are evil, then that's their belief in their home / place of worship. What they can't legally do is use those beliefs to discriminate against prople in the REAL world Gedit!
    That's their belief wherever they are. It doesn't change their legal obligations, but it doesn't prohibit them from holding their beliefs in the REAL world, Gedit!


  • Options
    #1137
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    .... now where was I - oh yes
    The Equal Status Act provides for the rights of discriminated minorities as customers not flowerpots or bits of paper ... But then some people appear to believe inanimate objects have citizens / persons rights too :rolleyes: oh and business are a legal construct but don't have citizens / persons rights because that's yes a businees is not a citizen! Doh!


  • Options
    #1138
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    gozunda wrote: »
    .... now where was I - oh yes
    The Equal Status Act provides for the rights of discriminated minorities not flowerpots or bits of paper ... But then some people appear to believe inanimate objects have citizens / persons rights too :rolleyes: oh and business are a legal construct but don't have citizens / persons rights because that's yes a businees is not a citizen! Doh!
    Sooo... no you can't provide us with evidence of where the law says the customer is indistinguishable from the goods or services they request?

    By the way... a business is a legal person in Ireland:
    "A company is a legal form of business organisation. It is a separate legal entity and, therefore, is separate and distinct from those who run it. The company (and not the individual shareholders) is the appropriate person to be sued in the event that debts are incurred by the company which remain unpaid, despite demand."

    If you don't believe the CRO, you might prefer the Company Law Guidelines from Citizens Information:
    Company: A company, once incorporated, is a legal person in its own right and is to be regarded as a separate entity from that of its Members.




    Doh?


  • Options
    #1139
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1140
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    True.
    It could be a sole trader; a sole trader is also a legal person.
    It could be a partnership; a partnership is not a legal person, distinct from the various partners which comprise the partnership, who are legal persons.
    It could be a co-operative; which is a legal person.

    So perhaps it's fairer to say businesses are usually legal persons, and can be owned by people, who are entitled to their Religious Beliefs both legally and morally .......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sooo... no you can't provide us with evidence of where the law says the customer is indistinguishable from the goods or services they request?

    By the way... a business is a legal person in Ireland:
    "A company is a legal form of business organisation. It is a separate legal entity and, therefore, is separate and distinct from those who run it. The company (and not the individual shareholders) is the appropriate person to be sued in the event that debts are incurred by the company which remain unpaid, despite demand."

    If you don't believe the CRO, you might prefer the Company Law Guidelines from Citizens Information:
    Company: A company, once incorporated, is a legal person in its own right and is to be regarded as a separate entity from that of its Members.




    Doh?
    Are you saying a business can claim a human right?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement