Christian business right to refuse pro choice/gay wedding related work

morebabies

I asked this in the Christianity section, just wanted to ask for opinions here too please.

Example - Christian printing business owner asked to print pro choice fliers, etc., or gay wedding/Pride parade leaflets/signage, but feels they cannot in good conscience accept the business. Even if they respectfully refuse the customer, they are possibly in danger of a protracted and expensive legal case accusing them of discrimination... would this be correct?

So I'm wondering if in the following scenario, would they avoid a legal case:

If they accept the work, but let the customer know at the point of sale that due to the owner's beliefs they would rather not take the order, but if the customer wishes to proceed, they will be donating all monies from the sale to either a pro life group, as in the first example, or the Iona Institute. Is this legally ok, or could a strong case for discrimination result, even if said business owner made clear they had no ill will towards the customer, but disagreed with the issue being promoted.

coylemj

morebabies wrote: »

If they accept the work, but let the customer know at the point of sale that due to the owner's beliefs they would rather not take the order, but if the customer wishes to proceed, they will be donating all monies from the sale to either a pro life group, as in the first example, or the Iona Institute. Is this legally ok, or could a strong case for discrimination result, even if said business owner made clear they had no ill will towards the customer, but disagreed with the issue being promoted.

What he does with the profits is his own business, I doubt that such a strategy would work. And there isn't really any legal issue involved.

Victor

morebabies wrote: »

Example - Christian printing business owner asked to print pro choice fliers, etc., or gay wedding/Pride parade leaflets/signage, but feels they cannot in good conscience accept the business. Even if they respectfully refuse the customer, they are possibly in danger of a protracted and expensive legal case accusing them of discrimination... would this be correct?

There was a recent case before the WRC where a cake business refused a 'Christian' cake due to pressure of work. Decisions was it was non-discriminatory.

Refusing all political / religious messages would also be non-discriminatory.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

uck51js9zml2yt

Fred Swanson wrote: »

A bit like a pub, I can bar anyone I like and not give a reason. That is legal. If I give a reason and that reason is discriminatory then I could be in trouble.
The same would apply to anyone selling something. They can just refuse to sell to someone and give no reason.

That was my take on it in the Christianity forum.

The problem with Asher's and the place in drogheda was they gave a reason.

But saying that , I know 2 solemnisers who are deregistering as they don't want to be in a position where they have to refuse a gay marriage.

coylemj

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're effectively claiming that a publican can simply refuse anyone he chooses and as long as he doesn't declare why to their face, it gives him some kind of immunity which is not correct.

Every publican knows that you can't refuse to serve someone because he's a traveller so none of them is going to be daft enough to give a reason but several publicans have had findings against them by the equality agency because the agency found that in certain cases the refusal was precisely for that reason (member of the travelling community) so it constituted illegal discrimination.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

How would a traveler prove it was discriminatory if no reason was given?

Don't they all have a sign that says "they have The right to refuse admission".

No reason needed,my pub my rules.

The main problem is lipoy bouncers stating reasons when they shouldn't.

But no one has to accept business if they don't want it. A simple "I'm sorry but I do not want this business you are proposing,have a good day"
If they ask why just repeats that line until they leave. Nothing illegal there

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GerardKeating

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If the only people refused were travelers, and settled folk in a worse state than them were admitted, they could/should be able to make a good case in court.

coylemj

lifeandtimes wrote: »

No reason needed,my pub my rules.

The main problem is lipoy bouncers stating reasons when they shouldn't.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would appear to be the situation. The case linked to below was going well for the pub at the equality agency hearing, nobody mentioned a door policy concerning travellers until the manager wandered into a classic case of stereotyping and shot himself in the foot.

The manager said there had been a very serious incident involving Travellers in the pub in 1998, and the woman's appearance reminded him of someone involved in that incident.

He didn't even suggest that she was one of the people involved in the trouble a few years earlier - her 'appearance' reminded him of one of them, they were travellers so she must be a traveller so we're not serving her.

Four Travellers refused service in pub are awarded €4,500

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This creates a hurdle, but not necesarily an insurmountable hurdle. For example, if the plaintiff can establish a consistent patter of refusing service to women/gays/Jews/Travellers/whatever, he can invite the tribunal to infer from this pattern, plus the defendant's refusal to explain or justify it, that people are being refused service on one of the prohibited grounds.

The plaintiff has the burden of proof, but it's a balance-of-probabilities burden. This is not necessarily a burden that can only be discharged with confession evidence.