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

Drogheda Printers Refuse To Print Same Sex Wedding Invitations

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Celly Smunt
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,464 ✭✭✭Celly Smunt


    Absolam wrote: »

    And yes I do; that doesn't mean they can't still be accused of not serving people for reasons others might believe are obvious, even if the business never gave them.

    That is condoning rumour, things get nasty when that is condoned and used as fact which will eventually lead to defamation.

    Anyway, moral of the story the business is totally practicing their right as to who they want to serve regardless of what morals people are feeling are wrong. They have a right to their view point as much as those wishing to get their invitations printed and that should be respected no matter how much one might disagree with it.

    The smart thing for the couple to do would have been to find a new printer and that's that. No laws have been broken.


  • Options
    #63
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    That is condoning rumour, things get nasty when that is condoned and used as fact which will eventually lead to defamation.
    Well, I don't know if there were any rumours, and I haven't heard anyone condone them, but there are those who believe the printer refused to serve the customer for a reason the printer did not give, which if it were true would mean the printer's refusal was contrary to the law.
    Whether this will eventually lead to defamation I'm afraid I can't say.


  • Options
    #64
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    No laws have been broken.

    I disagree, strongly, with this statement.

    The printers did not simply refuse to do business with the purchaser - they gave them a detailed reason, including a reason which is based on the purchasers sexual orientation - which breaches the Equal Status Act.

    I sincerely hope they'll be pursued through the Equality Authority for this - its an open and shut case if they are.

    Had they simply refused to print them they'd not have broken any laws - but they didn't do this. You can't ignore what they very publicly, and repeatedly at that, have said about this or try muddy the waters with ridiculous analogies as we've had from other posters.
    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    You do realise businesses are allowed to serve or not serve anybody they choose regardless of reasons?

    Provision of services cannot be denied on any of the protected grounds in the Equal Status Act. If you have somehow managed to not realise this exists, I'd suggest you do - urgently - before you end up being a liability to yourself or an employer.


  • Options
    #65
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,924 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    There seems to be a general lack of understanding of the Equal Status Act.

    One of the 9 grounds is Civil Status. Civil status: includes single, married, separated, divorced, widowed people, civil partners and former civil partners.

    Therefore in the Equal Status Acts the idea that a person in a Civil Partnership cannot be discriminated against because Marriage and Civil Partnerhsip are distinctly legally separate is not true.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #66
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,924 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    Anyway, moral of the story the business is totally practicing their right as to who they want to serve regardless of what morals people are feeling are wrong. They have a right to their view point as much as those wishing to get their invitations printed and that should be respected no matter how much one might disagree with it.

    No laws have been broken.

    This is all merely your opinion. It is not fact and stating "no laws have been broken" is nonsense. I'd agree with what you say if you prefaced all of the above with "IN MY OPINION". It's not a good way to discuss the issue if you are trying to assert your opinion as fact. It makes a complete mockery of the discussion.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Ash885
    Registered Users Posts: 639 ✭✭✭Ash885


    http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

    That's a fantastic article outlining why it's not okay for people nowadays to rely on "I'm entitled to my opinion" etc. etc. as an excuse for racism, homophobia. It reminded me of this Drogheda case (and to a further extent the marriage ref.)


  • Options
    #68
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    L1011 wrote: »
    I disagree, strongly, with this statement.
    The printers did not simply refuse to do business with the purchaser - they gave them a detailed reason, including a reason which is based on the purchasers sexual orientation - which breaches the Equal Status Act.
    But the reason wasn't based on the purchasers sexual orientation; they could have had any sexual orientation at all, and the reason would still have been the same; the printer objected to same sex marriage. He specifically said he had no problem with homosexuals, a statement that would appear to be backed up by the fact that he had been dealing with this individual (homosexual) customer for four years.
    L1011 wrote: »
    Had they simply refused to print them they'd not have broken any laws - but they didn't do this.
    I don't think that's true; not giving a reason does not mean a court can't find that there was a reason which was contrary to the law.
    L1011 wrote: »
    Provision of services cannot be denied on any of the protected grounds in the Equal Status Act. If you have somehow managed to not realise this exists, I'd suggest you do - urgently - before you end up being a liability to yourself or an employer.
    Provision of services can be denied to any person who is a member of the protected classes in the act, as long as it's not denied on the basis of the person being a member of the protected classes. It's the assumption that being a member of a protected class must be the reason that services are denied that creates situations like the one we're discussing.


  • Options
    #69
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There seems to be a general lack of understanding of the Equal Status Act.
    One of the 9 grounds is Civil Status. Civil status: includes single, married, separated, divorced, widowed people, civil partners and former civil partners.
    Therefore in the Equal Status Acts the idea that a person in a Civil Partnership cannot be discriminated against because Marriage and Civil Partnerhsip are distinctly legally separate is not true.
    But, if the person is not in a Civil Partnership they can no more be illegally discriminated against on that basis than an unmarried person can be discriminated against for being married.
    The law distinguishes between civil partnerships and marriages, it simply doesn't permit people to discriminate against other people on the basis that they are in a civil partnership or marriage. No one has offered the argument that it was legal to discriminate against the customer because he was in a civil partnership (or even because he intended to be in a civil partnership). The argument was that is not illegal to distinguish a civil partnership from a marriage, and to agree to support one but not the other.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    This is all merely your opinion. It is not fact and stating "no laws have been broken" is nonsense. I'd agree with what you say if you prefaced all of the above with "IN MY OPINION". It's not a good way to discuss the issue if you are trying to assert your opinion as fact. It makes a complete mockery of the discussion.
    In fairness, it's no more nonsense than stating
    L1011 wrote: »
    They provide a service to heterosexuals and refused it to homosexuals, which breaks the Equal Status Act.
    L1011 wrote: »
    The printers have broken the law.
    But so far it doesn't seem to be a discussion amenable to moderate positions :D


  • Options
    #70
    jungleman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 803 ✭✭✭jungleman


    Absolam wrote: »
    But, if the person is not in a Civil Partnership they can no more be illegally discriminated against on that basis than an unmarried person can be discriminated against for being married.
    The law distinguishes between civil partnerships and marriages, it simply doesn't permit people to discriminate against other people on the basis that they are in a civil partnership or marriage. No one has offered the argument that it was legal to discriminate against the customer because he was in a civil partnership (or even because he intended to be in a civil partnership). The argument was that is not illegal to distinguish a civil partnership from a marriage, and to agree to support one but not the other.

    I thought we had finished with the whole civil partnership/marriage debate?


  • Options
    #71
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    jungleman wrote: »
    I thought we had finished with the whole civil partnership/marriage debate?
    I don't think we even started to debate it: Itzy said we could not discuss the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage, then Joeytheparrot introduced a discussion on the idea that a person in a Civil Partnership cannot be discriminated against because Marriage and Civil Partnerhsip are distinctly legally separate is not true.
    It seems like a sort of back-up proposition; if discrimination based on sexual orientation turns out not to be a runner, discrimination based on civil status might be the next best thing?
    Anyway, I think the substance of his point was not the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage that separates them, but the similarity that binds them together.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Absolam wrote: »
    Provision of services can be denied to any person who is a member of the protected classes in the act, as long as it's not denied on the basis of the person being a member of the protected classes. It's the assumption that being a member of a protected class must be the reason that services are denied that creates situations like the one we're discussing.

    Its blindingly clear that it was denied due to the membership of a protected class to pretty close to everyone on here.


  • Options
    #73
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    L1011 wrote: »
    Its blindingly clear that it was denied due to the membership of a protected class to pretty close to everyone on here.
    It's certainly an assumption a lot of people seem to have leapt to, despite the evidence, yes.


  • Options
    #74
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Absolam wrote: »
    It's certainly an assumption a lot of people seem to have leapt to, despite the evidence, yes.

    The evidence - yet again is the lengthy and detailed post from the printers themselves, explaining in depth why they refused to do it.

    No assumptions need to be made as the admission is there in the open.

    What "evidence" you've managed to create in your mind does not tie in with the fabric of reality here.


  • Options
    #75
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    L1011 wrote: »
    The evidence - yet again is the lengthy and detailed post from the printers themselves, explaining in depth why they refused to do it.
    You mean where they specifically said they had a problem with the event and not with homosexuals? That was the evidence I was talking about. Well, that and the gay customer they've happily been serving for years.
    L1011 wrote: »
    No assumptions need to be made as the admission is there in the open.
    I rather think you're assuming that stating you don't support an event is the same as admitting you're discriminating against a homosexual; you just haven't shown why we should share your assumption.
    L1011 wrote: »
    What "evidence" you've managed to create in your mind does not tie in with the fabric of reality here.
    Tell you what; if you quote any evidence I've created in my mind I'll show you how it ties in with the fabric of reality. That's fair, isn't it?


  • Options
    #76
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Absolam wrote: »
    You mean where they specifically said they had a problem with the event and not with homosexuals? That was the evidence I was talking about.

    This'd be all well and good if the law accepted this as an argument.

    But it doesn't.

    They have admitted publicly that they have denied service due to membership of a protected class under the Equal Status Act. Everything else is just the wanderings of your mind. Having served someone previously isn't a valid argument in law, claiming lack of support for something isn't a valid argument in law. There is only one substantive issue here and the evidence is extremely clear on it.

    You have been weaving a web of "evidence" from that post to support your viewpoint, all the time ignoring the actual issue. As I said - pretty much everyone else here can see the reality of the situation, whereas you get bogged down in situations of no importance.

    When you can see the wood from the trees there may be something worth replying to - but at this stage I've said the same thing in reply to your countless restatements of the same error more times than I care to count.


  • Options
    #77
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    There is Interesting precedent of two cases found against individuals who discrimated against same sex couples in the provision of services by the European Court of Human Rights.


    Summary of two relevant cases.
    second two applicants’ cases concerned the provision of services to same-sex couples.

    Following the introduction of Civil Partnership in the UK, 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, which committed the Borough and its staff to provide services to all members of the community, irrespective of age, gender, disability, faith, race, nationality, sexuality, health or income. Ms Ladele’s refusal culminated in the loss of her job. The Court found, however, that the Borough acted in a legitimate manner in applying a policy of equal opportunities, aimed at “securing the rights of others”, and that obliging Ms Ladele to comply with this policy was both legitimate and proportionate.

    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, Mr McFarlane refused to commit himself to providing psycho-sexual counselling to same-sex couples, despite being aware that the company had a policy of not filtering clients. This refusal culminated in the applicant’s dismissal. 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.

    http://www.iccl.ie/news/2013/01/15/european-court-crucifix-case-draws-“bright-line”-between-religious-freedom-and-discrimination-says-iccl.html


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

    Looking at the ECHR rulings I believe that there is little doubt that Beulah printers have indeed broken the law by refusing to a same sex couple by reason of their religous beliefs. How this is handled here should be highly enlightening tbh.


  • Options
    #78
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    gozunda wrote: »
    There is Interesting precedent of two cases found against individuals who discrimated against same sex couples in the provision of services by the European Court of Human Rights.


    Summary of two relevant cases.
    second two applicants’ cases concerned the provision of services to same-sex couples.

    Following the introduction of Civil Partnership in the UK, 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, which committed the Borough and its staff to provide services to all members of the community, irrespective of age, gender, disability, faith, race, nationality, sexuality, health or income. Ms Ladele’s refusal culminated in the loss of her job. The Court found, however, that the Borough acted in a legitimate manner in applying a policy of equal opportunities, aimed at “securing the rights of others”, and that obliging Ms Ladele to comply with this policy was both legitimate and proportionate.

    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, Mr McFarlane refused to commit himself to providing psycho-sexual counselling to same-sex couples, despite being aware that the company had a policy of not filtering clients. This refusal culminated in the applicant’s dismissal. 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.
    [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

    Can you link the document? I'd like to read the whole thing, because it appears from that they broke company policy and not because they were found to have discriminated against same sex couples. I want to see if the court said anything about the rights of a conscientious objector.

    Thanks


  • Options
    #79
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,924 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Hi Folks. What happened in After Hours is irrelevant and off topic. All posters are asked to not drag this topic into a discussion about what happened in the After Hours discussion. This warning is a general warning to all. It is not aimed at any one poster but all posters

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #80
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    L1011 wrote: »
    This'd be all well and good if the law accepted this as an argument. But it doesn't.
    Well, whether the law accepts this as an argument is really a matter for the court. Have you found a court ruling where they didn't?
    L1011 wrote: »
    They have admitted publicly that they have denied service due to membership of a protected class under the Equal Status Act.
    Ah now, they didn't. You know they didn't because you read what they said. Saying it's tantamount to, or as good as, or may as well be, admitting they have denied service due to membership of a protected class under the Equal Status Act would at least be the beginning of trying to make a case for your argument, but stating outright that they said something they didn't is just fibbing. If the very basis of your argument is a lie, where can you go with it?
    L1011 wrote: »
    Everything else is just the wanderings of your mind.
    Aside from the actual statement they made? You know, the direct quote? That doesn't contain the words you claim it does?
    L1011 wrote: »
    Having served someone previously isn't a valid argument in law, claiming lack of support for something isn't a valid argument in law. There is only one substantive issue here and the evidence is extremely clear on it.
    Can you cite the evidence that these are not valid arguments in law? Or, as Joeytheparrot would put it, should you really be saying these are not valid arguments in law in your opinion? Just so we're clear....
    L1011 wrote: »
    You have been weaving a web of "evidence" from that post to support your viewpoint, all the time ignoring the actual issue. As I said - pretty much everyone else here can see the reality of the situation, whereas you get bogged down in situations of no importance.
    I did actually ask you to quote any evidence I've created in my mind. It's so much more straightforward than dancing around what you pretend people said....
    L1011 wrote: »
    When you can see the wood from the trees there may be something worth replying to - but at this stage I've said the same thing in reply to your countless restatements of the same error more times than I care to count.
    So... still avoiding the specifics then.


  • Options
    #81
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Ordered to pay compensation. All the nonsense arguments about the law not applying because it wasn't "marriage" came to nothing

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/firm-told-to-pay-gay-man-2-500-over-refusal-to-print-civil-ceremony-invites-1.3787055?mode=amp&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Ten of Swords
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    They put out a post on their website about the ruling.

    http://beulahprint.ie/2019/01/18/wrc-judgement-on-beulah-print/

    Moderator: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender, Vegan & Vegetarian

    Category Moderator: Social & Fun



  • Options
    #83
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    They (like the few contrarian posters that invaded this thread) don't seem to realise the reason it was suggested they settle was because it was clear as day that they'd broken the law.

    If you find its against your beliefs to trade in a country complying with its laws - don't. I'm sure there's some theocracy that needs printers.


Advertisement