Equality of marriage and love

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Supposing Joe Bloggs refuses to attend his sister's wedding because she is marrying a black man. Yes, you can call him a bigot in his absence, but you can't compel him to attend.

It gets much trickier with professional services rendered, but that is the legal and ethical knife edge we are talking about.

Oh FFS, really? :rolleyes:

First paragraph - totally irrelevant

Second paragraph - it's not 'trickier' it's in black and white, as it were. A business may not discriminate in the provision of goods or services on one of the 9 protected grounds. That's it.

No ethical knife edge at all, except perhaps for the terminally hard of understanding or terminally fond of a wind-up.

If these issues were as "blatant" or clear-cut as some seem to think, they would not be making their way all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Oh? I didn't hear that Beulah Print were appealing at all, never mind having fought it all the way to the Supreme Court :rolleyes: they would be tremendously ill-advised to do so

You're just dragging up a different case in a different jurisdiction again for no other reason than the sexuality of the complainant

As already pointed out, the Beulah "victim" was a regular customer, and had never been refused the print services that Beulah normally provides.

Until he was, and he was refused service on one of the protected grounds.

Illegal.

recedite

More Pink News.


An employment tribunal has found that a candidate for the police force was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation, race and sex.

The judgement came to the conclusion the force had unlawfully treated people from underrepresented groups more favourably in its recruitment process.

Employment lawyer Jennifer Ainscough said: “Matthew was denied his dream job simply because he was a white, heterosexual male.

It seems the guy really had his heart set on this career too, which makes it a bit different to most of the cases on this thread where complainants are basically trolling certain businesses. Just because they can.

Cabaal

....... wrote: »

What makes wedding invites for a same sex wedding different for wedding invites for an opposite sex wedding? Genuine question?

How would you know the wedding invites were for a same sex couple other than the peoples names on the invites?

Generally wedding invites follow the format:

"Such and Such would like to invite you to celebrate the marriage and A and B at such a venue on such a date. Please RSVP by whatever date"

Nothing about the sexuality of the couples. Nothing about the fact that the marriage is a same sex marriage.

Do you think that weddings invitations are "different" for same sex couples? And in what way?

I would have that the differences were obvious, but I guess some people need it spelled out.

"John & Mary invite you to their wedding on the 4th apiril.
Versus
" John & David invite you to their wedding on the 4th april "

If you don't think the names give away the sex of the two people and if it'll be a same sex wedding or not then perhaps you need better glasses.

The names along allow any hateful individual to identify its a same sex wedding and as such refuse the business illegally.

.......

Cabaal wrote: »

If you don't think the names give away the sex of the two people and if it'll be a same sex wedding or not then perhaps you need better glasses.

Plenty of unisex names used by both genders you know? Fran, Charlie, Adrian etc...

Also plenty of foreign names where you wouldnt necessarily know the gender.

Bit naive to think its always going to be two obvious names.

But you have proven the point nicely - if the only difference IS the names, then it is far more clearly a case of discrimination as the invites themselves are no different to that of an opposite sex couple - which they would have printed.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That's a fair and very pertinent question. If a standard template was being used, and it was simply a question of inserting two names
(male, female, or one of each) then it would be very hard to show any difference. Which leads towards a conclusion of illegal discrimination.
If there is a certain amount of artistry and creativity involved, then it can be argued that this is a specialist service.

This "creativity" aspect came up in previous cases involving cakes in the USA, where it was generally ruled that the artisan can choose to apply their artistic talents, or not, depending on their own personal whims.

The "cake case" revolved around the fact that the baker provided a serivce of producing unique, custom-designed and finished cakes. He argued that this was artistic expression protected in the US by the first amendment guarantee of free speech. He succeeded on that ground.

The same baker also provided the more standard service of baking cakes to order to an off-the-shelf design available to any customer. Had the couple concerned requested one of these cakes and he refused to supply it, it's unlikely that he would have succeeded.

Note that it's crucial that the design, creativity, etc that went into the custom cake was the baker's, not the customer's. That's why it was his protected free speech. If he had offered the service of baking and decorating cakes to the customer's unique design, he would have lost.

So, how does all that apply to the printers in Ireland? The first point to make is that the "artistic expression = constitutionally protected free speech" argument hasn't been run in Ireland yet (or, SFAIK, in any country that applies the European Convenion on Human Rights) so we don't know if it would stand up. But, if it does, then the question arises whether the printers are selling a service of creawting unique custom designs for the customer, or printing invitations to a standard template selected by the customer, or printing invitations designed by the customer. Only the first would be analogous to the successful argument in the cake case.

robindch

Frédéric Martel has written a book entitled "In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality and Hypocrisy" which purports to lift the Vatican's skirts and put on show, the throbbing manhood beneath.

Examine as your own risk:

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/grindr-blackmail-and-confession-the-life-of-a-gay-seminarian-1.3808475

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Frédéric Martel has written a book entitled "In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality and Hypocrisy" which purports to lift the Vatican's skirts and put on show, the throbbing manhood beneath.

Examine as your own risk:

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/grindr-blackmail-and-confession-the-life-of-a-gay-seminarian-1.3808475

"Crimen sollicitationis".
An interesting phenomenon, and a novel use for the infamous "seal of the confessional".

alan partridge aha

Cabaal wrote: »

I would have that the differences were obvious, but I guess some people need it spelled out.

"John & Mary invite you to their wedding on the 4th apiril.
Versus
" John & David invite you to their wedding on the 4th april "

If you don't think the names give away the sex of the two people and if it'll be a same sex wedding or not then perhaps you need better glasses.

The names along allow any hateful individual to identify its a same sex wedding and as such refuse the business

Refusing business because they are ss people does not mean they are hateful. Very unhelpful language, you should tone it down.

smacl

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Refusing business because they are ss people does not mean they are hateful. Very unhelpful language, you should tone it down.

Being openly homophobic is considered broadly hateful in modern society, hence why we have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation and discussions such as this.

alan partridge aha

smacl wrote: »

Being openly homophobic is considered broadly hateful in modern society, hence why we have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation and discussions such as this.

Poppycock, just because one doesn't support SSM does not mean one is hateful. What bubble do some people live in.

oscarBravo

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Poppycock, just because one doesn't support SSM does not mean one is hateful.

"Just because I think some people should be denied civil rights doesn't mean I hate them."

Poppycock, indeed.

alan partridge aha

One might not believe people should be allowed to divorce, doesn't mean one hates them. Same for a lot of things.

oscarBravo

alan partridge aha wrote: »

One might not believe people should be allowed to divorce, doesn't mean one hates them.

The question is: do you believe that the question of whether or not they're allowed to divorce depends on their sexuality?

Look, I get it: you think it's OK to deny people civil rights based on their sexuality. That's sadly not an entirely unusual attitude. But don't get all butt-hurt and offended when you're called out on it.

Cabaal

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Poppycock, just because one doesn't support SSM does not mean one is hateful. What bubble do some people live in.

And just because somebody supports segregated schools for black kids, wants whites only buses and dinners doesn't make the person racist eh?

I guess they are just treating different people differently?

Anyone who wants to deny the equal rights to which an individual who legally entitled to is hateful I most certainly will not "tone it down", if they don't like the language then they just need to change their hateful ways.

If they want to deny women equal treatment they are sexist.
If they want to deny a black people equal treatment they are racist.
If they want to deny equal treatment to a gay person they are homophobic

alan partridge aha

So there is close to 38% of the electorate who voted hateful to the gay community. I don't agree.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Look, I get it: you think it's OK to deny people civil rights based on their sexuality. That's sadly not an entirely unusual attitude. But don't get all butt-hurt and offended when you're called out on it.

No, you don't get it.
There is a valid point of view that's says a traditional marriage between male and female is a different kind of thing to a SSM, which is different to two siblings or two friends living together in the same household. That's not to say there isn't a kind of love involved in each case.


Just like there is a valid point of view that's says a man dressed as a woman, or surgically modified to look like a woman, is not actually a woman, no matter what he "identifies as".


But don't get all butt-hurt and offended about it. We all have different opinions. Its our civil right.

Cabaal

alan partridge aha wrote: »

So there is close to 38% of the electorate who voted hateful to the gay community. I don't agree.

yes, in one manner or another they have some level of hate towards gay people, at the very least they see them as less deserving of being treated equal.
If tomorrow women could not vote and we held a ref on giving women the right to vote and 38% of people voted against women having the right to vote, how would you view those people?

They hardly consider women as equal to themselves,

By refusing to give people equal rights when there is no valid reason not to do so it shows you hate them in some manner, you see them as less equal to yourself, less deserving of rights, inferior.

Its a sorry state of affairs when any human has this view towards their fellow human, be it based on sex, sexuality or skin colour.

If they don't like being called out on it then that shows how insecure they are in their view.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

No, you don't get it.
There is a valid point of view that's says a traditional marriage between male and female is a different kind of thing to a SSM

There is a point of view, however, it certainly isn't valid.
unions between same-sex have existed for thousands of years dating back to ancient Mesopotamia.

"Traditional marriage" as you like to label it, is just that, a label...nothing more.

If you look at human history you could argue that traditional marriage is actually arranged marriage as this happened far more commonly throughout our history and is actually still a thing for many millions of people, the idea if falling in love with somebody of your choosing and having a traditional marriage is a fairly modern invention.

But don't get all butt-hurt and offended about it. We all have different opinions. Its our civil right.

The issue is when your right stands to infringe on the freedoms of others...but I suppose if you don't agree with their freedoms its ok eh?
:rolleyes:

I think most of us can agree that if you met any individual tomorrow and they said to you that they believed that black people should be given fewer rights because of their skin colour (something they don't choose) then the vast majority of us would agree that person point of view most certainly does not need to be respected and it is also a racist view.

If you also want to give somebody less rights because of their sexual attraction (again, something they don't choose) then we also don't have to respect this backwards, outdated and frankly hateful view towards gay people in our country.

What you are proposing is discrimination, but I suppose its the right kind of discrimination if you support it and that makes it fine eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wopoEJxFYQw

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

What you are proposing is discrimination, but I suppose its the right kind of discrimination if you support it and that makes it fine eh?

The only thing I'm proposing is that people be allowed to hold a contrary opinion to yours.
If SSM is legal, which it is, then its a civil right. However people were entitled to disagree with the new law, and they may still hold the same opinion.
Having an opinion is not interfering with anyone elses's civil rights.
You don't get to call other people "hateful" just because they don't agree with you. Because that in itself is hateful.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

The only thing I'm proposing is that people be allowed to hold a contrary opinion to yours.
If SSM is legal, which it is, then its a civil right. However people were entitled to disagree with the new law, and they may still hold the same opinion.
Having an opinion is not interfering with anyone elses's civil rights.
You don't get to call other people "hateful" just because they don't agree with you. Because that in itself is hateful.

Using your argument I'm entitled to hold that opinon, its my civil right.

Anyone that holds views that devalues the rights of other people in our society holds hateful views. They clearly see the people they hate as having less value to themselves., if they liked them they wouldn't have them to have less rights.

We wouldn't accept it with people that hold views against black people or views against women and we damn sure shouldn't accept it with those that want gay people to have fewer rights

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

Using your argument I'm entitled to hold that opinon, its my civil right.

You can hold the opinion, but you can't go around calling people "hateful", as that in itself is an insulting and a hating activity.

Cabaal wrote: »

Anyone that holds views that devalues the rights of other people in our society holds hateful views. They clearly see the people they hate as having less value to themselves., if they liked themthey wouldn't have them to have less rights.

You don't have to "like" or "approve of" everyone else. But you are expected to leave them to do their own thing in peace, as long as its not illegal.
That was the very reasonable request that the gay community in Ireland had up until recently. That was the civil rights issue. But now it has gone way beyond that. They now demand approval, encouragement, funding, "positive" discrimination etc.. as well as "the right" to silence anyone who does not follow the same agenda.


Many heterosexuals now demand equal treatment and the right to call their committed relationship to a member of the opposite sex (ie their marriage) by a unique name. Is that too much to ask?
It is still the relationship most likely to bring a child into the world, into the full stability of a family union, therefore it is something special.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

It is still the relationship most likely to bring a child into the world, into the full stability of a family union, therefore it is something special.

Therefore same-sex relationships are inferior...?

Also: Same-sex couples can and do bring children into the world. Same-sex couple can and do provide full stability.
Doesn't sound like you stance is all that well supported and based on something other than facts.
Hate perhaps?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Therefore same-sex relationships are inferior...?

Unique is the word I used.

King Mob wrote: »

Also: Same-sex couples can and do bring children into the world.

Eh... no.

Same-sex couple can and do provide full stability.

No type of relationship guarantees full stability.

King Mob wrote: »

Doesn't sound like you stance is all that well supported and based on something other than facts.
Hate perhaps?

You mention hate a lot.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

You can hold the opinion, but you can't go around calling people "hateful", as that in itself is an insulting and a hating activity.

I can't?
I have and will continue to do so.

If hateful people find it insulting to be called out then so be it.

That was the very reasonable request that the gay community in Ireland had up until recently. That was the civil rights issue. But now it has gone way beyond that. They now demand approval, encouragement, funding, "positive" discrimination etc.. as well as "the right" to silence anyone who does not follow the same agenda.

:rolleyes:

Are you honestly that insecure in your life that you see gay people as finally getting some respect in our society as somehow damaging or attacking you?

You sound like somebody in 1950's USA upset about black children going to your local school and you've got all upset after being called out for making comments against equal treatment for black children and how the blacks are trying to silence you.

Really its pathetic and paranoid nonsense.

Many heterosexuals now demand equal treatment and the right to call their committed relationship to a member of the opposite sex (ie their marriage) by a unique name. Is that too much to ask?
It is still the relationship most likely to bring a child into the world, into the full stability of a family union, therefore it is something special.

Yes, it is when they try and dictate the meaning of the word marriage and how other people can use it. It's insulting and you don't have a monopoly on how its used.

As I have already pointed out there is no such thing as "traditional marriage", its a relatively modern label. if anything marriages have historically been arranged marriages so if anything this is historical and the idea you marry somebody you choose is sort of modern.

But by all means, if some people feel so insecure in their sad little lives by two lesbians getting hitched and calling it a marriage and they feel their marriage has to be made super special and different then they are welcome to call there marriage "The super straight special marriage between a man and women only"

:rolleyes:

One thing I'm glad about is no matter what in decades to come people will read comments like yours and shake their heads in shame at how backwards some people used to be, I take great comfort in the fact that history will see your views in the shameful way they are.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

No type of relationship guarantees full stability.

and yet you said

It is still the relationship most likely to bring a child into the world, into the full stability of a family union,

You've learned nothing from the marriage equality ref campaign, have you?

You still look down your nose at other types of relationships and family units and that is pretty disgusting, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

This is why the NO campaign lost because you think you are better and superior and you act and comment in such an insulting manner towards others. People saw the no campaign for what it was back in 2015 and people see your shameful behaviour for what it is still now.

A family unit is what you make it, the stability of it has nothing to do with the sexual preference of the people that make up the family.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

You can hold the opinion, but you can't go around calling people "hateful", as that in itself is an insulting and a hating activity.
.

recognising hate in others is not hateful

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

and yet you said...

Here's what i said..

It is still the relationship most likely to bring a child into the world, into the full stability of a family union..

The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child, regardless of the many other (less ideal) kinds of situation out there.


You can pretend to yourself that they are all equally good, but they are not.
For example, single parents make the best of what they have. That is not a criticism of them, or a hateful comment against them.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

I can't?
I have and will continue to do so.
If hateful people find it insulting to be called out then so be it.

What does being "called out" actually mean?
Its a form of taunting or jeering perpetrated by one person against another. Its a hateful behaviour.
Would it be OK for a heterosexual to "call out" a closet gay and then say
"I have and will continue to do it. If gay people find it insulting to be called out then so be it."


Why not just accept that others can have a different opinion to you?
You don't have to hound them.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Here's what i said..
The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child, regardless of the many other (less ideal) kinds of situation out there.

Why, specifically, is a same sex marriage a less ideal situation to raise a child than a marriage between a man and a woman?

You can pretend to yourself that they are all equally good, but they are not. For example, single parents make the best of what they have. That is not a criticism of them, or a hateful comment against them.

Straw man. Number of parents is not comparable to gender of parent where economics and time constraints play a major role in hardship endured by single parents.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Why, specifically, is a same sex marriage a less ideal situation to raise a child than a marriage between a man and a woman?

Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.

smacl wrote: »

Straw man. Number of parents is not comparable to gender of parent where economics and time constraints play a major role in hardship endured by single parents.

They are both different types of families. As you mention the word "hardship" in relation to one family type, I assume you accept that not all family types are equally good for the kids?


But I'm not accusing you of "looking down your nose" at single parents, or of hating them. That's because I'm a tolerant kind of person. I don't go round trying to "call people out". I accept that it takes all sorts to make up a world.


Its not all about money either. Gay couples typically have more money than straight ones, but money doesn't buy what a stable traditional family unit provides for kids.