Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

bjork

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Eh why would lesbians get lower insurance ?

I'm not sure if it was because they "were in a stable relationship" so lower risk, or if having a named driver lowers your insurance> but there you go

reprise

bb1234567 wrote: »

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

That's irrelevant to the discussion though.

reprise

bjork wrote: »

I'm not sure if it was because they "were in a stable relationship" so lower risk, or if having a named driver lowers your insurance> but there you go

I find facing up to my "breeder" responsibilities quite stressful at times, especially knowing I am disbarred from places where I might unwind on account of my oppressive sexuality. Maybe those guys are on to something.

weldoninhio

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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

The publicity and subsequent freebies has a lot to do with too Id say.

gozunda

TheChizler wrote: »

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?

I mentioned the Freeman point only because your question unfortunately has already been used as rotten potato by a number of individuals who appear to have some bizarre freeman mindsets. Leaving that aside

you said

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

I replied to that

Gozunda wrote:

The customer was known to the printer - who asked the printer to print his civil union invites for him.

ie if the printer didn't know, he did at that stage.

you said

TheChizler wrote: »

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.

I said

gozunda wrote:

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

You said

TheChizler wrote:

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.

Ok fair enough. The printer already made a statement that he was refusing the order because of his beliefs about SSM. The customer alleged that the printer also said he was against homosexuality. Either way the invite was for the customers gay civil union. The printer although he printed invites all the time refused the gay customer a service he offers to other customers.

TheChizler wrote:

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.

The characteristics of the service was an intrinsic part of the customers order. he made the order, the order was something the printer provided, there was nothing illegal as regards the content of the order Afaik.

At any likley Equality Tribunal hearing there is no need for a burden of proof - both sides must present their account and the Equalit officer will make a ruling based on the existing law.

TheChizler wrote:

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.

.

My own view looking at what happened and the legislation is that there is a case to answer.

TheChizler wrote:

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?

In this instance the invite is very different to your scenario. But any person with any business acumen would print whatever as long it wasn't illegal and make a nice profit to boot.

TheChizler wrote:

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?

Again another desimilar scenario. Again printing whatever wouldn't be "supporting a cause' you would be simply doing business. If you did refuse - on what grounds would you do so? You could suggest that you couldn't support an illegal occupation of land. Otherwise take the business and charge for it.

dd972

What, another AH thread about Gays?


Who'd have thought it?

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

'Sin' according their own particular belief.:rolleyes; Sin is not legislated for thankfully. Such moralists cannot use their 'belief' to refuse a customer goods on services where such refusal would fall under one of the 9 grounds.

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

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., [b{print material promoting xyz ......... yay or nay?".[/b]
The majority shareholders would decide .......... that's how Democracy works in the REAL world ........ gedit!

Breaking the law is not 'democracy'. The gay customers civil union invites were not "promoting xyz" or anything else.
And like a business the imaginary Ballyhaunis printers or the Beulah printing company as an entity they are not individuals, No one cannot discriminate against them collectively hence the argument about business being 'people' is freeman bull****e

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

'Sin' according their own particular belief.:rolleyes; Sin is not legislated for thankfully. Such moralists cannot use their 'belief' to refuse a customer goods on services where such refusal would fall under one of the 9 grounds.

It has yet to be seen if a business can refuse services for moral reasons as it is not 100% clear if present legislation covers the scenario we are discussing here .......... I personally don't see it covered under any of the 9 grounds presented.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

'Sin' according their own particular belief.:rolleyes; Sin is not legislated for thankfully. Such moralists cannot use their 'belief' to refuse a customer goods on services where such refusal would fall under one of the 9 grounds.

Really? No matter what goods or services they wanted? regardless of message? regardless of legality, morality or taste? Regardless of whether it would damage the business or not?

Purely based on WHO requested it.

News to me anyway.

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Breaking the law is not 'democracy'. The gay customers civil union invites were not "promoting xyz" or anything else.
And like a business the imaginary Ballyhaunis printers or the Beulah printing company as an entity they are not individuals, No one cannot discriminate against them collectively hence the argument about business being 'people' is freeman bull****e

I don't believe the business or persons owning the business have broken any laws ............

Absolam

gozunda wrote: »

Breaking the law is not 'democracy'. The gay customers civil union invites were not "promoting xyz" or anything else.

Surely that's your opinion? It seems to be the printers opinion that printing invites to same sex marriage ceremonies supports same sex marriage. That's why he said he wouldn't print them.

gozunda wrote: »

And like a business the imaginary Ballyhaunis printers or the Beulah printing company as an entity they are not individuals, No one cannot discriminate against them collectively hence the argument about business being 'people' is freeman bull****e

Well.... as far as the Equal Status Act is concerned, it seems a business can be a person for it's purposes:
“Interpretation. 2.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— <...> person, as that term is used in or in relation to any provision of this Act that prohibits that person from discriminating or from committing any other act or that requires a person to comply with a provision of this Act or regulations made under it, includes an organisation, public body or other entity;"
Perhaps the government has been infiltrated by freemen?

Absolam

gozunda wrote: »

Ok fair enough. The printer already made a statement that he was refusing the order because of his beliefs about SSM. The customer alleged that the printer also said he was against homosexuality.

Where did the customer allege that the printer said he was against homosexuality? It's not in the OP, and you haven't linked any other source.

gozunda wrote: »

Either way the invite was for the customers gay civil union. The printer although he printed invites all the time refused the gay customer a service he offers to other customers.

Which customers did he offer to print invites to gay civil unions for? Again, we've seen no evidence that he offered that service to customers other than the complainant.

gozunda wrote: »

The characteristics of the service was an intrinsic part of the customers order. he made the order, the order was something the printer provided, there was nothing illegal as regards the content of the order Afaik.

Again, can you demonstrate the printer ever provided such an order before? The only statement on the subject we've seen so far is that of the printer who said "We have been in business for twelve years during which time we have held to our convictions and have at times declined a variety of work which we felt was clearly contrary to our beliefs. 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 invitations would do."
Seems pretty clear that they have declined work previously which wasn't in accordance with their beliefs, which makes it seem rather unlikely that they have ever provided what the complainant ordered.

gozunda

reprise wrote: »

Really? No matter what goods or services they wanted? regardless of message? regardless of legality, morality or taste? Regardless of whether it would damage the business or not?

Purely based on WHO requested it.

News to me anyway.

We are talking about the conceptualised concept of 'sin'. The law does not relate to 'sin'. Sin does not relate to"legality, morality or taste(sic)"

'Sin' is a religous construct & not a legislated matter :rolleyes:

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

I don't believe the business or persons owning the business have broken any laws ............

Good for you. Make sure to put that on the card your sending . Anyway The reference was a general point to the previous post ...

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Good for you. Make sure to put that on the card your sending . Anyway The reference was a general point to the previous post ...

I've noticed a slow but steady deterioration in the quality of your replies ......... you are losing this debate and allowing the discussion to get to you personally which is discolouring your posts ........... perhaps take a step back, deep breaths and re-think your logic before continuing on this thread ......... nobody wants this serious topic of debate to turn into a slagging match afterall.

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

I've noticed a slow but steady deterioration in the quality of your replies ......... you are losing this debate and allowing the discussion to get to you personally which is discolouring your posts ........... perhaps take a step back, deep breaths and re-think your logic before continuing on this thread ......... nobody wants this serious topic of debate to turn into a slagging match afterall.

Ah the old whataboutary again. How many times have you tried that approach? Thanks for acknowledging my logic which tbh is significantly more than what's in a lot of posts on this subject. Away to bed with ye.

By the way, exactly is the story with you dots everywhere? Is it some type of a revised morse code? Tbh without punctuation and syntax some of your posts are very difficult to make sense of.

darkpagandeath

gozunda wrote: »

Ah the old whataboutary again. How many times have you tried that approach? Thanks for acknowledging my logic which tbh is significantly more than what's in a lot of posts on this subject. Away to bed with ye.

By the way, exactly is the story with you dots everywhere? Is it some type of a revised morse code? Tbh without punctuation and syntax some of your posts are very difficult to make sense of.

Who has broken a law ?

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Ah the old whataboutary again. How many times have you tried that approach? Thanks for acknowledging my logic which tbh is significantly more than what's in a lot of posts on this subject. Away to bed with ye.

By the way, exactly is the story with you dots everywhere? Is it some type of a revised morse code? Tbh without punctuation and syntax some of your posts are very difficult to make sense of.

I think you should perhaps be more concerned about the contents of your own posts ................ I'll decline the invite to bed, thanks anyway

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think you should perhaps be more concerned about the contents of your own posts ................ I'll decline the invite to bed, thanks anyway

You're funny. What like this one?

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

But wait you never did explain your little dots .............

I do hope you have a bed. Using it makes a person less likley to be tired.

Pumpkinseeds

I'm curious as to what outcome the guy who wanted the wedding invitations printed is seeking. Is it some sort of financial compensation? Does he want to force the guy to print the invitations? Is he seeking some sort of public apology? As I said earlier, I support gay marriage, I also believe that the printer should be able to decline to print something that goes against his religious beliefs, even though I don't share those religious beliefs.

It seems to me that the issue is whose rights are more important, the printers religious beliefs or the gay man who wants invitations printed? The 3 ring circus that it's become must surely have overshadowed the wedding plans. I don't see that this is an issue tbh, the guy did business with the printers for 4 years, without any discrimination. All the printer did was decline to make the invitations and yet people seem ready to destroy his business.

jobbridge4life

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm curious as to what outcome the guy who wanted the wedding invitations printed is seeking. Is it some sort of financial compensation? Does he want to force the guy to print the invitations? Is he seeking some sort of public apology? As I said earlier, I support gay marriage, I also believe that the printer should be able to decline to print something that goes against his religious beliefs, even though I don't share those religious beliefs.

It seems to me that the issue is whose rights are more important, the printers religious beliefs or the gay man who wants invitations printed? The 3 ring circus that it's become must surely have overshadowed the wedding plans. I don't see that this is an issue tbh, the guy did business with the printers for 4 years, without any discrimination. All the printer did was decline to make the invitations and yet people seem ready to destroy his business.

no people seemed ready to get their invitations printed. What if the hotel refuses to host the reception? What if the catering company won't serve the meal? At what point does discrimination become unacceptable?

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

That's irrelevant to the discussion though.

Even though marriage for gay people isn't legal, if I were to enter a civil partnership with somebody of the same gender I would still call it a wedding and send people wedding invites. But thats just me, Im sure many others are like that too.

Pumpkinseeds

jobbridge4life wrote: »

no people seemed ready to get their invitations printed. What if the hotel refuses to host the reception? What if the catering company won't serve the meal? At what point does discrimination become unacceptable?

We aren't talking about the hotel or the caterers, we are specifically referring to the invitations, people keep making comparisons and references to other hypothetical situations. So, once again, it comes down to 2 people, one being a customer who wanted invitations to his wedding printed, the other was the printer who didn't want to print them as it went against his religious beliefs. Why should the printers feelings/beliefs be less important than the customers feelings/beliefs?

Why should the printer be forced to put aside his feelings or religious beliefs? There was never any discrimination against the customer in the 4 years that he did business with the printer. The printer seems to have politely declined the order and explained his reasons for doing so.

jobbridge4life

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

We aren't talking about the hotel or the caterers, we are specifically referring to the invitations, people keep making comparisons and references to other hypothetical situations. So, once again, it comes down to 2 people, one being a customer who wanted invitations to his wedding printed, the other was the printer who didn't want to print them as it went against his religious beliefs. Why should the printers feelings/beliefs be less important than the customers feelings/beliefs?

Why should the printer be forced to put aside his feelings or religious beliefs? There was never any discrimination against the customer in the 4 years that he did business with the printer. The printer seems to have politely declined the order and explained his reasons for doing so.

People keep raising other examples of discrimination because it is the principle of the matter. If you want to argue that the religious feelings of a service provider ought to trump anti-discrimination legislation then expect people to explore the ramifications of such a position.

Zillah

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

We aren't talking about the hotel or the caterers, we are specifically referring to the invitations, people keep making comparisons and references to other hypothetical situations. So, once again, it comes down to 2 people, one being a customer who wanted invitations to his wedding printed, the other was the printer who didn't want to print them as it went against his religious beliefs. Why should the printers feelings/beliefs be less important than the customers feelings/beliefs?

Why should the printer be forced to put aside his feelings or religious beliefs? There was never any discrimination against the customer in the 4 years that he did business with the printer. The printer seems to have politely declined the order and explained his reasons for doing so.

People are using hypotheticals to try and help you to understand why this discrimination is not ok, because they're hoping there are other types of discrimination you would oppose. They are also trying to show you that tolerance of this sort of thing would have a knock-on effect: allowing the printer to get away with it could empower others to get away with it, and you end up with a minority class facing day-to-day discrimination.

Should the printer be allowed to refuse customers based on the fact that they don't believe people of two different races should be allowed to get married?

Pumpkinseeds

Zillah wrote: »

People are using hypotheticals to try and help you to understand why this discrimination is not ok, because they're hoping there are other types of discrimination you would oppose. They are also trying to show you that tolerance of this sort of thing would have a knock-on effect: allowing the printer to get away with it could empower others to get away with it, and you end up with a minority class facing day-to-day discrimination.

Should the printer be allowed to refuse customers based on the fact that they don't believe people of two different races should be allowed to get married?

Again with the hypothetical's. I'm playing Devils Advocate here and asking why people feel that the gay chaps rights/feelings/beliefs are more important that the printers rights/feelings/beliefs and the sole answer that arises is the fact that the customer is gay. So is gay a trump card now? Does it mean that being gay means that a person has more entitlements than a straight person?

The printer doesn't believe in gay marriage, that's his opinion, personally I support gay marriage, I also support the right to religious freedom of expression. People appear to be saying that the printers religious beliefs are totally insignificant and all that matters is that the gay chap gets his wedding invitations printed. Well, that argument is a crock of shite.

dissed doc

Demanding a Halal butcher sell pork sausages wouldn't be met with this attitude, but Christianity is free for all. The bigotry of the left-wing fascists at work. Because there is complete freedom to support the businesses that meet your own personal requirements, there is no discrimination. Society cannot ever be forced to represent the interests of just one group over all else; that road was followed before.

The übermensch attitude of these minority interest group is as dangerous the the übermensch attitude of national socialists.

bodice ripper

nice godwin

Zillah

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Again with the hypothetical's. I'm playing Devils Advocate here and asking why people feel that the gay chaps rights/feelings/beliefs are more important that the printers rights/feelings/beliefs and the sole answer that arises is the fact that the customer is gay.

The sole answer that arises is that a person's right to not be discriminated against is more important than a person's (non-existent) right to discriminate. This applies to homophobes that own printers and have gay customers, and to racists that own restaurants and have black patrons.

When you understand why a racist restaurateur can't throw out black diners then you will understand why a homophobic printer can't turn away gay clients.