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…4142444647…57

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    lol catholic ethos.
    If I'm in the KKK can I not print black wedding cards because of my KKK ethos? Thats not bigotry is it? And I can do it by law, but thats not discriminatory in your view.

    Then vote for candidates that will change the laws on discrimination, I'm sure you find legal discrimination in all forms objectionable also ?


  • Options
    #1293
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Black guy walks into his local, been a regular there for over four years, always enjoyed his usual pint and friendly chat with the barman ......... this particular night though he has had way more than one too many so the barman refuses him service on this occasion .......... the black guy screams racism ......... does he have a case?

    Well if this isn't a ridiculous comparison I really can't imagine what would be.

    No because in the first instance barmen have a duty not to serve the inebriated. No because the action is neither discriminatory in action or effect

    A more interesting and suitable analogy would be the same black customer asking his local to host his mixed race wedding, and the owner refusing saying that while the event is legal he can't facilitate it based on his biblical beliefs about the mixing of the races. He has no problem serving his black customer he just can't personally endorse a mixed race marriage.


  • Options
    #1294
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Nope that's not what has happened here at all, First port of call was papers and social media for a witch hunt. Then comment's about may take a legal rout. That's what most level headed sensible people take exception to. No legal process just trial by social media, I have no idea why people don't think this is wrong.

    What witch hunt? Have the business denied what is alleged?


  • Options
    #1295
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    They never left ..............

    As to the question where?


  • Options
    #1296
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Well if this isn't a ridiculous comparison I really can't imagine what would be.

    No because in the first instance barmen have a duty not to serve the inebriated. No because the action is neither discriminatory in action or effect

    A more interesting and suitable analogy would be the same black customer asking his local to host his mixed race wedding, and the owner refusing saying that while the event is legal he can't facilitate it based on his biblical beliefs about the mixing of the races. He has no problem serving his black customer he just can't personally endorse a mixed race marriage.

    I'm glad you pointed this out .......... analogies don't work for this situation as anybody can formulate an analogy to support their own point of view ......... I did just that with my analogy and you (hilariously!!) did likewise in your reply! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    gozunda wrote: »
    As to the question where?

    I replied to that one, try looking harder ...........


  • Options
    #1298
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Well if this isn't a ridiculous comparison I really can't imagine what would be.

    No because in the first instance barmen have a duty not to serve the inebriated. No because the action is neither discriminatory in action or effect

    A more interesting and suitable analogy would be the same black customer asking his local to host his mixed race wedding, and the owner refusing saying that while the event is legal he can't facilitate it based on his biblical beliefs about the mixing of the races. He has no problem serving his black customer he just can't personally endorse a mixed race marriage.

    I'm struggles here, Catholics are Racist now ? People do know Jesus for example was not Irish. Or white. I have no idea why a catholic printer would refuse black customers.


  • Options
    #1299
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I'm struggles here, Catholics are Racist now ? People do know Jesus for example was not Irish. Or white. I have no idea why a catholic printer would refuse black customers.

    I've said nothing about Catholics, as a Catholic I am certainly not racist.

    Is it just Catholics you think should be entitled to this version of 'religious freedom' you are advocating?


  • Options
    #1300
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    The printer does not offer this particular service to any customers regardless of their sexual orientation ..........

    Do you consider wedding invitation cards for intersex marriage to be a different service to wedding invitation cards for same sex marriage? I would consider them to be the same service i.e. wedding invitation cards: some blurb, mr and mrs blah request the presence of blah and blah on the occasion of the marriage of blah to blah at venue. Can't see the sex of the blahs making any difference. It is in my view simply a wedding invitation card.

    Any legal eagles on here or do I have to wade through 80+ pages?


  • Options
    #1301
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I'm glad you pointed this out .......... analogies don't work for this situation as anybody can formulate an analogy to support their own point of view ......... I did just that with my analogy and you (hilariously!!) did likewise in your reply! :D

    Anyone can, but not to the same standard or degree as you and I have just demonstrated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    What witch hunt? Have the business denied what is alleged?

    Really...
    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I've said nothing about Catholics, as a Catholic I am certainly not racist.

    Is it just Catholics you think should be entitled to this version of 'religious freedom' you are advocating?

    As long as no laws are broken, And as of yet none have been proven to have been. And tbh everyone is entitled by law under the constitution religious freedom.


  • Options
    #1303
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    reprise wrote: »
    More convoluted analogies because the real issue just won't suffice.

    You do realise that interracial weddings are entirely legal and to the best of my knowledge, entirely compatible with the catholic ethos?



    Reprise - Re real issues, are you assuming the printer is Catholic?


  • Options
    #1304
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Do you consider wedding invitation cards for intersex marriage to be a different service to wedding invitation cards for same sex marriage? I would consider them to be the same service i.e. wedding invitation cards: some blurb, mr and mrs blah request the presence of blah and blah on the occasion of the marriage of blah to blah at venue. Can't see the sex of the blahs making any difference. It is in my view simply a wedding invitation card.

    Any legal eagles on here or do I have to wade through 80+ pages?

    You may not see any difference and I may not see any difference but the printer obviously does see a difference ......... the question is, legally speaking, is he allowed to differentiate between the two?
    The law, at present, does not clearly answer this question .........


  • Options
    #1305
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Anyone can, but not to the same standard or degree as you and I have just demonstrated.

    Why thank you!! *blushing* :)


  • Options
    #1306
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    darkpagandeath wrote: »

    As long as no laws are broken, And as of yet none have been proven to have been. And tbh everyone is entitled by law under the constitution religious freedom.

    So to avoid any confusion you are advocating for the right of my hypothetical barman?


  • Options
    #1307
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Do you consider wedding invitation cards for intersex marriage to be a different service to wedding invitation cards for same sex marriage? I would consider them to be the same service i.e. wedding invitation cards: some blurb, mr and mrs blah request the presence of blah and blah on the occasion of the marriage of blah to blah at venue. Can't see the sex of the blahs making any difference. It is in my view simply a wedding invitation card.

    Any legal eagles on here or do I have to wade through 80+ pages?

    I think you will find, the law is very specific overly specific in cases like this. It would have to be discussed legally whether they are the same service.


  • Options
    #1308
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    The printer does not offer this particular service to any customers regardless of their sexual orientation ..........

    Hair splitting much?. Their is no such thing as 'gay invite' An invite is an invite is an invite. Refusing an invite to one couple that you provide to another couple is discrimination where the reason for that discrimination is the sexual orientation.


  • Options
    #1309
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    lol catholic ethos.

    lol? strange sense of humour.
    bb1234567 wrote: »
    If I'm in the KKK can I not print black wedding cards because of my KKK ethos?
    Thats not bigotry is it?

    Did I not cover this? Black people can get married legally and there are no religious objections that I am aware of. But please feel free to contradict me. Better again, try discuss the issue and stop inventing fairy tales to rant about.


  • Options
    #1310
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    gozunda wrote: »
    Hair splitting much?. Their is no such thing as 'gay invite' An invite is an invite is an invite. Refusing an invite to one couple that you provide to another couple is discrimination where the reason for that discrimination is the sexual orientation.

    Hair splitting is the core of the legal process.


  • Options
    #1311
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    Hair splitting much?. Their is no such thing as 'gay invite' An invite is an invite is an invite. Refusing an invite to one couple that you provide to another couple is discrimination where the reason for that discrimination is the sexual orientation.

    And seeing as that didn't happen here, there was no discrimination. Nobody gets same sex marriage invitations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Nope that's not what has happened here at all, First port of call was papers and social media for a witch hunt. Then comment's about may take a legal rout. That's what most level headed sensible people take exception to. No legal process just trial by social media, I have no idea why people don't think this is wrong.

    So why are you engaging in something you think is wrong?


  • Options
    #1313
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    gozunda wrote: »
    Hair splitting much?. Their is no such thing as 'gay invite' An invite is an invite is an invite. Refusing an invite to one couple that you provide to another couple is discrimination where the reason for that discrimination is the sexual orientation.

    "An invite is an invite" is your own personal opinion but many would not (including the printers in this case) share that opinion ...........


  • Options
    #1314
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Hair splitting is the core of the legal process.

    And this board.


  • Options
    #1315
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I replied to that one, try looking harder ...........

    No you didn't. You made an accusation without any backup. Now try smarter or are you just attempting to flame the issue?


  • Options
    #1316
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Civil partnerships are not only for homosexuals


  • Options
    #1317
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    gozunda wrote: »
    So why are you engaging in something you think is wrong?

    Eh ? I'm on the devils advocates side. I have not immediately found the company guilty of breaking the law without the day in court.


  • Options
    #1318
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I'm struggles here, Catholics are Racist now ? People do know Jesus for example was not Irish. Or white. I have no idea why a catholic printer would refuse black customers.


    So darkpagandeath you're also making the assumption that the printer is Catholic. Holy moly what next?


  • Options
    #1319
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    No you didn't. You made an accusation without any backup. Now try smarter or are you just attempting to flame the issue?

    Seriously?


  • Options
    #1320
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    It doesn't whatsoever but the use of hypotheticals and comparisons... yeah that is called the art of argument and discussion. Can you explain why the use of hypotheticals/comparisons or illustrative examples is not acceptable to you in this instance?



    Your need to frame this as a gay vs straight debate is peculiar. What if the printer is gay man who opposes civil unions?



    That is a fairly substantive assumption to make I'd be interested in the legal basis.



    Essentially it boils down to a private business deciding on a religious basis who it must serve and in what manner. The law is quite settled in this regard, you are entitled to your religious belief within the confines of the law.

    We seem to be at cross purposes. You see, I'm in favour of equality for all. But you're argument seems to be that the only person with rights is the gay person. That is where your argument falls apart. Most of us are in favour of gay rights and are anti-discrimination, but some of us also accept that everyone has personal opinions and they should be free to express those opinions, whether we like or agree with them or not.

    As I keep saying, I support gay marriage and I will vote in favour of it. But I also support the printer who didn't print the invitations. When you strip away all the legal arguments and hypothesis we are left with 2 human beings, both with their own beliefs/rights/feelings and I don't believe it's as black and white as saying one should be forced to do something they are deeply against in order to accomodate the other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Hair splitting is the core of the legal process.

    That's 'your' hair splitting btw
    Are you an expert on legal process?
    Hilarious


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement