Firm refuses to print invites to gay wedding for second time

minikin

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

I'm not aware of any issues on Boards.ie that are remotely comparable to this.
The site does not refuse registration or posting rights to people who want to talk about same-sex-marriage, any religion that I can think of, any nationality, ethnicity, gender, etc etc

Where it may intervene is where someone's doing something criminal, creating libel risk or being abusive to other community members.

I honestly have never seen any policy on Boards that's remotely similar to this.

That's fine - you have never seen it, okidoke.
Maybe you've never seen it because it was modded??

frostyjacks

They could just pull up a list of homosexuals they've done business with in the past to prove they don't discriminate. I don't think it's ethical to go into any business in the country and demand they do what you want, regardless of their beliefs. This girl went out of her way to be offended. Who does that? Can't understand that perma-victim mindset.

L1011

frostyjacks wrote: »

They could just pull up a list of homosexuals they've done business with in the past to prove they don't discriminate. I don't think it's ethical to go into any business in the country and demand they do what you want, regardless of their beliefs. This girl went out of her way to be offended. Who does that? Can't understand that perma-victim mindset.

No, that wouldn't be of any use.

All the old chestnuts are coming out here today. This is just "I'm not racist, I've got black friends".

Its not ethical to operate a business in Ireland with the direct intent of flouting laws when you want to - that's the only unethical action here.

You are making unfair and wildly unfounded accusations about the woman who was discriminated against here.

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Look up the ashers thread here on boards all your answered are in there.

I somehow doubt I'll find any of your answers to my earlier questions in any other threads. Any chance you want to answer them here?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I can't see how equality fixes anything here.

It's very easy to say that when you aren't the one being discriminated against.

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

So as I said. Let's discriminate against one side and step on their conditional rights.

Not all discriminations are the same. Discriminating against someone because they discriminate against others, is not ethically equal to that someone's discriminations of others.

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

If they've said it's because of religious belief and have not said because you're homosexual, then I can't see any discrimination.

When it's the religious beliefs that are directing the owners to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals, I fail to see the distinction.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't want future generations growing up in a society where you are forced under pain of prosecution to subscribe to one particular set of beliefs. It would make us no better than Islamic State.

No one is saying the printers have to believe anything, we are saying that belief doesn't doesn't give them the right to discriminate. Beliefs =/= actions, you can believe what you want, doesn't mean you can do what you like.

baby and crumble

I have a feeling what I'm about to say is going to cause an issue for some of the posters here. But I'll say it anyway.

I'm not going to get into the legal nuances here because that's not my knowledge. I am however very knowledgeable about what it feels like to be gay in Ireland before and after decriminalisation- which is only 23 years ago. And the reason that that is important is because whilst some people- I'd wager a lot of straight people or gay people who had no issues with coming out or living in small town, gossipy Ireland- just think "ffs, get over it!" When something like this happens, it's not that easy.

We are all products of our experiences to date. Our decisions every moment are a a result of what we've come up against in the past.

So for a gay person organising their wedding, we can probably assume a few things.

They spent at least some of their life growing up in a country when something fundamental about their identity was illegal, was a reason people were verbally, sexually and physically harassed, and in some cases murdered. We don't choose to be gay. I didn't choose to grow up in a small town in Ireland terrified when I realised I liked girls. I dont choose to be shouted at in the street because I look masculine. But it happens. And if you've been dealing with that, with doctors who don't understand how your sexual health needs are different to other women's, with employers who can sack you from a hospital or school because of who you find attractive, it's hard to constantly turn the other cheek.

When you had to listen for months to a campaign where people, like many who have found this thread and commented, argued publicly for your rights as a human being to remain completely unequal it's hard to keep shrugging your shoulders.

So to many people it might seem like the woman here should be say "whatever" and move on, this final act of discrimination when all she wanted to do was to print out invitations to her perfectly legal, joyous, and some would say hard fought event, may easily have felt like a final punch in the face.

It's all well and good arguing the finer points of legality, and wording, but I would ask all of you to think about what it would feel like if you had had to defend yourself and battle for decades about being Irish, and all of a sudden you walked into a shop who refused to let you shop there because of your irishness.

If you still think it's ok for a shop wherever you spent your last holiday to refuse to sell to you because you are Irish, then please do say so.

frostyjacks

L1011 wrote: »

No, that wouldn't be of any use.

All the old chestnuts are coming out here today. This is just "I'm not racist, I've got black friends".

Its not ethical to operate a business in Ireland with the direct intent of flouting laws when you want to - that's the only unethical action here.

You are making unfair and wildly unfounded accusations about the woman who was discriminated against here.

It's not really discrimination though. The girl is not being discriminated against because of her lifestyle, but rather the specific event she's organising, the same way a black printer would refuse to print invites for a white supremacist gathering.

The polite thing for her to do would have been to say, "Thank you for your honesty, I respect your beliefs", and to go to another printer.

uck51js9zml2yt

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not really discrimination though. The girl is not being discriminated against because of her lifestyle, but rather the specific event she's organising, the same way a black printer would refuse to print invites for a white supremacist gathering.

The polite thing for her to do would have been to say, "Thank you for your honesty, I respect your beliefs", and to go to another printer.

That's an impossibility when you have an agenda!

ForstalDave

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not really discrimination though. The girl is not being discriminated against because of her lifestyle, but rather the specific event she's organising, the same way a black printer would refuse to print invites for a white supremacist gathering.

The polite thing for her to do would have been to say, "Thank you for your honesty, I respect your beliefs", and to go to another printer.

But the printer would print if the wedding was between a Man and a Woman so its the fact that she is having a gay weeding and that is discrimination. If you offer a service you offer it to everyone you cant pick and choose if you charge for it

Mark Hamill

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not really discrimination though. The girl is not being discriminated against because of her lifestyle, but rather the specific event she's organising, the same way a black printer would refuse to print invites for a white supremacist gathering.

Again, it's hard to divorce lifestyle from the event, when the event is an expression of that lifestyle.

frostyjacks wrote: »

The polite thing for her to do would have been to say, "Thank you for your honesty, I respect your beliefs", and to go to another printer.

Why would anyone respect homophobic beliefs?

marienbad

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

That's an impossibility when you have an agenda!

There is nothing wrong with having an agenda - that is one of the ways we progress .

uck51js9zml2yt

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, it's hard to divorce lifestyle from the event, when the event is an expression of that lifestyle.


Why would anyone respect homophobic beliefs?

I don't agree with homesexuality on religious grounds. I've no problem with homosexuals as people. That's the difference. If that makes me "homophobic" then you need to grow up.

L1011

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not really discrimination though.

I think you'll find it is. Defined as such in legislation.

frostyjacks wrote: »

The girl is not being discriminated against because of her lifestyle,

Sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle".

frostyjacks wrote: »

but rather the specific event she's organising,

A wedding, which the firm print for (for those who are not homosexual)

frostyjacks wrote: »

The polite thing for her to do would have been to say, "Thank you for your honesty, I respect your beliefs", and to go to another printer.

The polite thing here would have been for the business to obey the law, do their job (press print, over and done with in seconds) and not make a scene

super_furry

It's an open and shut case. The business owner is discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation.

frostyjacks

super_furry wrote: »

It's an open and shut case. The business owner is discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation.

No. She could have ordered anything else and the printer would have taken the order happily without question, so she's not being discriminated against. It's gay marriage that is the problem, not the customer.

L1011

frostyjacks wrote: »

No. She could have ordered anything else and the printer would have taken the order happily without question, so she's not being discriminated against. It's gay marriage that is the problem, not the customer.

The printer refused her order for her marriage due to her sexual orientation. She was discriminated against

I said the thread would come down to ridiculous hair-splitting and look - it has!

Orion

frostyjacks wrote: »

No. She could have ordered anything else and the printer would have taken the order happily without question, so she's not being discriminated against. It's gay marriage that is the problem, not the customer.

No - it's illegal discrimination. We all know how you feel about SSM so stop trying to imply that this company has not broken the law - again.

L1011

I would suggest frostyjacks may be trying to convince himself this is legal so he doesn't have to heed his own advice:

frostyjacks wrote: »

If you don't like the law of the land, then leave. How difficult is it for them to obey the law?

Very, if you're a business owner who wants an excuse not to serve someone, it seems.

Mark Hamill

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

I don't agree with homesexuality on religious grounds. I've no problem with homosexuals as people. That's the difference. If that makes me "homophobic" then you need to grow up.

You are the one advocating discrimination against homosexuals. And telling someone to grow up because they point out homophobia is not an argument.

uck51js9zml2yt

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are the one advocating discrimination against homosexuals. And telling someone to grow up because they point out homophobia is not an argument.

How am I discriminating?
As I said, I've no problem with people. I'm sure I deal with people in my job. who come under the terms of the equality act every day of the week.

Mark Hamill

frostyjacks wrote: »

No. She could have ordered anything else and the printer would have taken the order happily without question, so she's not being discriminated against. It's gay marriage that is the problem, not the customer.

Given the printer's reason for not printing the invitations was "We are Christians. It was on grounds of our faith.", I have a feeling they would have a problem with printing anything to do with homosexuality, same-sex marriage related or not.

Regardless, what you are saying just amounts to "the printers are not discriminating against gay people in general, just gay people who want to do something that straight people get to do". Again, I fail to see how that is really any different.

Mark Hamill

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

How am I discriminating?

I said advocating discrimination.

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

As I said, I've no problem with people. I'm sure I deal with people in my job. who come under the terms of the equality act every day of the week.

No problem with people? Do you mean gay people? Can you not even type it?

Rory28

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

I don't agree with homesexuality on religious grounds. I've no problem with homosexuals as people. That's the difference. If that makes me "homophobic" then you need to grow up.

What does this mean?

SILVAMAN

Sue the bast*rds. Hit them in their pocket. Close them down if necessary.

cursai

Let them do what they want as long as they are paying for it. A person should be as ignorant as they want as long as they aren't forcing it on anyone else.

Annasopra

cursai wrote: »

Let them do what they want as long as they are paying for it. A person should be as ignorant as they want as long as they aren't forcing it on anyone else.

They are forcing. Refusing to provide a good or service because of your opinion is forcing your opinion and treating the purchaser as a lesser human being.

uck51js9zml2yt

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

They are forcing. Refusing to provide a good or service because of your opinion is forcing your opinion and treating the purchaser as a lesser human being.

And you are forcing them by trying to make them do something they don't want to do. Hence making their rights subservient to yours.

marienbad

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

And you are forcing them by trying to make them do something they don't want to do. Hence making their rights subservient to yours.

Can you not see the difference between a business and an individual ? If you are a business you must obey the law - end of .

oik

marienbad wrote: »

Can you not see the difference between a business and an individual ? If you are a business you must obey the law - end of .

Some businesses are one and the same. Have you heard of sole traders or partnerships?


Whatever about serving a pint to someone or selling groceries, but morally you cannot force someone to produce art they don't want to.

marienbad

oik wrote: »

Some businesses are one and the same. Have you heard of sole traders or partnerships?


Whatever about serving a pint to someone or selling groceries, but morally you cannot force someone to produce art they don't want to.

As businesses they must obey the law , why is that so hard to grasp ?

drunkmonkey

Which law is this they have to obey?