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…3637394142…57

Comments

  • Options
    #1142
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Are you saying a business can claim a human right?
    Nope, I'm saying that claiming "businesses are owned by people and people are entitled to their Religious Beliefs both legally and morally is a 'wrong' statement because a business is an organisation or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial or professional activities which does not give a 'business' the rights of an individual" is inaccurate; people do own businesses, they are entitled to their religious beliefs both legally and morally, and a business (caveats as above) is a legal person which does have some of the rights of an individual; it can enter into contracts, it can own property and goods, it can be defamed.


  • Options
    #1143
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Absolam wrote: »
    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 .......

    They're entitled to their beliefs, they're not entitled to discriminate based on those beliefs.

    Beulah printers are not speciality printers. Their advertising states they will cater for all your printing needs,, no job to big or too small, invitations are amongst the list of services that they provide

    http://www.our.ie/county-louth/drogheda/professional-and-business-services/beulah-print-and-design-drogheda/web942/

    The only reason they won't print this couple's wedding invitation is because of their sexuality.


  • Options
    #1144
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The only reason they won't print this couple's wedding invitation is because of their sexuality.
    That's exactly what needs to be proven though. You're presuming that A) the printer knew or at least thought that the customer paying for the service was gay, and B) they would provide invitations to a same sex wedding to someone who they thought was heterosexual. The person that's making the order doesn't need to be the person getting married; or even involved with the wedding beyond the role of a planner.


  • Options
    #1145
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    TheChizler wrote: »
    That's exactly what needs to be proven though. You're presuming that A) the printer knew or at least thought that the customer paying for the service was gay, and B) they would provide invitations to a same sex wedding to someone who they thought was heterosexual. The person that's making the order doesn't need to be the person getting married; or even involved with the wedding beyond the role of a planner.

    That's quite clearly not what the legislation details. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - just because there are no cats mentioned is irrelevant. (Eg The printer discriminated against the invite ****e :rolleyes:)

    Outside that the statement made by the printer to the customer was fairly clear. The customer was known to the printer - who asked the printer to print his civil union invites for him. So if he didn't before hand the printer certainly knew at that point.

    But anyway The legislation does allow for an agent to procure a good or service on the behalf of someone else.

    Tbh a hell of a lot of this 'legal' meanderings and obtuse 'Wanderings Reminds me of "flog" of the family 'flog" Mumbo jumbo that was doing the rounds a while ago. it's as about as useful as a chocolate teapot in the Sarhara tbh ...


  • Options
    #1146
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Akrasia wrote: »
    They're entitled to their beliefs, they're not entitled to discriminate based on those beliefs.
    Well, more correctly they're not entitled to illegally discriminate based on their beliefs; outside of the 9 grounds they're entirely entitled to discriminate based on their beliefs. Such as the belief that same sex marriage is not something they should support.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Beulah printers are not speciality printers. Their advertising states they will cater for all your printing needs,, no job to big or too small, invitations are amongst the list of services that they provide
    Really? I'm sure you'll agree the word 'all' looms rather large in your statement "Their advertising states they will cater for all your printing needs", a statement that's curiously absent from the link that you provided. In fact, the closest those statements come is "Beulah Print is a one stop shop for all printing requirements throughout Drogheda and Louth", which I'm also sure you'll agree is a different statement entirely. So can you point out to us where exactly Beulah Print themselves state they "will cater for all your printing needs"?
    Akrasia wrote: »
    The only reason they won't print this couple's wedding invitation is because of their sexuality.
    How do you know? You haven't provided any evidence for your assertion, and the printers themselves have given a different reason.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1147
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Well, have the printers been put out of business yet?


  • Options
    #1148
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    bjork wrote: »
    Well, have the printers been put out of business yet?


    But they obviously only want to do businness with strictly bible adhering individuals - that rules out most of the 'sinners' out there tbh ...


  • Options
    #1149
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    gozunda wrote: »
    But they obviously only want to do businness with strictly bible adhering individuals - that rules out most of the 'sinners' out there tbh ...

    :mad: Are they sinnerphobic too?


    As a sinner, I am devastated


  • Options
    #1150
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    bjork wrote: »
    :mad: Are they sinnerphobic too?


    As a sinner, I am devastated

    We are all 'sinners' I'm afraid. ;)


  • Options
    #1151
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    gozunda wrote: »
    That's quite clearly not what the legislation details. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - just because there are no cats mentioned is irrelevant. (Eg The printer discriminated against the invite :rolleyes:)
    An absence of evidence is an absence of a case though; without evidence of discrimination there will be no case of discrimination to win.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Outside that the statement made by the printer to the customer was fairly clear. The customer was known to the printer - who asked the printer to print his civil union invites for him.
    It was; he stated that he objected to what he was being asked to print. He noticably didn't say that he objected to the person asking him to print it.
    gozunda wrote: »
    But anyway The legislation does allow for an agent to procure a good or service on the behalf of someone else.
    An agent can procure goods or services on behalf of someone else without being allowed to do so by legislation, but just for giggles, why don't you tell us how it affects discrimination legislation, exactly? Feel free to refer to the specifics of the legislation.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Tbh a hell of a lot of this 'legal' meanderings and obtuse 'Wanderings Reminds me of "flog" of the family 'flog" Mumbo jumbo that was doing the rounds a while ago. it's as about as useful as a chocolate teapot in the Sarhara tbh ...
    Is that a comment on your own obtuse reference to legislation allowing for an agent to procure a good or service on the behalf of someone else (and presumably pass on an act of discrimination thereby)? It seems pretty apt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1152
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    gozunda wrote: »
    That's quite clearly not what the legislation details. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - just because there are no cats mentioned is irrelevant. (Eg The printer discriminated against the invite ****e :rolleyes:)

    Outside that the statement made by the printer to the customer was fairly clear. The customer was known to the printer - who asked the printer to print his civil union invites for him.

    But anyway The legislation does allow for an agent to procure a good or service on the behalf of someone else.

    Tbh a hell of a lot of this 'legal' meanderings and obtuse 'Wanderings Reminds me of "flog" of the family 'flog" Mumbo jumbo that was doing the rounds a while ago. it's as about as useful as a chocolate teapot in the Sarhara tbh ...
    That doesn't address my point at all though. I'm talking about actual laws here which have been quoted, not some made up freeman nonsense. Can you debate the point instead of equating people who don't follow your interpretation with freemen and other nonsense?

    You say the legislation clearly doesn't entail what I said. I didn't say that's exactly what it says, I'm trying to figure out how they determined that "The only reason they won't print this couple's wedding invitation is because of their sexuality" which is a statement of fact that needs to be backed up by evidence and logic.

    To put it in general terms, some people think that a service was refused to a customer because the customer is a member of one of the categories of people legally protected against discrimination. That would be illegal. Others think that a service was refused to a customer because the shop didn't want to supply that service based on the characteristics of the service alone. This wouldn't be illegal. It may well be a mix of both, but the burden of proof is on proving the shop acted illegally, not their innocence.

    I don't agree with the shop's stance; it doesn't make them look great but I don't see how any laws have been broken here. Which is the claim.

    Put yourself in a different situation. You're an outspoken LGBT activist who happens to run a printer, some Christians come in and want to print leaflets about how they think that children should only be brought up by married heterosexual couples. If you were to refuse to print material you found objectionable, would you be refusing them on the basis of their Christianity or on the basis of the content they wanted you to print?

    To give an example out of the confines or same sex marriage and Christianity; imagine a member of the travelling community comes into the shop asking you to print leaflets supporting the retention of an unofficial halting site in the field behind your shop. You might not have any objection to this, it's obviously a less contentious issue, but imagine if you were to refuse because you didn't support this cause, would you be breaking any law?


  • Options
    #1153
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    TheChizler wrote: »
    That's exactly what needs to be proven though. You're presuming that A) the printer knew or at least thought that the customer paying for the service was gay
    It makes absolutely no difference who was paying for the invitations. None what so ever. The service was intended to be for a gay couple. There is absolutely zero question that the printers didn't know that the couple were gay. The printers have already explained that they declined the couple on the basis that they were a gay couple getting married (civil partnership)
    and B) they would provide invitations to a same sex wedding to someone who they thought was heterosexual. The person that's making the order doesn't need to be the person getting married; or even involved with the wedding beyond the role of a planner.
    completely irrelevant who is actually procuring the service. the fact is that the printer refused to serve that person on the basis that the service was for a homosexual couple.


  • Options
    #1154
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It makes absolutely no difference who was paying for the invitations. None what so ever. The service was intended to be for a gay couple. There is absolutely zero question that the printers didn't know that the couple were gay. The printers have already explained that they declined the couple on the basis that they were a gay couple getting married (civil partnership)

    completely irrelevant who is actually procuring the service. the fact is that the printer refused to serve that person on the basis that the service was for a homosexual couple.
    Have they? Or is that the actual statement slightly twisted?

    Whether it's relevant to the law or not, in my hypothetical example of a third party getting the invitations, for example a wedding planner, it is generally the wedding planner who is the customer as (afaik) they just invoice the couple for their services after. I'm not sure how legally you can tie discrimination into the original purchase. Maybe I'm wrong.

    As far as the printer knows in the example someone might be buying the invitations as a wedding present.


  • Options
    #1155
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Absolam wrote: »
    Really? I'm sure you'll agree the word 'all' looms rather large in your statement "Their advertising states they will cater for all your printing needs", a statement that's curiously absent from the link that you provided. In fact, the closest those statements come is "Beulah Print is a one stop shop for all printing requirements throughout Drogheda and Louth", which I'm also sure you'll agree is a different statement entirely. So can you point out to us where exactly Beulah Print themselves state they "will cater for all your printing needs"?
    Ok, I'm not going to engage with you anymore if this is the standard of argument you can come up with.


  • Options
    #1156
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It makes absolutely no difference who was paying for the invitations. None what so ever. The service was intended to be for a gay couple. There is absolutely zero question that the printers didn't know that the couple were gay. The printers have already explained that they declined the couple on the basis that they were a gay couple getting married (civil partnership)
    It makes absolutely no difference who the service was intended for; the printer dealt with one person (who was half of the couple by the way). The person who was paying for the invitations (and who is the one claiming to have been discriminated against) was the only person to have any dealings with the printer; he was the one requesting the service. The printer cannot illegally discriminate in providing a service to someone who is not seeking that service from him. I've no doubt the printer knew the couple was gay; he'd been dealing with one of them for four years without ever discriminating against him. But knowing someone is gay doesn't make it illegal not to do what they want.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    the fact is that the printer refused to serve that person on the basis that the service was for a homosexual couple.
    You keep saying that, but you keep not providing any evidence to support it. As I said, the printers themselves have given a different reason. What can you give us to back up your account?


  • Options
    #1157
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Ok, I'm not going to engage with you anymore if this is the standard of argument you can come up with.
    I suspect a similar degree of specificity will be required of the complainant if he decides to bring his case to court.


  • Options
    #1158
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Have they? Or is that the actual statement slightly twisted?

    Whether it's relevant to the law or not, in my hypothetical example of a third party getting the invitations, for example a wedding planner, it is generally the wedding planner who is the customer as (afaik) they just invoice the couple for their services after. I'm not sure how legally you can tie discrimination into the original purchase. Maybe I'm wrong.

    As far as the printer knows in the example someone might be buying the invitations as a wedding present.
    It is discrimination if the service is declined on the basis of the couples sexuality regardless of who pays for the service.

    The refusal to cater for civil partnerships specifically impacts one sector of society, and this this is clearly and unambiguously a case of discrimination against homosexual people.


  • Options
    #1159
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It is discrimination if the service is declined on the basis of the couples sexuality regardless of who pays for the service.
    Maybe, but whether it is illegal discrimination is a different matter; and so far we understand from the printer that the service was declined on the basis of his objection to same sex marriage; you haven't demonstrated that he declined it for any other reason.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    The refusal to cater for civil partnerships specifically impacts one sector of society, and this this is clearly and unambiguously a case of discrimination against homosexual people.
    The fact that civil partnerships only extend to homosexual couples specifically impacts that one sector of society as well, yet it doesn't make it illegal discrimination to have them. This is clearly and unambiguously a case of discrimination against same sex marriage, which of itself is not illegal.


  • Options
    #1160
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It is discrimination if the service is declined on the basis of the couples sexuality regardless of who pays for the service.
    Maybe by dictionary definition but the law only deals with customers. And the law is what's being discussed.
    The refusal to cater for civil partnerships specifically impacts one sector of society, and this this is clearly and unambiguously a case of discrimination against homosexual people.
    To an extent yes, and it would be great if we could get rid of people's prejudices. Unfortunately we can't force people to think alike.


  • Options
    #1161
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It is discrimination if the service is declined on the basis of the couples sexuality regardless of who pays for the service.

    The refusal to cater for civil partnerships specifically impacts one sector of society, and this this is clearly and unambiguously a case of discrimination against homosexual people.

    Again I feel I am repeating myself, Trial by social media is not something recognised by the law. We have courts laws, This must be tried in a court to see if any law was broken. I wonder if it will even get passed the legal advice stage. Mine or anyone's opinion or translation of the law is very rarely correct. That's why in a court you are told to get a lawyer and not represent yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1162
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    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

    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!

    If a print business was owned by the entire population of Ballyhaunis (using your example) then there would be a Board Meeting with a vote on "should we, as Ballyhaunis Priners Ltd., print material promoting xyz ......... yay or nay?".
    The majority shareholders would decide .......... that's how Democracy works in the REAL world ........ gedit! ;)


  • Options
    #1163
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    gozunda wrote: »
    .... 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!

    LOL! I believe you're the one trying to give "wedding invites" legal rights!! :D


  • Options
    #1164
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    gozunda wrote: »
    But they obviously only want to do businness with strictly bible adhering individuals - that rules out most of the 'sinners' out there tbh ...

    They have no issue dealing with sinners, they just won't promote the sin ...........


  • Options
    #1165
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It makes absolutely no difference who was paying for the invitations. None what so ever. The service was intended to be for a gay couple. There is absolutely zero question that the printers didn't know that the couple were gay. The printers have already explained that they declined the couple on the basis that they were a gay couple getting married (civil partnership)

    completely irrelevant who is actually procuring the service. the fact is that the printer refused to serve that person on the basis that the service was for a homosexual couple.

    You just made that up ........ what the printer actually said was "We have never hidden our faith from our customers and represent the gospel at every opportunity. We are not against homosexuals, however we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invites would do."

    Let's try stick to the facts on this please .........


  • Options
    #1166
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    You just made that up ........ what the printer actually said was "We have never hidden our faith from our customers and represent the gospel at every opportunity. We are not against homosexuals, however we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invites would do."

    Let's try stick to the facts on this please .........

    But Social media made up facts are better are they not ? :pac:


  • Options
    #1167
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    But Social media made up facts are better are they not ? :pac:

    Only when they suit the motives of Lobbyists with hidden (and not so hidden!) agendas ;)


  • Options
    #1168
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Why would anyone want wedding invitations for a civil partnership?


  • Options
    #1169
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,501 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    reprise wrote: »
    Why would anyone want wedding invitations for a civil partnership?

    Civil partnership invite cards doesn't have the same ring to it


  • Options
    #1170
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    I know girls that have pretended to be in a lesbian relationship to their car insurance company and got lower insurance


    Can I marry my friend for discounts. Then divorce them and marry a "breeder"?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1171
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    bjork wrote: »
    I know girls that have pretended to be in a lesbian relationship to their car insurance company and got lower insurance


    Can I marry my friend for discounts. Then divorce them and marry a "breeder"?

    Eh why would lesbians get lower insurance ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement