Firm refuses to print invites to gay wedding for second time

GreenFolder2

frostyjacks wrote: »

The printer didn't attack gay marriage. He's minding his own business, offending no one, when someone seeks him out and asks him to do something knowing full well he doesn't want to do it. I wouldn't expect a Jewish printer to reel off posters denying the holocaust, no matter what price he was offered.

I don't really think it's remotely fair or reasonable to compare a same-sex marriage to holocaust denial.

If we are going to get into that kind of ridiculous comparison, I don't really see the point of even having this debate.

The reality of the situation is same sex marriage in Ireland is a constitutional right and the Equal Status Act prevents businesses from discriminating against people on grounds of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

This would be more like a scenario where an printer turned around and said, Catholicism is against our faith and we will not print your Catholic mass book. You'll have to take your business elsewhere. Only it's even worse again as being gay is not something someone can just opt not to be. It's not being part of a religion, a social group, it's more akin to eye colour, gender or skin colour.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you allow businesses to behave like this you can get to a situation where a minority group could be denied service and ultimately could end up having no access to service and be frozen out of society.

Horrible things like this were done here in the past against people with mixed-marriages (Catholic-Protestant in this case) were basically shunned from communities.

Have a look at the horrible situation in the 1950s where a mixed-marriage family were boycotted in a small village in Wexford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethard-on-Sea_boycott

That is where we are headed if you allow this kind of thing to reoccur. All it takes it to live in a small community or to have a large number of businesses all adopting the same attitude and you suddenly have a situation where a minority group is being frozen out.

EagererBeaver

L1011 wrote: »

Last time this happened there was hysterical defence of "they just don't do civil partnership cards, you can't claim its discrimination". Referendum has passed. They're now clearly breaking the law.

There are other ways of declining business that aren't going to get you in trouble.

You don't ge to claim that without stating what law has been broken and how. Lots of amateur lawyers about the place.

L1011

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You don't ge to claim that without stating what law has been broken and how. Lots of amateur lawyers about the place.

Equal status act. Refusal to provide services on discriminatory grounds. Not the most complex bit of knowledge out there.

I can see this thread descending to the same ridiculous attempts at hair splitting and redefinition as the last one by those who simply don't want the law to exist. But it does and has done for quite some time.

Nekarsulm

Are not Medical professionals allowed to decide what services to provide patients, based on their religeous beliefs? I am thinking primarily of cases involving reproducive issues. Even Pharmacists were allowed to decide if they would stock and sell condoms, after comdoms were made legel in Ireland. Again, based on "religeous" beliefs.

EagererBeaver

L1011 wrote: »

Equal status act. Not the most complex bit of knowledge out there.

Congratulations, you can name a piece of legislation. And how have they broken it? As ruled by what court? That's the bit I'm dying to hear your opinion on.

What you stated was nothing more than your opinion on a complex legal issue. It's the exact same as the Asher's case, which was a legal quagmire that is still up in the air.

Nobody has "quite clearly" broken any laws. They may indeed have broken one, but there's nothing clear about it.

EDIT: Response to your edit - there it is, the "you can't disagree with me because you're a bigot who opposes the law" arguement. Pathetic and juvenile. I'm a straight man who voted in favour of same sex marriage, I'm all in favour of gay rights. I believe the beliefs of the business owner are wrong and I disagree with their decision not to print the invitations. However, I don't think that a private business should be forced to provide a service its owners don't want to.

GreenFolder2

I'd also point out that we have had this debate for months, and months and months and months. In fact it dragged on for a bloody eternity and caused a great deal of upset and heartache to a lot of people at the time.

We then had a constitutional referendum, during which the majority of the population agreed to enshrine the right to gay marriage directly in the highest law in the land.

It seems that some people would still prefer that LGBT rights were optional.

Sadly, it looks like the struggle for equality still needs to continue.

Hoboo

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You don't ge to claim that without stating what law has been broken and how. Lots of amateur lawyers about the place.

Equality Act 2000, Part II, Provision of Goods and Services.

EagererBeaver

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

I'd also point out that we have had this debate for months, and months and months and months. In fact it dragged on for a bloody eternity and caused a great deal of upset and heartache to a lot of people at the time.

We then had a constitutional referendum, during which the majority of the population agreed to enshrine the right to gay marriage directly in the highest law in the land.

It seems that some people would still prefer that LGBT rights were optional.

Sadly, it looks like the struggle for equality still needs to continue.

Sadly, it looks like some people don't understand what the referendum was about.

GreenFolder2

Hoboo wrote: »

Equality Act 2000, Part II, Provision of Goods and Services.

You can have a read of it here (Consolidated text bringing it pretty much up to date)

https://www.tcd.ie/wiser/about/what/EqualStatusActsConsldtd_00_04.pdf

GreenFolder2

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Sadly, it looks like some people don't understand what the referendum was about.

Speak for yourself.

Hoboo

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

You can have a read of it here (Consolidated text bringing it pretty much up to date)

https://www.tcd.ie/wiser/about/what/EqualStatusActsConsldtd_00_04.pdf

Sorry Im not sure what you mean?

GreenFolder2

Hoboo wrote: »

Sorry Im not sure what you mean?

I was just adding to your post.

Link above gives you the 'CONSOLIDATED TEXT OF THE EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000 TO 2004' which brings together most of the updates since 2000 into a single easier-to-read document.

uck51js9zml2yt

They would have broken the law by saying they couldn't do it because the customer was homosexual. If they said it was because of religious beliefs , were is the law being broken?

As I said, I also disagreement violent sports based on my religious beliefs. I'd have nothing to do with them. I generally disagree with divorce in some circumstances based in my religious beliefs....it's also legal.

They have equal rights based on religion and can't be discriminated against. They also have a right to conduct their business according to their religious beliefs. In my mind, it's good business to do so.

GreenFolder2

You actually don't have the right to conduct your business according to your religious beliefs where you're disposing of assets or providing a service to the general public.

You have to conduct it according to the law of the land, certainly where the law overrides aspects of your religious beliefs anyway.

There are exemptions applying to religious institutions providing religious services and, rather disgracefully, to educational institutions of religious ethos etc and some exceptions also apply to clubs.

However, they do not seem to apply to provision of general goods / services, which invitations to a secular civil wedding would absolutely be.

If it goes as far as a case, there is a rather large body of law there that would seem to be fairly unlikely to support the position the printer's talking, but it's a democracy and a legal system, so they've their right to go along and make their arguments, but it doesn't look very likely they'll succeed.

L1011

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Congratulations, you can name a piece of legislation. And how have they broken it? As ruled by what court? That's the bit I'm dying to hear your opinion on.

What you stated was nothing more than your opinion on a complex legal issue. It's the exact same as the Asher's case, which was a legal quagmire that is still up in the air.

Nobody has "quite clearly" broken any laws. They may indeed have broken one, but there's nothing clear about it.

EDIT: Response to your edit - there it is, the "you can't disagree with me because you're a bigot who opposes the law" arguement. Pathetic and juvenile. I'm a straight man who voted in favour of same sex marriage, I'm all in favour of gay rights. I believe the beliefs of the business owner are wrong and I disagree with their decision not to print the invitations. However, I don't think that a private business should be forced to provide a service its owners don't want to.

The paragraph about hair-splitting and definition shifting is in general, not directed at you. We have had threads on this and related topics before and they always end in that.

Read the legislation. There couldn't be a more open and shut case.

Ashers is in a different jurisdiction with similar but non-identical legislation. Weaker, I would suggest.

Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »

They would have broken the law by saying they couldn't do it because the customer was homosexual. If they said it was because of religious beliefs , were is the law being broken?
.

Because religious beliefs are not a get out of legislation (unless explicitly provided for - which they aren't here)

B-D-P--

Its a pity there are no other printing shops in dublin that she cant go to.

I know it must be hurtfull to hear this, but, an normal person would say "F it, thats sh1t, I'll have 2 go to the other shop"
She said "Great I'll get internet famous out of this"

L1011

B-D-P-- wrote: »

Its a pity there are no other printing shops in dublin that she cant go to.

I know it must be hurtfull to hear this, but, an normal person would say "F it, thats sh1t, I'll have 2 go to the other shop"
She said "Great I'll get internet famous out of this"

Its in Drogheda. Did you read any details of the thread?

Would you just think "that's ****" if a shop refused to serve you due to discrimination? I very much doubt it.

B-D-P--

I'm sure there are others in Drogheda also,

Dont think me to be against gays in any way, I have nothing against the community,
However, if this shops owners have religious beliefs and serving printing these is against it, Can ya not just go somewhere else?
Its not the customer who the shop was against, it was the content they were asked to print.

L1011

B-D-P-- wrote: »

Its not the customer who the shop was against, it was the content they were asked to print.

No distinction in law, specifically because this utterly spurious argument would get used

What was envisioned at the time was basically "I'm fine renting hotel rooms to gay couples, I just don't let two men/women in the same bed"; something I heard myself in the UK prior to their copycat legislation being introduced (we, for once in that era, were progressive)

If you go in to business in Ireland, it is your responsibility to be aware of the law. These printers were founded in 2001, going on their CRO registration - after this legislation existed; however even if they were a newer firm it is also your responsibility to keep up to date with the law.

The "go somewhere else" argument has more holes in it than an onion sack. It assumes that there are other businesses who are not discriminatory. This is never guaranteed. We have moved on as a society from the era when there had to be guidebooks telling black drivers where they could get petrol (because sure, why can't they go somewhere else if the first petrol station finds them driving to be against their beliefs) thankfully.

matrim

I'd love to see the reaction from some of the people defending this on here if the local off-license refused to sell the priest a bottle of wine for the alter

GreenFolder2

matrim wrote: »

I'd love to see the reaction from some of the people defending this on here if the local off-license refused to sell the priest a bottle of wine for the alter

Or, if the local garage refused to repair a car on the basis that their religion felt women shouldn't be driving anyway.

It's a slippery slope towards major problems if everyone were to take the same à la carte approach to equality.

marienbad

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.

Lots of us did grow up in such State and it was a long hard road out of it and we are not there yet .

cursai

What if a person had a print shop and refused to print mass booklets because he was opposed to religion as a whole.........This kinda stuff is always goin to be happening. People should be allowed discriminate if they want to. As long as it not a public service or a state service.
Nobody should be forced to subscribe to something they don't want to and nobody has been here.

A_Sober_Paddy

If a business wants too run their business with some religious non sense ideology they can fcuk off to Saudi Arabia

ForstalDave

cursai wrote: »

What if a person had a print shop and refused to print mass booklets because he was opposed to religion as a whole.........This kinda stuff is always goin to be happening. People should be allowed discriminate if they want to. As long as it not a public service or a state service.
Nobody should be forced to subscribe to something they don't want to and nobody has been here.

Where does it stop can i discriminate by color or gender? In my job can i refuse to help female co-workers because of their gender?

L1011

cursai wrote: »

What if a person had a print shop and refused to print mass booklets because he was opposed to religion as a whole.........This kinda stuff is always goin to be happening. People should be allowed discriminate if they want to. As long as it not a public service or a state service.
Nobody should be forced to subscribe to something they don't want to and nobody has been here.

Hypothetical scenarios (that are extremely unlikely to occur) aren't much use.

Pressing print on a computer does not equate to subscribing to something you don't want. Its a business transaction and if you can't operate legally in business you shouldn't be operating.

GreenFolder2

Serious question as I am not familiar with the Northeast of Ireland at all:

I have to head up to Drogheda later on this year for a pre-Christmas party. Is the town generally like that? I am just wondering if it's advisable to keep a low profile if I'm up with the BF?

I tended to keep a really low profile in parts of Northern Ireland, and was advised to by people in the UK. So, I was just wondering if the same applies in Drogheda ?

I've never really had any issue in the Dublin, Cork, Galway or any of the southern or western bits of the country.

minikin

Firstly - I think the business has made a massive mis-step here.

However... is there a wee bang of hypocrisy on this thread?

Site admins and mods on here rightly refuse to host stuff that they deem to be against their ethics/values / deem incompatible with the values of the kafone wherhouse.

People are free to post on other sites, similarly people are free to take their business elsewhere if they don't get what they deem to be a professional service or response.

The printing company isn't preventing the couple from getting their invitations printed, they just don't feel comfortable doing it - it's the company's loss!

To repeat... I think the business has made a massive mis-step here.

GreenFolder2

minikin wrote: »

Firstly - I think the business has made a massive mis-step here.

However... is there a wee bang of hypocrisy on this thread?

Site admins and mods on here rightly refuse to host stuff that they deem to be against their ethics/values / deem incompatible with the values of the kafone wherhouse.

.

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.

L1011

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Is the town generally like that?

No. Its not the nicest place to go on holiday purely for the fact its a run-down former industrial now commuter town rather than anything else. Except maybe the accent :pac:


Have been there a lot for work and for football. Had bangers thrown at my car when attending a match in Hunky Dorys (or whatever brand of crisps is it this week) / United Park around this time of year but that's the only trouble ever.