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
123457

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Should someone be compelled to go against their conscience?

    Yes.

    If your conscience holds that your child should not receive a blood transfusion because of your beliefs then you should expect society to insist that your beliefs are secondary to the rights of the child. The same is true for adults in need of transfusion.

    Why would a society allow a business to trade in a manner that is discriminatory based on 'religious beliefs'?? If we allow that then what's to stop collectives of traders to apply that logic? What if Dublin Bus refused to allow same-sex couples to travel on their busses, on the grounds that it would offend their beliefs?

    We are all entitled to not do something because of our beliefs, but we are not entitled to refuse to serve on the basis of our beliefs. That's just ugly discrimination.


  • Options
    #183
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    SVJKarate wrote: »
    Yes.

    We are all entitled to not do something because of our beliefs, but we are not entitled to refuse to serve on the basis of our beliefs.

    I wonder if Adolf Eichmann could have used that line if he had been around long enough?


  • Options
    #184
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,933 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    The fascism and naziism references are completely tiresome and frankly absurd

    We're talking about a printer and discriminatory practice not the third reich, not the holocaust, not WWII

    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
    #185
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    I wonder if Adolf Eichmann could have used that line if he had been around long enough?

    How might it have helped him?


  • Options
    #186
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    SVJKarate wrote: »
    Yes.

    If your conscience holds that your child should not receive a blood transfusion because of your beliefs then you should expect society to insist that your beliefs are secondary to the rights of the child. The same is true for adults in need of transfusion.

    Why would a society allow a business to trade in a manner that is discriminatory based on 'religious beliefs'?? If we allow that then what's to stop collectives of traders to apply that logic? What if Dublin Bus refused to allow same-sex couples to travel on their busses, on the grounds that it would offend their beliefs?

    We are all entitled to not do something because of our beliefs, but we are not entitled to refuse to serve on the basis of our beliefs. That's just ugly discrimination.


    Except that the law does allow an adult to refuse a transfusion (and any medical treatment) - yes a medic can intervene in the case of a child or an unconscious person, but you as an adult can refuse any and all medical treatment - you can even, subject to certain controls and checks, sign a DNR instruction.

    Again, I know exaggeration is often engaged in for purposes of illustration but where is the evidence that 'collectives' might form to practice any kind of discrimination?

    This is an example of a business not supplying a product. It's bad business, but drawing comparisons between it and Rosa Parks (as one poster did) or suggesting it's the top of some form of slippery slope is, to be frank, a bit of an over-reaction.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jawgap wrote: »
    doctors have their Hippocratic Oath etc

    One of the biggest misconceptions out there. Irish doctors do not.


  • Options
    #188
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Again, I know exaggeration is often engaged in for purposes of illustration but where is the evidence that 'collectives' might form to practice any kind of discrimination?

    Well, UKIP / BNP for example?

    Or the government of South Africa, by introducing Apartheid.

    Or the pubs in many Irish towns which refuse to serve travellers?

    The argument which suggests that this Printers firm did not supply this product is only valid if they do not print wedding invitations. I've no idea whether or not they do, but if they do then they cannot employ the argument that this was not a product they supplied.

    Would it ever be considered a valid argument if they refused to print invitations for a black or mixed-race couple?


  • Options
    #189
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,933 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Jawgap wrote: »

    Again, I know exaggeration is often engaged in for purposes of illustration but where is the evidence that 'collectives' might form to practice any kind of discrimination?

    We've seen plenty of examples on this Island

    Fethard on sea - religious boycotting
    Eileen Flynn - religious organised employment discrimination against women, unmarried people, divorced people which was effectively legal up until last year
    Northern Ireland - religious and political discrimination against minority communities in relation to housing, voting
    And pubs - please dont tell me you've never heard of pubs refusing travellers en masse

    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
    #190
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    L1011 wrote: »
    One of the biggest misconceptions out there. Irish doctors do not.

    There's more than Irish doctors working in Ireland and don't doctors still have to abide by a code of ethics mediated by their conscience?


  • Options
    #191
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    SVJKarate wrote: »
    Well, UKIP / BNP for example?

    Or the government of South Africa, by introducing Apartheid.

    Or the pubs in many Irish towns which refuse to serve travellers?

    The argument which suggests that this Printers firm did not supply this product is only valid if they do not print wedding invitations. I've no idea whether or not they do, but if they do then they cannot employ the argument that this was not a product they supplied.

    Would it ever be considered a valid argument if they refused to print invitations for a black or mixed-race couple?

    The business is essentially refusing to sell a variation of a product - should they be compelled in all circumstances to provide all variations of the product to everyone?

    And travellers are discriminated against as a class - pubs and other businesses refuse to serve them outright - where's the evidence this business refused outright to serve the couple in question? Did the printers say "you can't have anything we sell" or "you can have anything you want but we don't provide the service you require to anyone"?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jawgap wrote: »
    There's more than Irish doctors working in Ireland and don't doctors still have to abide by a code of ethics mediated by their conscience?

    They have to obey the law. When you start bringing personal ethics in to something you lose all ability to have standards.

    Individual hospitals or other medical practices may have ethics codes; but the Medical Council Professional Standards are law.

    The business here is a printers. It provides printing services. There is no way they can try and claim they don't provide printing services to anyone as, well, they wouldn't exist.

    The variation argument is the hair-splitting I said would be all the arguments for the business would boil down to - and the legislation covers it as its such an obvious argument.


  • Options
    #193
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,933 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Jawgap wrote: »
    The business is essentially refusing to sell a variation of a product
    Thats extreme semantics to be honest. Its effectively the same product.

    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
    #194
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    L1011 wrote: »
    They have to obey the law. When you start bringing personal ethics in to something you lose all ability to have standards.

    Except I didn't say "personal ethics" I said "code of ethics"

    Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics 8th Edition


  • Options
    #195
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Thats extreme semantics to be honest. Its effectively the same product.

    On such things actions succeed or fail.


  • Options
    #196
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Except I didn't say "personal ethics" I said "code of ethics"

    Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics 8th Edition

    "Individual conscience" = "personal ethics" in my view.

    The Medical Councils code is legislation. Personal ethics are irrelevant.


  • Options
    #197
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,933 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Jawgap wrote: »
    On such things actions succeed or fail.

    Show me an action that succeeded before the equality tribunal or workplace relations commission using that line of argument.

    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
    #198
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jawgap wrote: »
    On such things actions succeed or fail.

    And the legislation was written to ensure that such hair-spitting could not be used to try discriminate, thankfully.

    And as I predicted, the argument is now a circular hair-splitting debate. Which isn't going to be solved until someone takes a prosecution as we'll still have the same re-definitioners and hair-splitters at it until then.


  • Options
    #199
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    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.

    They only sell heterosexual wedding invitations - I am assuming that the homosexual couple in question was free to buy them without discrimination.

    No discrimination unless the shop refused because of the sexuality. if the shop doesn't supply non-Christian goods that is just life.

    Go to a shop that sells what you want. No-one was refused on the grounds of sexuality.

    Sexuality is not a brand or product, nor is it an entitlement of extra services or goods because of your sexuality card. You get treated the same as anyone else - that is the equal status act.


  • Options
    #200
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    L1011 wrote: »
    And the legislation was written to ensure that such hair-spitting could not be used to try discriminate, thankfully.

    And as I predicted, the argument is now a circular hair-splitting debate. Which isn't going to be solved until someone takes a prosecution as we'll still have the same re-definitioners and hair-splitters at it until then.

    hair splitting is a bit of an understatement. One post compared not serving gay marriage invitations to not serving pro ISIS posters

    very disheartening thread to be honest.


  • Options
    #201
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    L1011 wrote: »
    They have to obey the law. When you start bringing personal ethics in to something you lose all ability to have standards.

    Individual hospitals or other medical practices may have ethics codes; but the Medical Council Professional Standards are law.

    The business here is a printers. It provides printing services. There is no way they can try and claim they don't provide printing services to anyone as, well, they wouldn't exist.

    The variation argument is the hair-splitting I said would be all the arguments for the business would boil down to - and the legislation covers it as its such an obvious argument.

    Section 49 of the Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics
    Conscientious objection
    49.1 You may refuse to provide or to take part in the provision of lawful treatments or forms of care which con ict with your sincerely held ethical or moral values.
    49.2 If you have a conscientious objection to a treatment or form of care, you should inform patients, colleagues and your employer as early as possible.
    49.3 When discussing these issues with patients, you should be sensitive and considerate so as to minimise any distress your decision may cause. You should make sure that patients’ care is not interrupted and their access to care is not impeded.
    49.4 If you hold a conscientious objection to a treatment, you must:
    • inform the patient that they have a right to seek treatment from another doctor; and
    • give the patient enough information to enable them to transfer to another doctor to get the treatment they want.
    49.5 If the patient is unable to arrange their own transfer of care, you should make these arrangements on their behalf.
    49.6 In an emergency, you must make your patient’s care a priority and give necessary treatment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Section 49 of the Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics

    And?

    Relevance to your original claim is lacking here.


  • Options
    #203
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Section 49 of the Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics

    what does this prove?


  • Options
    #204
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    dissed doc wrote: »
    They only sell heterosexual wedding invitations - I am assuming that the homosexual couple in question was free to buy them without discrimination.

    No discrimination unless the shop refused because of the sexuality. if the shop doesn't supply non-Christian goods that is just life.

    Go to a shop that sells what you want. No-one was refused on the grounds of sexuality.

    Sexuality is not a brand or product, nor is it an entitlement of extra services or goods because of your sexuality card. You get treated the same as anyone else - that is the equal status act.

    There is no such concept as a "heterosexual wedding" in Irish law - there are weddings. They refused service based on sexuality.

    Hair-splitting and redefining do not get around this - and this is only argument we've got here, rehashed by every poster and ignoring the fact its irrelevant.


  • Options
    #205
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Show me an action that succeeded before the equality tribunal or workplace relations commission using that line of argument.
    L1011 wrote: »
    And the legislation was written to ensure that such hair-spitting could not be used to try discriminate, thankfully.

    And as I predicted, the argument is now a circular hair-splitting debate. Which isn't going to be solved until someone takes a prosecution as we'll still have the same re-definitioners and hair-splitters at it until then.

    Then I expect we'll see the first refusal come up for a hearing any day now.


  • Options
    #206
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Then I expect we'll see the first refusal come up for a hearing any day now.

    Did you ignore the post explaining to you how someone has to actually take a prosecution? Or are you just unaware of that bit of the legislation (as well as the rest, as your posts show)

    They didn't. Hence there won't be a hearing.


  • Options
    #207
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    L1011 wrote: »
    And?

    Relevance to your original claim is lacking here.

    Just showing that my original assertion that professionals can refuse 'service' on the basis of a genuinely held conscientious objection.


  • Options
    #208
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Just showing that my original assertion that professionals can refuse 'service' on the basis of a genuinely held conscientious objection.

    what about 49.6?

    kinda trumps the rest of it.


  • Options
    #209
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,899 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Just showing that my original assertion that professionals can refuse 'service' on the basis of a genuinely held conscientious objection.

    Except when legislation over-rules, as it does in the case of medical professionals in most cases (notice the bits about interruptions, access to care, emergencies etc etc). It basically gives doctors the option to not perform, say, a tubal ligation when there is another doctor in the building that can do it.

    And it over-rules in this case also. And I'm pretty sure they have a staff member willing to press print even if one doesn't.


  • Options
    #210
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    L1011 wrote: »
    There is no such concept as a "heterosexual wedding" in Irish law - there are weddings. They refused service based on sexuality.

    Hair-splitting and redefining do not get around this - and this is only argument we've got here, rehashed by every poster and ignoring the fact its irrelevant.

    But they don't sell the product being asked for!

    Why go to a Christian printing shop? They are happy to serve all people within the equal status act, but they don't have a product for this couple, because they only sell Christian products!

    Whining like a child who is demanding sweets while walking around a B&Q, is what this sounds like.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    WindomEarle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 47 ✭WindomEarle


    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? Really? You could count on one or maybe two hands the number of cases taken by the Authority - Portmarnock Golf Club, Louise Hannon and a few more. Hardly 'highly' - but anyone can take an equality case at any time, without needing legal advice.


Advertisement