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

Firm refuses to print invites to gay wedding for second time

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Which law is this they have to obey?

    read the thread - how many times do you need the relevant legislation quoted for you .


  • Options
    #123
    GreenFolder2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭GreenFolder2


    It's actually depressing to see this kind of stuff is *still* going on.


  • Options
    #124
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    marienbad wrote: »
    read the thread - how many times do you need the relevant legislation quoted for you .

    There's no law against hurting someone's feelings, which is essentially what happened here. How can people claim homophobia still exists after we've legalised their relationships? It's impossible.


  • Options
    #125
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,123 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    oik wrote: »
    Some businesses are one and the same. Have you heard of sole traders or partnerships?


    Whatever about serving a pint to someone or selling groceries, but morally you cannot force someone to produce art they don't want to.

    Pressing print is not art. Printing has been reduced to a computer operator role that just requires capital to buy the kit.

    As for frostyjacks there - if you think the only homophobic or discrimination issue left was SSM, you really haven't paid attention.

    You seem to be unable to reconcile this law breaking with your extremely hardline position on other laws. Do you only apply that when you like the law?


  • Options
    #126
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »
    And you are forcing them by trying to make them do something they don't want to do. Hence making their rights subservient to yours.

    What right?

    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
    #127
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    There's no law against hurting someone's feelings, which is essentially what happened here. How can people claim homophobia still exists after we've legalised their relationships? It's impossible.

    No. We are talking about the discriminatory practice of refusing to serve a person and give them access to a good or service based on their sexual orientation. That is illegal under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.

    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
    #128
    Grey Wind
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭Grey Wind


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    There's no law against hurting someone's feelings, which is essentially what happened here. How can people claim homophobia still exists after we've legalised their relationships? It's impossible.

    It's not "hurting someone's feelings". It's refusal of service based on sexual orientation, which is illegal. End of.


  • Options
    #129
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Grey Wind wrote: »
    It's not "hurting someone's feelings". It's refusal of service based on sexual orientation, which is illegal. End of.

    Not so. A straight person could have asked for the same order and been refused, so it's nowt to do with orientation. Society must give equal respect to the beliefs of different people. The customer can always go elsewhere, but the printer cannot be forced to do something they don't want to do. There's a word for that type of society, and it seems to be where we're heading if we're not careful.


  • Options
    #130
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Not so. A straight person could have asked for the same order and been refused, so it's nowt to do with orientation.

    That would be illegal as well under the equal status acts 2000 - 2015 as discrimination by association. Claiming it's nothing to do with sexual orientation won't work I'm afraid.

    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
    #131
    coco0981
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭coco0981


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Not so. A straight person could have asked for the same order and been refused, so it's nowt to do with orientation. Society must give equal respect to the beliefs of different people. The customer can always go elsewhere, but the printer cannot be forced to do something they don't want to do. There's a word for that type of society, and it seems to be where we're heading if we're not careful.

    If the customer was getting invites for an interracial marriage and was refused because the printer didn't believe in it would that be ok? No it wouldn't and this is the exact same thing


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    coco1981 wrote: »
    If the customer was getting invites for an interracial marriage and was refused because the printer didn't believe in it would that be ok? No it wouldn't and this is the exact same thing

    It amazes me how some on here are fixated on excusing a business for this one piece of law (discriminating against lgbti people) but no other. Actually I'm not that amazed really. While demanding that vendors of goods and services should be able to discriminate against lgbti people they claim that homophobia doesnt exist in society. A very warped understanding of equality and indeed society really.

    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
    #133
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    coco1981 wrote: »
    If the customer was getting invites for an interracial marriage and was refused because the printer didn't believe in it would that be ok? No it wouldn't and this is the exact same thing

    Well, if they believed race-mixing was wrong, and didn't feel comfortable printing invites for same, then yes, they should have the right not to do something they don't want to do.


  • Options
    #134
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    marienbad wrote: »
    As businesses they must obey the law , why is that so hard to grasp ?

    What you're failing to grasp is that even though I can understand your position I still disagree with it.


  • Options
    #135
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    L1011 wrote: »
    Pressing print is not art. Printing has been reduced to a computer operator role that just requires capital to buy the kit.

    As for frostyjacks there - if you think the only homophobic or discrimination issue left was SSM, you really haven't paid attention.

    You seem to be unable to reconcile this law breaking with your extremely hardline position on other laws. Do you only apply that when you like the law?

    If it involves any level of creativity it's considered art in my book.


  • Options
    #136
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,233 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    If the printers are forced to take the job, won't they just sneak in the odd spelling mistake or two to p1ss off the 'sinners'?


  • Options
    #137
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Well, if they believed race-mixing was wrong, and didn't feel comfortable printing invites for same, then yes, they should have the right not to do something they don't want to do.

    They dont have the "right" to discriminate. And they shouldn't. Unless you feel minorities and women should be persecuted and should be treated as inferior human beings. That's what it really boils down to here. Those arguing the printer has rights basically don't think women and minorities should be treated equally or should have the right to be free from discrimination.

    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
    #138
    Flippyfloppy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭Flippyfloppy


    Alaric Tall Wrestler wrote: »
    And you are forcing them by trying to make them do something they don't want to do. Hence making their rights subservient to yours.

    How is this any different to requiring black people to sit away from with white people dining in restaurants in turn of the century America ? Was that actually ok because the poor whites didn't want to sit near them?


  • Options
    #139
    Flippyfloppy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭Flippyfloppy


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Well, if they believed race-mixing was wrong, and didn't feel comfortable printing invites for same, then yes, they should have the right not to do something they don't want to do.

    It doesn't matter if they believe race mixing is wrong, because it's NOT wrong.

    Neither is gay marriage. That's the crux of the issue here.

    The printer is wrong.


  • Options
    #140
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Flippyfloppy wrote: »
    It doesn't matter if they believe race mixing is wrong, because it's NOT wrong.

    Neither is gay marriage. That's the crux of the issue here.

    The printer is wrong.

    They can believe what they want. This is about discrimination. Any business that sets up in Ireland has to comply with our laws on discrimination.

    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
    #141
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    They can believe what they want. This is about discrimination. Any business that sets up in Ireland has to comply with our laws on discrimination.

    You may as well argue a butcher discriminates against vegetarians. There is marriage and there is gay marriage, and if he doesn't want to print invites for the latter that's his right. Bullying people with false claims of discrimination only makes the situation worse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    You may as well argue a butcher discriminates against vegetarians. There is marriage and there is gay marriage, and if he doesn't want to print invites for the latter that's his right. Bullying people with false claims of discrimination only makes the situation worse.

    A) We have marriage in Ireland not gay marriage just marriage
    B) Vegetarianism right yeah keep bringing in the whataboutery
    C) We're talking about discrimination which is illegal under the equal status acts 2000-2015. Nothing false there.

    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
    #143
    coco0981
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭coco0981


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Well, if they believed race-mixing was wrong, and didn't feel comfortable printing invites for same, then yes, they should have the right not to do something they don't want to do.

    Seriously? If a mixed race couple were refused service you would say it was ok?
    They are a business offering a service to the public, they have no right to discriminate based on serial orientation, simple as that


  • Options
    #144
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    coco1981 wrote: »
    Seriously? If a mixed race couple were refused service you would say it was ok?
    They are a business offering a service to the public, they have no right to discriminate based on serial orientation, simple as that

    I dont know why it surprises you. Some people do want to lgbti people and black people as lesser inferior human beings. Thats what this is about.

    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
    #145
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    It's an utterly bonkers business decision but if someone has an honestly held religious belief why should they be forced to go against it - and btw, I'm not religious, I'm firmly in the agnostic camp!

    As a society we allow individuals to inflict far greater acts of harm on themselves in the name of religious beliefs so why shouldn't a business be permitted to engage in acts of stupidity, if they genuinely feel it is in concert with their religious beliefs?


  • Options
    #146
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    coco1981 wrote: »
    Seriously? If a mixed race couple were refused service you would say it was ok?
    They are a business offering a service to the public, they have no right to discriminate based on serial orientation, simple as that

    What would be the religious or theological basis for refusing a mixed race couple?


  • Options
    #147
    coco0981
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭coco0981


    Jawgap wrote: »
    What would be the religious or theological basis for refusing a mixed race couple?

    Easy to find some obscure basis if you were so inclined, I meant in terms of racism however


  • Options
    #148
    coco0981
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭coco0981


    Jawgap wrote: »
    It's an utterly bonkers business decision but if someone has an honestly held religious belief why should they be forced to go against it - and btw, I'm not religious, I'm firmly in the agnostic camp!

    As a society we allow individuals to inflict far greater acts of harm on themselves in the name of religious beliefs so why shouldn't a business be permitted to engage in acts of stupidity, if they genuinely feel it is in concert with their religious beliefs?

    But they are offering a service to the public, nobody is expecting that they will change their beliefs however much we may disagree with them. However when they deny service based on their beliefs it is discrimination


  • Options
    #149
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    coco1981 wrote: »
    Easy to find some obscure basis if you were so inclined, I meant in terms of racism however

    Well then that's qualitatively different from what this business did.

    If it was me, I'd like to give this speech to the business owners :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc


  • Options
    #150
    coco0981
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭coco0981


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Well then that's qualitatively different from what this business did.

    If it was me, I'd like to give this speech to the business owners :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

    Still the best written show ever


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Bscan86
    Registered Users Posts: 110 ✭✭Bscan86


    If this is the 2nd time that they have refused business for such reasons then it seems to me like those who approached the printers are just looking for attention and quite possibly looking to create a witch hunt.
    Painting themselves as victims when there are no doubt plenty of printing agencies who'd accept their business, if someone disagrees with my beliefs I'll respect that and move on and I tend to hang around with those who share my beliefs. But certain sections of society believe that if you don't share their beliefs you're somehow a bigot or racist or xenophobe or whatever other label they'll use to try and shame people into conforming.


Advertisement