Firm refuses to print invites to gay wedding for second time

coco0981

Bscan86 wrote: »

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.

Again they are entitled to hold their religious beliefs, they are not entitled to refuse service based on sexual orientation. Was Rosa Parks just looking for attention and playing the victim

Bscan86

coco1981 wrote:

Again they are entitled to hold their religious beliefs, they are not entitled to refuse service based on sexual orientation. Was Rosa Parks just looking for attention and playing the victim

If the printers legally had to print these cards even though they firmly disagreed with having to, is that not in a way being similarly as facist as refusing to do business with them.
It also seems to be 1-way in that the beliefs of those looking to get cards printed are respected but not those of the printers themselves.

Jawgap

coco1981 wrote: »

Again they are entitled to hold their religious beliefs, they are not entitled to refuse service based on sexual orientation. Was Rosa Parks just looking for attention and playing the victim

Rosa Parks was being systematically deprived of her right to equal treatment under the law by another set of laws.....the couple in question weren't/aren't.

They can go to any number of printers and get the work done.

coco0981

Bscan86 wrote: »

If the printers legally had to print these cards even though they firmly disagreed with having to, is that not in a way being similarly as facist as refusing to do business with them.
It also seems to be 1-way in that the beliefs of those looking to get cards printed are respected but not those of the printers themselves.

How would this work, would they put a sign in window saying they don't serve homosexuals

coco0981

Jawgap wrote: »

Rosa Parks was being systematically deprived of her right to equal treatment under the law by another set of laws.....the couple in question weren't/aren't.

They can go to any number of printers and get the work done.

OK, so if all printers in their area decide they share the same view would it be OK if the couple had to travel 20 miles to be provided with a service. Are restaurants also allowed?

Jawgap

coco1981 wrote: »

How would this work, would they put a sign in window saying they don't serve homosexuals

Who says they don't serve LGBT? They probably serve all sexual orientations all the time without realising it.....they're refusing to supply a product, not refusing to serve a class of people. If a hetero friend went in and ordered the invites do you suppose they would have provided them to him/her?

Jawgap

coco1981 wrote: »

OK, so if all printers in their area decide they share the same view would it be OK if the couple had to travel 20 miles to be provided with a service. Are restaurants also allowed?

Now, you can introduce all the silly examples you want but it doesn't change the fact that any comparison with Rosa Parks is not valid.

And yes, if a restaurant decided it didn't want to cater a same sex wedding because of honestly held religious beliefs I'd see as the same - a bonkers business decision, but if it's their beliefs then let them away with it.

If an employee refused to work on producing the invites or catering the event because of their religious beliefs should they be disciplined by the employer?

coco0981

Jawgap wrote: »

Now, you can introduce all the silly examples you want but it doesn't change the fact that any comparison with Rosa Parks is not valid.

And yes, if a restaurant decided it didn't want to cater a same sex wedding because of honestly held religious beliefs I'd see as the same - a bonkers business decision, but if it's their beliefs then let them away with it.

If an employee refused to work on producing the invites or catering the event because of their religious beliefs should they be disciplined by the employer?

I don't doubt that the printers honestly hold these religious beliefs. The law allows them to and there is no issue there. The issue is them mixing their personal views with a business offering a service to the public. By denying this couple a service which a heterosexual couple can avail of it is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

Jawgap

coco1981 wrote: »

I don't doubt that the printers honestly hold these religious beliefs. The law allows them to and there is no issue there. The issue is them mixing their personal views with a business offering a service to the public. By denying this couple a service which a heterosexual couple can avail of it is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

But people and professions do that all the time. The profession I'm in has a code of ethics, doctors have their Hippocratic Oath etc all of which are mediated through the individual's conscience.

No business is bound by law in all circumstances to serve or supply everyone.

marienbad

oik wrote: »

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

Happily it doesn't matter what you or I agree with , it is the law that counts .

coco0981

Jawgap wrote: »

But people and professions do that all the time. The profession I'm in has a code of ethics, doctors have their Hippocratic Oath etc all of which are mediated through the individual's conscience.

No business is bound by law in all circumstances to serve or supply everyone.

But under the equal status act they ARE specifically bound by law to serve or supply the protected groups

dissed doc

Jawgap wrote: »

But people and professions do that all the time. The profession I'm in has a code of ethics, doctors have their Hippocratic Oath etc all of which are mediated through the individual's conscience.

No business is bound by law in all circumstances to serve or supply everyone.

That is a fair point.

They don't discriminate based on sexuality

They simply don't supply products promoting homosexuality. They will serve and supply any group protected under the act but obviously only with the products they sell: pro Christian products.

A video shop in the old days wouldn't have supplied gay porn necessarily, but it isn't discrimination if they simply do not stock or supply it.

So if you know what products a place does and does not sell, why not find a supplier for the ones you want.

Do shops selling exclusively gay sex toys discriminate against non-homosexuals or is it simply that they don't supply products of whatever type?

Jawgap

coco1981 wrote: »

But under the equal status act they ARE specifically bound by law to serve or supply the protected groups

I'm not denying the existence of the legal obligation, I've been saying the moral obligation isn't necessarily right.....

Per my original post on the thread.....

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!

.....just because it's the law doesn't make it 'right' (ask the water charge people for example)

WindomEarle

dissed doc wrote: »

That is a fair point.

They don't discriminate based on sexuality

They simply don't supply products promoting homosexuality. They will serve and supply any group protected under the act but obviously only with the products they sell: pro Christian products.

A video shop in the old days wouldn't have supplied gay porn necessarily, but it isn't discrimination if they simply do not stock or supply it.

So if you know what products a place does and does not sell, why not find a supplier for the ones you want.

Do shops selling exclusively gay sex toys discriminate against non-homosexuals or is it simply that they don't supply products of whatever type?

It's hard to argue with this.

Would a printer be entitled to refuse to print flyers for a pro-ISIS meeting, or a pro-BNP facist meeting?

robyntmorton

WindomEarle wrote: »

It's hard to argue with this.

Would a printer be entitled to refuse to print flyers for a pro-ISIS meeting, or a pro-BNP facist meeting?

Absolutely. Refusal to be a part of incitement of hatred would be a fair reason to say no.

However, refusing to print wedding invitations for Adam & Steve, when you would happily print them for Adam & Eve, is a completely different story, and trying to draw parallels between the two is like comparing apples and elephants.

Jawgap

robyntmorton wrote: »

Absolutely. Refusal to be a part of incitement of hatred would be a fair reason to say no.

However, refusing to print wedding invitations for Adam & Steve, when you would happily print them for Adam & Eve, is a completely different story, and trying to draw parallels between the two is like comparing apples and elephants.

Not really, the person has a conscionable belief, reasonably held and genuinely rooted in their religious conception of right and wrong that same sex marriage is 'sinful.'

Now that may be a bonkers position to take for most of us, but that's because we all operate to a different set of religious beliefs or no religious beliefs.

Should someone be compelled to go against their conscience?

In the example above should someone be compelled to print extreme right wing literature? Equally, should they be compelled to print literature protesting the existence of such groups and their activities?

The test here should not be whether the business refused to print the invitations, its whether they would refuse to serve 'Adam and Steve' in all circumstances, whether they wanted invites for their wedding or were looking for material that in no way promoted their lifestyle (for example business cards, flyers for a sports club, booklets etc).

Or would the business have refused the print order for the invitations if Adam and Eve came in to place it on behalf of their friends, Adam and Steve?

In other words are they saying that despite being a printer there is a class or sub-class of printed product they refuse to supply, or are they saying there is a class of customer they will refuse to supply under all circumstances - one is discrimination, the other is just bad business.

robyntmorton

You're trying to twist things to suit yourself here.

I have already said that a person/company would be justified in refusing to print extreme right wing/ISIS/other "hate" materials. This would be refusal to be part of incitement of hatred.

On the other. Simply by printing invitations for the wedding of Adam and Eve, they are saying they are happy do do wedding invitations. Then refusing to do the same invitations for Adam & Steve, regardless of who ordered them, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and is against the law. No ifs, buts or maybes. That's it.

Your other point on whether they would refuse other work from Adam & Steve is irrelevant. If they went to them looking for business cards for "Adam & Steve - Painters & Decorators" chances are the work would be done. The order doesn't say anything about their sexual orientation. The wedding invitations immediately would.

Jawgap

robyntmorton wrote: »

You're trying to twist things to suit yourself here.

I have already said that a person/company would be justified in refusing to print extreme right wing/ISIS/other "hate" materials. This would be refusal to be part of incitement of hatred.

On the other. Simply by printing invitations for the wedding of Adam and Eve, they are saying they are happy do do wedding invitations. Then refusing to do the same invitations for Adam & Steve, regardless of who ordered them, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and is against the law. No ifs, buts or maybes. That's it.

Yes, but you're setting an arbitrary limit on what businesses can and can't supply.

If a business supplies a product, should it be compelled to supply all variations of the product all the time?

Business should be free to decide what they supply.

robyntmorton wrote: »

Your other point on whether they would refuse other work from Adam & Steve is irrelevant. If they went to them looking for business cards for "Adam & Steve - Painters & Decorators" chances are the work would be done. The order doesn't say anything about their sexual orientation. The wedding invitations immediately would.

Actually, it's entirely relevant because it runs to the very heart of what discrimination is!!! An absolute refusal to supply someone because of who they are is discriminatory. If, for example, the printer knew the person in front of them was gay and refused to serve them anything, that would be discriminatory.

Refusing to supply a service/product to everyone is simply saying there are limits to your business, it's not discriminatory.

Of course, the courts may choose to take a narrower interpretation, although it may be somewhat instructive to consider that the firm in question weren't prosecuted for their initial refusal some 12 months ago.

dissed doc

robyntmorton wrote: »

You're trying to twist things to suit yourself here.

I have already said that a person/company would be justified in refusing to print extreme right wing/ISIS/other "hate" materials. This would be refusal to be part of incitement of hatred.

On the other. Simply by printing invitations for the wedding of Adam and Eve, they are saying they are happy do do wedding invitations. Then refusing to do the same invitations for Adam & Steve, regardless of who ordered them, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and is against the law. No ifs, buts or maybes. That's it.

Your other point on whether they would refuse other work from Adam & Steve is irrelevant. If they went to them looking for business cards for "Adam & Steve - Painters & Decorators" chances are the work would be done. The order doesn't say anything about their sexual orientation. The wedding invitations immediately would.

But are they discriminating against them based on sexuality or that they don't supply the product being asked for?

The shop might also not supply wedding invitations containing a nazi slogan. Now, if the nazi is gay or black, is it discrimination or that they don't supply the product?

They are happy to serve whatever customer but obviously are free to pick and choose what products they sell.

At some point no-one really cares about your gender/ethnicity/sexuality and simply cannot supply all products to all people.

So if the homosexual couple can buy the products the shop does seIl, there is no discrimination.

You ask the shop well I want a pro-paedophile business card made. Well the shop says, we do many buainess cards but we don't supply those. The request for red business cards? Well they might not supply certain colours of products either.

Being discriminated against based on sexuality is a dreadful situation and has legal protections. There is however no inference that a shop or business must supply any product to you on demand, on the grounds of your sexuality.

The shop serves everyone.
The shop does not supply every type product, as that is impossible.

So why not source your product from a supplier that has your product? They are clearly happy yo supply this couple with pro-christian and traditional marriage products so where is the discrimination?

I will start tomorrow asking brown Thomas to supply me with bicycle tyres.

Annasopra

Jawgap wrote: »

Who says they don't serve LGBT? They probably serve all sexual orientations all the time without realising it.....they're refusing to supply a product, not refusing to serve a class of people. If a hetero friend went in and ordered the invites do you suppose they would have provided them to him/her?

Yes and that would be illegal too under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 as discrimination by association.

Annasopra

Jawgap wrote: »

Now, you can introduce all the silly examples you want but it doesn't change the fact that any comparison with Rosa Parks is not valid.

Why?

Jawgap

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes and that would be illegal too under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 as discrimination by association.

Makes you wonder then why the highly interventionist Equality Authority declined to prosecute them the first time around then, if it is so egregious a breach of the legislation?

Annasopra

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really, the person has a conscionable belief, reasonably held and genuinely rooted in their religious conception of right and wrong that same sex marriage is 'sinful.'

Now that may be a bonkers position to take for most of us, but that's because we all operate to a different set of religious beliefs or no religious beliefs.

Should someone be compelled to go against their conscience?

In the example above should someone be compelled to print extreme right wing literature? Equally, should they be compelled to print literature protesting the existence of such groups and their activities?

The test here should not be whether the business refused to print the invitations, its whether they would refuse to serve 'Adam and Steve' in all circumstances, whether they wanted invites for their wedding or were looking for material that in no way promoted their lifestyle (for example business cards, flyers for a sports club, booklets etc).

Or would the business have refused the print order for the invitations if Adam and Eve came in to place it on behalf of their friends, Adam and Steve?

In other words are they saying that despite being a printer there is a class or sub-class of printed product they refuse to supply, or are they saying there is a class of customer they will refuse to supply under all circumstances - one is discrimination, the other is just bad business.

If Adam and Steve were refused it because they are gay its discrimination

If Adam and Eve were refused it because it was behalf of Adam and Steve then that is also discrimination. The Equal Status Acts would deem that discrimination by association.

Annasopra

dissed doc wrote: »

But are they discriminating against them based on sexuality or that they don't supply the product being asked for?

The shop might also not supply wedding invitations containing a nazi slogan. Now, if the nazi is gay or black, is it discrimination or that they don't supply the product?

They are happy to serve whatever customer but obviously are free to pick and choose what products they sell.

At some point no-one really cares about your gender/ethnicity/sexuality and simply cannot supply all products to all people.

So if the homosexual couple can buy the products the shop does seIl, there is no discrimination.

You ask the shop well I want a pro-paedophile business card made. Well the shop says, we do many buainess cards but we don't supply those. The request for red business cards? Well they might not supply certain colours of products either.

Being discriminated against based on sexuality is a dreadful situation and has legal protections. There is however no inference that a shop or business must supply any product to you on demand, on the grounds of your sexuality.

The shop serves everyone.
The shop does not supply every type product, as that is impossible.

So why not source your product from a supplier that has your product? They are clearly happy yo supply this couple with pro-christian and traditional marriage products so where is the discrimination?

I will start tomorrow asking brown Thomas to supply me with bicycle tyres.

If the printer sells wedding invitations to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples then it is a clear case of discriminatory practice.

Jawgap

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why?

Seriously?

Rosa Parks was a victim of Jim Crow, there is nothing comparable, even remotely comparable, to Jim Crow bring imposed on anyone in Ireland today.

Jawgap

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If the printer sells wedding invitations to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples then it is a clear case of discriminatory practice.

Is the printer selling a service (the design, typesetting and printing of invitations) or a good (pre-printed invitations)?

Again if it's such a blatant breach I'd expect a prosecution to follow.

Annasopra

Jawgap wrote: »

Makes you wonder then why the highly interventionist Equality Authority declined to prosecute them the first time around then, if it is so egregious a breach of the legislation?

Highly intervenionist? What are you talking about?

A The Equality Authority cant prosecute anyone
B The Equality Authority doesnt exist anymore - its the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
C Actions under the equal status act have to be taken by the complainant not the IHREC to the workplace relations commission
D I assume there is either an ongoing case before WRC or the then complainant didnt officially pursue the case through WRC

Annasopra

Jawgap wrote: »

Is the printer selling a service (the design, typesetting and printing of invitations) or a good (pre-printed invitations)?

Again if it's such a blatant breach I'd expect a prosecution to follow.

It doesn't matter if it's a good or service. The Equal Status Acts cover both. The person who was discriminated against has to officially go through the complaint process. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Workplace Relations Commission cannot just initiate a prosecution if the noone actually goes through their process.

TheQuietFella

Why did this 'couple' even consider going there when they probably knew from the previous incident they would be refused?

Self seeking who but me continually have to whine and whinge about every situation that is an affront to them!

More publicity for the business owner!!!

Annasopra

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Why did this 'couple' even consider going there

To get wedding invitations

If you have proof the business was targeted provide it.