Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

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!

You're mixing the ruling and opinion. Read again

bodice ripper

MadDog76 wrote:

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!! 

And why not? If its ok for the business owner to discriminate based on a religious belief that someone's behaviour is wrong, he can be at the receiving end of same.

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

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

With regards religous belief and the workplace - you might be interested a fairly recent European Court of Human Rights Case that ruled:





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

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.

gozunda wrote: »

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?

Brilliant> You're complaining about my source and yet you used the same source at 14.10 today to back up your point




:D:D:pac:

gozunda

TheChizler wrote: »

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!

That has been discussed to death. I would suggest going back and reading what has been written on it.

reprise

TheChizler wrote: »

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!

About one in ten posts reminds gozunda that same sex marriage invites are unavailable to anyone from Beulah Printers and yet he is adamant there is discrimination

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

You're mixing the ruling and opinion. Read again

You are missing the most important part of that ruling

However, crucially, the Court refused to find a violation in the case of two applicants, a civil registrar and a relationship councillor, who were dismissed after refusing to provide their services to same-sex couples, in violation of their employers’ equality and ethical policies.




So what policies did the printer have?


And you are quoting his opinion

TheChizler

gozunda wrote: »

That has been discussed to death. I would suggest going back and reading what has been written on it.

Danced around maybe, but never directly addressed.

MadDog76

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What an incredibly nasty interpretation of my expression of frustration.

What a nasty world it would be if frustrated little you got your own way regardless of the beliefs and rights of others.

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

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

It proves/means that just because you think you're correct doesn't make it so ............

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

You are missing the most important part of that ruling

However, crucially, the Court refused to find a violation in the case of two applicants, a civil registrar and a relationship councillor, who were dismissed after refusing to provide their services to same-sex couples, in violation of their employers’ equality and ethical policies.


So what policies did the printer have?

And you are quoting his opinion

Its very odd. When I asked for clarification as to points you made there was few replies.

So in turn I would suggest reading the piece in its entirety and look at the final summation

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

It proves/means that just because you think you're correct doesn't make it so ............

And you do?

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

And you do?

Think you're correct??? Absolutely not!!!!

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

Brilliant> You're complaining about my source and yet you used the same source at 14.10 today to back up your point

///////./..:

The point is this

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

If you don't understand I can't help you.

MadDog76

bjork wrote: »

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!

gozunda wrote: »

You're mixing the ruling and opinion. Read again

Looks like bjork has you backed into a corner on this one ......... you're move gozzy!! :cool:

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

The point is this




If you don't understand I can't help you.

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

From link 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



It was because they broke company policy

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

Think you're correct??? Absolutely not!!!!

Are you willing to discuss the issue under discussion or continue to attempt potshots? Which?

MadDog76

gozunda wrote: »

Are you willing to discuss the issue under discussion or continue to attempt potshots? Which?

Ok deep breath, calm down ........... I believe we have all been discussing the issue, some (bjork) better than others

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

Are you willing to discuss the issue under discussion or continue to attempt potshots? Which?

A straight man goes into Beulah printers tomorrow and asks for same sex wedding invitations to be printed.

The printers say they do not provide that service.

Is this discrimination? If so, against who?

If not, why not?

gozunda

reprise wrote: »

A straight man goes into Beulah printers tomorrow and asks for same sex wedding invitations to be printed.

The printers say they do not provide that service.

Is this discrimination? If so, against who?

If not, why not?

So you and MadDog are the same person?

It is very peculiar that earlier today the discussion of the issue was being engaged with positively. Now we are back to what was discussed last night. May I suggest once again you reread what was written and not ask the same thing again and again.

gozunda

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok deep breath, calm down ........... I believe we have all been discussing the issue, some (bjork) better than others

It's a simple question - if you can't answer it. Fine.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

So you and MadDog are the same person?

It is very peculiar that earlier today the discussion of the issue was being engaged with positively. Now we are back to what was discussed last night. May I suggest once again you reread what was written and not ask the same thing again and again.

No, I checked, I never asked the question before nor did anyone else so it hasn't been answered. Please show me links if you think this is incorrect.

Cody montana

Are ye breeders still going?

TheChizler

reprise wrote: »

No, I checked, I never asked the question before nor did anyone else so it hasn't been answered. Please show me links if you think this is incorrect.

I did actually but you're right in that it was never answered.

jobbridge4life

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!!"

Actually that isn't what people said about homosexuals. They criminalised homosexual intimacy whether it was behind closed doors or not, not to mention a myriad of other ills foisted upon homosexuals from society. Its not that long ago either so look it up.

gozunda

TheChizler wrote: »

I did actually but you're right in that it was never answered.

Yes that mirror issue has been discussed, you may not have liked the answers That's not my problem. That particular issue has now been run around many times. How about putting forward an intelligent position which can be discussed rather than 'asking' questions' on the same old same old again and again. If you can't see beyond a single benighted position I can't help you.

jobbridge4life

TheChizler wrote: »

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!

A civil ceremony, which the individuals involved happened to refer to as a wedding. That difference is redundant in this instance however as the printer in question has openly said

'there are differences between civil partnerships and religious weddings, however, one thing I think we would all agree on, is that they both are public declarations of an intended life long commitment. The Bible teaches clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman so, for homosexual people to make that commitment is contrary to God’s word and we could not support it'

https://www.facebook.com/BeulahPrint?fref=nf

Gosh golly that seems almost like they specifically refused 'homosexual people' and then admitted it.

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

Yes that issue has been discussed, you may not have liked the answers That's not my problem. That particular issue has now been run around many times. How about putting forward an intelligent position which can be discussed rather than 'putting questions' on the same old same old again and again. If you can't see beyond a single benighted position I can't help you.

I'd like to discuss the ruling, especially this bit http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881#{"itemid":["001-115881"]}


3 As one of the third party intervenors in this case – the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – quite pointedly put it: “[J]ust as there is a difference in nature between conscience and religion, there is also a difference between the prescriptions of conscience and religious prescriptions.” The latter type of prescriptions – not to eat certain food (or certain food on certain days); the wearing of the turban or the veil, or the display of religious symbols; attendance at religious services on certain days – may be subject to limitations in the manner and subject to the conditions laid down in Article 9 § 2. But can the same be said with regard to prescriptions of conscience? We are of the view that once that a genuine and serious case of conscientious objection is established, the State is obliged to respect the individual’s freedom of conscience both positively (by taking reasonable and appropriate measures to protect the rights of the conscientious objector[2]) and negatively (by refraining from actions which punish the objector or discriminate against him or her). Freedom of conscience has in the past all too often been paid for in acts of heroism, whether at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition or of a Nazi firing squad. As the ECLJ observes, “It is in order to avoid that obeying one’s conscience must still require payment in heroism that the law now guarantees freedom of conscience.”




Thoughts?

jobbridge4life

bjork wrote: »

I'd like to discuss the ruling, especially this bit http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881#{"itemid":["001-115881"]}


3 As one of the third party intervenors in this case – the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – quite pointedly put it: “[J]ust as there is a difference in nature between conscience and religion, there is also a difference between the prescriptions of conscience and religious prescriptions.” The latter type of prescriptions – not to eat certain food (or certain food on certain days); the wearing of the turban or the veil, or the display of religious symbols; attendance at religious services on certain days – may be subject to limitations in the manner and subject to the conditions laid down in Article 9 § 2. But can the same be said with regard to prescriptions of conscience? We are of the view that once that a genuine and serious case of conscientious objection is established, the State is obliged to respect the individual’s freedom of conscience both positively (by taking reasonable and appropriate measures to protect the rights of the conscientious objector[2]) and negatively (by refraining from actions which punish the objector or discriminate against him or her). Freedom of conscience has in the past all too often been paid for in acts of heroism, whether at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition or of a Nazi firing squad. As the ECLJ observes, “It is in order to avoid that obeying one’s conscience must still require payment in heroism that the law now guarantees freedom of conscience.”




Thoughts?

Within the confines of the law like every right and freedom. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

I'd like to discuss the ruling, especially this bit http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881#{"itemid":["001-115881"]}


3 As one of the third party intervenors in this case – the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – quite pointedly put it: “[J]ust as there is a difference in nature between conscience and religion, there is also a difference between the prescriptions of conscience and religious prescriptions.” The latter type of prescriptions – not to eat certain food (or certain food on certain days); the wearing of the turban or the veil, or the display of religious symbols; attendance at religious services on certain days – may be subject to limitations in the manner and subject to the conditions laid down in Article 9 § 2. But can the same be said with regard to prescriptions of conscience? We are of the view that once that a genuine and serious case of conscientious objection is established, the State is obliged to respect the individual’s freedom of conscience both positively (by taking reasonable and appropriate measures to protect the rights of the conscientious objector[2]) and negatively (by refraining from actions which punish the objector or discriminate against him or her). Freedom of conscience has in the past all too often been paid for in acts of heroism, whether at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition or of a Nazi firing squad. As the ECLJ observes, “It is in order to avoid that obeying one’s conscience must still require payment in heroism that the law now guarantees freedom of conscience.”




Thoughts?

Yes I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on that alright - good start.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

Yes that mirror issue has been discussed, you may not have liked the answers That's not my problem. That particular issue has now been run around many times. How about putting forward an intelligent position which can be discussed rather than 'asking' questions' on the same old same old again and again. If you can't see beyond a single benighted position I can't help you.

You have run up over 100 posts in this thread and you are refusing to engage in the debate on anyones terms but your own.

I have personally answered every single question put to me. I have indulged analogies involving hotels, taxis, fake religions, interracial marriage and everything else thrown at me.

So, if you don't mind:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94660169&postcount=1519