Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

bodice ripper

bjork wrote: »

So we persecute them until they go out of business,


We've had the FB hate campaign
Radio interviews with 5 hours
Flags been hung outside the building


What's next?

Sounds like a plan :rolleyes:


"PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS REACHES HISTORIC LEVELS, CONDITIONS SUGGEST WORST IS YET TO COME"


(the capitals are the headlines I copied >not me shouting)

If someone trespassed to put up the flags, go to the cops.

Facebook campaign? Should have thought of that. And if this loon had refused a mix race marriage invitation, it would have been the same or worse.

Radio interview? There is a referendum coming up. It's a hot topic. Could even be the reason they refused.

It's good enough for them. This wasn't about promoting a message, like the cake. This was for a family affair. And I firmly believe they should be able to turn it down if they want, but as much as they believe what strangers do is wrong, others can do the same to them.

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

Your business?

What are you talking about?

Nah, just read it again.

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

Who appointed you the role of deciding what is and isn't offensive?

I have only ever used the word in context and in response to someone else employing it, oddly enough, always someone LGBTH. Feel free to directly link otherwise.

Yeah for the sake of political correctness lets pretend f4ggot and N1gger are just as offensive as breeder and cracker

EDIT: theres a reason the first two get bleeped out when you type them and the latter two don't .

reprise

bodice ripper wrote: »

Nah, just read it again.

Maybe write it again? explain what business you are talking about and drop the jaded homophobia slur?

reprise

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yeah for the sake of political correctness lets pretend f4ggot and N1gger are just as offensive as breeder and cracker

EDIT: theres a reason the first two get bleeped out when you type them and the latter two don't .

I find b4eeder and c**cker highly offensive.

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

Maybe right it again? explain what business you are talking about and drop the jaded homophobia slur?

I don't need to write it again.

Like I said, you were throwing "breeder" around like you had been called it. So I will just keep using "dyke" and "f4ggot" like I had been called it. You know, play the victim.

bjork

Carnacalla wrote: »

Im just going to ask, if the business was made fulfil the wedding invitations for the homosexual couple, would it not be discrimination towards the owner because they are not allowed follow the beliefs of their religion?

bjork wrote: »

Only if you believe the ECHR, but what would they know, huh?

gozunda wrote: »

Well following a ruling of 2 specific cases by the 2013 European Court of Human Rights -the answer is no - it would not be discrimation against the owner of the business.

Carnacalla> You're getting 2 opposite opinions here. Here's the ruling http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881

It's not too long, but maybe you could tell us what what you think

Cienciano

reprise wrote: »

Maybe something a little less challenging so:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94663096&postcount=1552

I'll answer the question!
Answer is, no one. It wasn't the person discriminated against, it was the subject that they wanted printed.

If a religious person went to a gay printers and wanted something with Leviticus 20:13 printed, would they? Is not printing something you don't agree with discrimination because it falls into one of the 9 catorgories in the equality act? I don't think so, but someone will have to go through that act to see if it applies.

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

I find b4eeder and c**cker highly offensive.

Im sure you do, and has anyone ever called you either of these?

reprise

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't need to write it again.

See my edit mein grammarfuhrer.

bodice ripper wrote: »

Like I said, you were throwing "breeder" around like you had been called it. So I will just keep using "dyke" and "f4ggot" like I had been called it. You know, play the victim.

What the hell has that got to do with your "business"? or the destruction of the peoples livelihoods you are callously cheering on?

suicide_circus

It's the exclusively of victimhood that makes it so attractive to some

reprise

bb1234567 wrote: »

Im sure you do, and has anyone ever called you either of these?

Ask me in pm if you are really that interested.

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

Carnacalla> You're getting 2 opposite opinions here. Here's the ruling http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881

It's not too long, but maybe you could tell us what what you think

bjork wrote:

Only if you believe the ECHR, but what would they know, huh?

Bjork quoting themselves :pac:

Don't go there - the ruling may not be that long but trying to figure out what the hell Bjork was on about was.

The ECHR not knowing what they are on about! - whoosh (the sound of logic flying way overhead)

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

Ask me in pm if you are really that interested.

I already know the answer so its fine

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

Bjork quoting themselves :pac:

Don't go there - the ruling may not be that long but trying to figure out what the hell Bjork was on about was.

I see you left out the quote from yourself. Lost faith in what you said already have you?


I gave Carnacalla the information to decide for themselves.Sorry if that offends you.

reprise

bb1234567 wrote: »

I already know the answer so its fine

:rolleyes:

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

The ECHR not knowing what they are on about! - whoosh (the sound of logic flying way overhead)

It's not the ECHR that doesn't know what they're on about

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

See my edit mein grammarfuhrer.



What the hell has that got to do with your "business"? or the destruction of the peoples livelihoods you are callously cheering on?

Oh christ.

I said the public can decide not to give you business if they they you are an asshole.

You said the gay guy is a hairdresser in Drogheda and be careful what you wish for.

I said that I cannot speak for that man, but for myself. I personally wouldn't want the business of anyone who took issue with my sexuality, or who held me responsible for the behaviour of all gay people everywhere.

And of course I left your mistake in, you were trying to tell me my post was illegible.


*edit, because that's what "homos" like me do.

JCX BXC

bjork wrote: »

Carnacalla> You're getting 2 opposite opinions here. Here's the ruling http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881

It's not too long, but maybe you could tell us what what you think

I have it read. It's an intresting issue alright.

I think the difference between the UK and Ireland is the fact that Gay marriage is Legal there, but not permitted here. Until it is, I think a business owner should be allowed to deny fulfilling a contract promoting gay-marraige on religous or legal reasons until such a time that the law changed to allow homosexual marraiges.

reprise

bodice ripper wrote: »

Oh christ.

I said the public can decide not to give you business if they they you are an asshole.

pot kettle.....

bodice ripper wrote: »

You said the gay guy is a hairdresser in Drogheda and be careful what you wish for.

I said that I cannot speak for that man, but for myself. I personally wouldn't want the business of anyone who took issue with my sexuality, or who held me responsible for the behaviour of all gay people everywhere.

Ok. But you must equally accept that there are people who may feel that for the sake of going to another printers, a world of misery and spite has been poured over all of the individuals concerned and all of them are as likely to suffer as each other.

bodice ripper wrote: »

And of course I left your mistake in, you were trying to tell me my post was illegible.

I apologise if it read like that.

bodice ripper wrote: »

*edit, because that's what "homos" like me do.

S'cool. I'm a closet grammerfuhrer "breeder" meself.

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

I see you left out the quote from yourself. Lost faith in what you said already have you?

I gave Carnacalla the information to decide for themselves.Sorry if that offends you.

My quote left itself out - but the one quoting yourself stayed in :pac:

Nothing offends me - unlike the issue of the printer being offended that someone asked him for a wedding invite - how dare they!

Do you honestly think the ECHR ruling is suddenly going to change? Seriously?

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

It's not the ECHR that doesn't know what they're on about

That's NOT what you said :pac:

bjork wrote:

Only if you believe the ECHR, but what would they know, huh?

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

That's NOT what you said :pac:

Opps sorry> I should have added a sarcasm tag for non native english speakers.


Just so it's clear>

Originally Posted by bjork
Only if you believe the ECHR, but what would they know, huh?

the "but what would they know, huh" > Is the sarcastic part

and this is the definition of sarcasm I am using

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

That's NOT what you said :pac:

*Bump*

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94663096&postcount=1552

Absolam

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And he objected to the event because it was a homosexual union. Just so we don't pass completely through the looking mirror.

So you agree he was objecting to the event, not the homosexual asking for invitations to the event. We got there in the end

gozunda wrote: »

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

Which is not the same as refusing to print invites for a customer because he is gay. Most specifically, not illegal.

gozunda wrote: »

With regards religous belief and the workplace - you might be interested a fairly recent European Court of Human Rights Case that ruled: Individual conscience or religious belief, however sincerely held, does not provide a free pass from the requirements of anti-discrimination law

It didn't rule that non discriminatory acts could be deemed discriminatory just because they involved a gay person not getting what they wanted though, did they?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

OK But you must surely be aware that one of the 9 grounds in the Equal Status Act is civil status. Effectively this means that if a good or service is provided to a couple in a heterosexual marriage then to refuse to provide the same good or service to a couple in a civil partnership because they are in a civil partnership is in fact discrimination under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2014.

Would it be fair to say that the couple printing the invitations to their civil partnership weren't actually in a civil partnership?
So.... they couldn't actually be discriminated against due to being in a civil partnership, any more than an engaged woman could be discriminated against due to being married?

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

Opps sorry> I should have added a sarcasm tag for non native english speakers.

That wouldn't be a racist comment would it?

Your quote reads literally.

bjork wrote:

Only if you believe the ECHR, but what would they know, huh?

" :pac:

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

Nothing offends me - unlike the issue of the printer being offended that someone asked him for a wedding invite - how dare they!

I thought you said they were not looking for wedding invites on account of the fact that they cannot get married in Ireland?

Changing your story again?

WAIT

Don't answer that.....

Lets puts this one to bed first:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94663096&postcount=1552

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

That wouldn't be a racist comment would it?

Your quote reads literally. "Only if you don't believe the ECHR" :pac:

I hope this clears things up for you

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94665641&postcount=1674

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

That wouldn't be a racist comment would it?

Your quote reads literally. "Only if you don't believe the ECHR" :pac:

What race are you?

It's notoriously difficult to tell from text alone.

Apres:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94663096&postcount=1552

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

I hope this clears things up for you

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94665641&postcount=1674

No I'm afraid it doesn't but thanks anyway

Original post and reply by Bjork (with added context!)

Carnacalla wrote:

Im just going to ask, if the business was made fulfil the wedding invitations for the homosexual couple, would it not be discrimination towards the owner because they are not allowed follow the beliefs of their religion?

Bjork wrote:

Only if you believe the ECHR, but what would they know, huh?

.