Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

fran17

gozunda wrote: »

That was not said.



No simply the facts we know is that a customer walked into a shop and was refused custom. => that happened.

That both parties then publicised the matter was their decision.

The remainder is speculation

Ok. Let's simplify the entire unfortunate episode then.This is a case of a man with a particularly strong faith and belief.In his faith,as with the majority of faiths,homosexuality is a sin.I'm not saying that's right or I'm not saying that's wrong but it is a fact.Somebody comes to him wishing to promote what he deems immoral and sinful.The man respectfully refuses to perform this act because of his beliefs.
What follows afterwards is a pathetic attempt to bolster the referendum yes campaign.

darkpagandeath

Why no legal case, I have a suspicion I know why.

darkpagandeath

fran17 wrote: »

Ok. Let's simplify the entire unfortunate episode then.This is a case of a man with a particularly strong faith and belief.In his faith,as with the majority of faiths,homosexuality is a sin.I'm not saying that's right or I'm not saying that's wrong but it is a fact.Somebody comes to him wishing to promote what he deems immoral and sinful.The man respectfully refuses to perform this act because of his beliefs.
What follows afterwards is a pathetic attempt to bolster the referendum yes campaign.

Careful now, according to the 2 cases and the only 2 I have heard of in years Ireland is rife with Anti gay Printer/bakers. There would be no reason for gay people to try and find the only 2 in Ireland north or south to be refused service. In one case the person was served for years.

bodice ripper

fran17 wrote: »

Ok. Let's simplify the entire unfortunate episode then.This is a case of a man with a particularly strong faith and belief.In his faith,as with the majority of faiths,homosexuality is a sin.I'm not saying that's right or I'm not saying that's wrong but it is a fact.Somebody comes to him wishing to promote what he deems immoral and sinful.The man respectfully refuses to perform this act because of his beliefs.
What follows afterwards is a pathetic attempt to bolster the referendum yes campaign.

surely it follows then that if other people think his behaviour is wrong, they can boycott his business?

Or do you only get to do that if you believe in fairy tales?

gozunda

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why no legal case, I have a suspicion I know why.

See below

To make a complaint under the Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2011 you must first notify the person or organisation you are making the complaint against within 2 months of the last act of discrimination. To do this you complete ES.1 form (pdf) and send it to the person or organisation you are making the complaint against. The time limit for notification can be extended to 4 months by the Director of Equality Investigations. If you are not satisfied with the service provider's response, or if they have made no response within 1 month from the date you notified them, and you wish to pursue the complaint, you should use the complaint form ES.3 (pdf) and explanatory notes (pdf). The completed ES.3 should be returned to the Equality Tribunal s

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/enforcement_and_redress/equality_tribunal.html

gozunda

fran17 wrote: »

Ok. Let's simplify the entire unfortunate episode then.This is a case of a man with a particularly strong faith and belief.In his faith,as with the majority of faiths,homosexuality is a sin.I'm not saying that's right or I'm not saying that's wrong but it is a fact.Somebody comes to him wishing to promote what he deems immoral and sinful.The man respectfully refuses to perform this act because of his beliefs.
What follows afterwards is a pathetic attempt to bolster the referendum yes campaign.

^^^ that is supposition. The ECOHR clearly state the following

Individual conscience or religious belief, however sincerely held, does not provide a free pass from the requirements of anti-discrimination law”,

What follows after will possibly be dealt with by the Equality Tribunal.

Tbh its a bit strange that 2 fundamental christian business in adjacent jurisdiction suddenly have conscience issue as SSM moves forward towards ratification ...

fran17

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Careful now, according to the 2 cases and the only 2 I have heard of in years Ireland is rife with Anti gay Printer/bakers. There would be no reason for gay people to try and find the only 2 in Ireland north or south to be refused service. In one case the person was served for years.

Yes I believe they are actively pursuing a candlestick maker now to complete the set.Farcical.

fran17

bodice ripper wrote: »

surely it follows then that if other people think his behaviour is wrong, they can boycott his business?

Or do you only get to do that if you believe in fairy tales?

Of course.Everyone is born with free will and we all make choices which determine our lives.
Just as your free to insult people's beliefs.

fran17

gozunda wrote: »

^^^ that is supposition. The ECOHR clearly state the following



What follows after will possibly be dealt with by the Equality Tribunal.

Tbh its a bit strange that 2 fundamental christian business in adjacent jurisdiction suddenly have conscience issue as SSM moves forward towards ratification ...

Thats rather presumptuous of you in fairness.I'd rather let the Irish people speak first.

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

Thats rather presumptuous of you in fairness.I'd rather let the Irish people speak first.

Speak on what? If you're referring to marriage referendum, it's got significant support at this point in time.

Do you support a business refusing to serve a couple because of an interracial marriage, Fran? This is the logical progression if you feel a business has the right to discriminate based on conscience..... Theirs people that hold the view black and white people should not marry.

bodice ripper

fran17 wrote: »

Of course.Everyone is born with free will and we all make choices which determine our lives.
Just as your free to insult people's beliefs.

true fact.

personally, I wouldn't take legal action, but am perfectly happy to see the place go tits up.

gozunda

fran17 wrote: »

Thats rather presumptuous of you in fairness.I'd rather let the Irish people speak first.

No presumption whatsover imo

The matter if reported will likley go the Equality Tribunal where a deciding officer will make a ruling on the base of each parties submission.

Then there is the seperate matter of the referendum on SSM where the Irish people will get to vote on that.

MadDog76

bb1234567 wrote: »

Nobody cares about a religions opinions unless you're muslim.

That's like saying nobody cares about homosexuals unless you are one ......... so it's ok to disrespect Christians/Homosexuals/Chinese people if you're not one???

If so then how can you dare get offended if somebody disrespects a "group" to which you identify yourself with ..........

MadDog76

bjork wrote: »

You do realise the gay man identifies as being part of that club, yes? He is part of the majority you speak of.

So is he discriminating against himself?

It would appear that this gay wants to pick and choose the aspects of Catholicism that suit him ........ God forbid (pun intended) a printer would have the right to pick and choose the services offered that suit him!! :eek:

MadDog76

jobbridge4life wrote: »

My God as a gay person yes I am entirely exhausted having to listen to debates about where I can buy cakes or cannot buy cakes... what cakes I may buy and what cakes I buy that are likely to be political footballs... whether the printer i approach with my business is going to treat me like an ordinary customer or make a huge deal about the fact that my life long partner with whom I wish to spend the rest of my life happens to have the same genitals.

In general I guess I am sick of the fact that my mundane ordinary everyday life that is no different from anyone else's except in one regard is considered a political issue.

I hope very soon that we never have to hear about this nonsense anymore.

.......... even though it would mean trampling over the rights of others? Nice

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

It would appear that this gay wants to pick and choose the aspects of Catholicism that suit him ........ God forbid (pun intended) a printer would have the right to pick and choose the services offered that suit him!! :eek:

Religious belief is relative to a persons home life and church. Many Irish people choose to select only parts of the RC creed with little apparent difficulty. The customer is no different. A businness that refuses to provide goods and services on a belief basis - that is a different matter.

As already quoted - from European Court of Human Rights

Individual conscience or religious belief, however sincerely held, does not provide a free pass from the requirements of anti-discrimination law”

Perhaps take it up with them.

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Bjork 1) that is largely facetious and nothing to do what was said. I would prefer to stay with the actual discussion.

2) how is he " misrepresenting himself"? he is the same as millions of other Catholics out there. It is very difficult to be perfect in that sense. I even believe there is phrase attributed to Jesus that covers it pretty much.



His religous beliefs as said are a private matter for his home life and church. He hasn't said otherwise and he is not using his beliefs to affect others.

That sounds dangerously similar to what a lot of people say (or used to say?) about homosexuals ............ "they're grand but I don't want them rubbing it in my face, do it behind closed (closet?) doors!!"

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

Religious belief is relative to a persons home life and church. Many Irish people choose to select only parts of the RC creed with little apparent difficulty. The customer is no different. A businness that refuses to provide goods and services on a belief basis - that is a different matter.

As already quoted - ruling from European Court of Human Rights



Perhaps take it up with them.

http://www.iccl.ie/news/2013/01/15/european-court-crucifix-case-draws-%E2%80%9Cbright-line%E2%80%9D-between-religious-freedom-and-discrimination-says-iccl.html




The full quote it appears would be



Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) Director Mr. Mark Kelly today noted:

“This is a very important case, in which the Strasbourg Court has gone out of its way to mark the limits of protection of freedom of religion under the Convention. The Court has quite correctly upheld the fundamental right of all people to express and manifest their faith in the public sphere. This right can only be restricted where there is a reasonable justification, and only by proportionate means.”

“However, the Court has drawn a bright line between this right to religious expression and attempts to use conscience or religion to justify discrimination. The State has a legitimate aim, indeed an obligation, to provide and facilitate equal access to services. As such, it is well within its rights to prohibit the withholding of services to same-sex couples, even if this is purportedly on the grounds of conscience or sincerely held religious belief”.

“Individual conscience or religious belief, however sincerely held, does not provide a free pass from the requirements of anti-discrimination law”, Mr Kelly concluded.

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

That sounds dangerously similar to what a lot of people say (or used to say?) about homosexuals ............ "they're grand but I don't want them rubbing it in my face, do it behind closed (closet?) doors!!"

That you would even equate that with such views shows desperation imo. Maybe it is so to your skewed opinion. The point is religous belief does not equal civil law.

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Well the printer is of [unknown] religion but to be honest that is immaterial as personal religous belief is a matter for the home and church.

Removing any specific groups or beliefs and going back to the facts - there is an instance of a business making a statement refusing a customer a order or service on an aspect of their sexuality.

Which if I understand correctly is covered by discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The customer would be within his rights to make a complaint to the relevant body on that alone.

You have decided for yourself that you have 100% understood this particular legislation correctly ......... so what now? We all just bow down to your utter wisdom ............. oh wait, you also put an if in there :rolleyes:

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

That is your opinion and completly unwarranted imo. We do not know what 'club' the printer belongs to if any. The matter in question is to do with a business transaction governed by civil and business law. Not religion.



Who knows?



No don't get that one either sorry. I think we need to leave the religion at home or in church / temple where it firmly belongs.

The "club" the printer belongs to is Christianity, he's made that quite clear ..........

bjork

Also the cases that were ruled on regarding the denial of services

The first two applicants’ cases concerned the wearing of a cross and chain in the workplace (an airline, and a hospital, respectively).

the third applicant Ms Ladele, a civil registrar at the London Borough of Islington, refused to be designated a registrar of civil partnerships. This refusal was in direct violation of the Borough’s ‘Dignity for All’ policy,

Does the printer have a "dignity for all" policy that they breeched?




The fourth applicant Mr McFarlane was employed as a councillor in a private sex therapy and relationship counselling service, a member of the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy (BASRT). In violation of the service’s equal opportunity policy, and the BASRT’s Code of Ethics,



Does the printer have a "equal opportunity policy", and the "BASRT’s Code of Ethics"?


The Court, as in the third applicant’s case, rejected the applicant’s claim of religious discrimination, deeming as legitimate the employer’s policy of providing counselling services without discrimination.



If they have no policy, the ECHR or anyone else can't find them in breech of it> which is the reason in these cases their dismissal was upheld.

There isn't a face palm big enough


Linky: http://www.iccl.ie/news/2013/01/15/european-court-crucifix-case-draws-%E2%80%9Cbright-line%E2%80%9D-between-religious-freedom-and-discrimination-says-iccl.html

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

My God as a gay person yes I am entirely exhausted having to listen to debates about where I can buy cakes or cannot buy cakes... what cakes I may buy and what cakes I buy that are likely to be political footballs... whether the printer i approach with my business is going to treat me like an ordinary customer or make a huge deal about the fact that my life long partner with whom I wish to spend the rest of my life happens to have the same genitals.

In general I guess I am sick of the fact that my mundane ordinary everyday life that is no different from anyone else's except in one regard is considered a political issue.

I hope very soon that we never have to hear about this nonsense anymore.

That's the real tragedy of identity politics in a nutshell. Minor incidents and inconveniences are blown wildly out of proportion to national events. You are encouraged to stop viewing yourself as a person and instead focus on your sexuality or whatever minority designation you have been slotted into. Every slight, every bad break can be pinned on this rather than deal with the fact the big bad world is chock full of anomalies, slights and indiscretions for everyone. Equally.

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

http://www.iccl.ie/news/2013/01/15/european-court-crucifix-case-draws-%E2%80%9Cbright-line%E2%80%9D-between-religious-freedom-and-discrimination-says-iccl.html




The full quote it appears would be



Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) Director Mr. Mark Kelly today noted:

“This is a very important case, in which the Strasbourg Court has gone out of its way to mark the limits of protection of freedom of religion under the Convention. The Court has quite correctly upheld the fundamental right of all people to express and manifest their faith in the public sphere. This right can only be restricted where there is a reasonable justification, and only by proportionate means.”

“However, the Court has drawn a bright line between this right to religious expression and attempts to use conscience or religion to justify discrimination. >Mr Kelly's OpinionThe State has a legitimate aim, indeed an obligation, to provide and facilitate equal access to services. As such, it is well within its rights to prohibit the withholding of services to same-sex couples, even if this is purportedly on the grounds of conscience or sincerely held religious belief”.

“Individual conscience or religious belief, however sincerely held, does not provide a free pass from the requirements of anti-discrimination law”, Mr Kelly concluded.

That's Mr Kelly's 'opinion' AND not the ruling made by the ECOHR

I'll get my granny to give her opinion as well - will I?

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

>Mr Kellys Opinion

That's Mr Kelly's 'opinion' AND not the ruling made by the ECOHR

I'll get my granny to give her opinion as well - will I?

I googled the quote you put up, without a link I might add and it is attributed to Mr. Kelly. Can you put up the link you got it from?

Also if your granny is a member of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), Director Mr. Mark Kelly > I'll hear her!

jobbridge4life

MadDog76 wrote: »

.......... even though it would mean trampling over the rights of others? Nice

What an incredibly nasty interpretation of my expression of frustration.

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have decided for yourself that you have 100% understood this particular legislation correctly ......... so what now? We all just bow down to your utter wisdom ............. oh wait, you also put an if in there :rolleyes:

Reducing an argument to such petty statements does nothing, proves nothing, means nothing.

TheChizler

gozunda wrote: »

No that has not been shown. The printer printed invites but he refused to print invites for a customer who is gay.

Except that is simplifying by excluding a vital element of detail, that the request was for invites specifically for a same sex wedding. This would include some reference on the printed material to it being a same sex wedding *, e.g. the names of the couple or possible a picture.

* This is admittedly an assumption as I haven't seen the exact request that was made. It is possible that you wouldn't be able to determine from the product alone what type of wedding it was. But I feel it is a reasonable assumption as people usually get a few personal details printed on invites. Let me know if not!

bjork

Linky please Gonzunda, I'll like to get reading the mystery contributors contribution


Uh oh, looks like your going around quoting stuff that you haven't a clue who said to back up your point

MadDog76

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why no legal case, I have a suspicion I know why.

Is it because the gay couple seeked expert legal advice on the matter and are now following that expert legal advice by not pursuing the matter any further? Except on FB of course!!