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
  • 20-10-2016 11:22am
    #1
    duffman3833
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/firm-refuses-to-print-invites-to-gay-wedding-for-second-time-35145587.html

    i have nothing against same sex couples but im backing the shop owners in their decision. There are a lot of very religious people out there still and if they don't want to accept the business due to their beliefs then that's OK too.
    Is the women been attention seeking as a lot of people mentioned in the indo comments or were the business owners wrong to refuse her.
    In today's world we are expected to accept pretty much everything, change is happening and people need to accept it, but not all people want to
    Tagged:


«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    baby and crumble
    Registered Users Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭baby and crumble


    I wouldn't be backing the shop owners in their decision because it's a stupid, and bigoted decision I reckon, but good luck to them. They're only going to loose business from it.

    It's rare enough to be newsworthy, we've had nothing but excitement and congratulations from any and all vendors we've approached for ours. Most folks in the trade- especially those specifically courting the wedding trade (as opposed to these guys who seem to be a general printing service so probably get their main money from corporate gigs) know it's stupid to refuse jobs for this reason.


  • Options
    #3
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,366 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Can pubs still turn away travellers?
    Can I turn away business because of skin colour?
    If the company is run according to bigoted religious beliefs, should all potential customers not be informed of this before they go in?


  • Options
    #4
    duffman3833
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭duffman3833


    from a business point of view, its not a great idea to refuse them, but for the owners themselves, its their beliefs and they shouldn't be forced to change their beliefs because the world is changing. Its great to see people still holding onto their religious beliefs as its slowly fading away


  • Options
    #5
    baby and crumble
    Registered Users Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭baby and crumble


    duffman3833 wrote: »
    from a business point of view, its not a great idea to refuse them, but for the owners themselves, its their beliefs and they shouldn't be forced to change their beliefs because the world is changing. Its great to see people still holding onto their religious beliefs as its slowly fading away

    I dunno though. You could say the same about racists. But I think they SHOULD be forced to.

    Likewise, there's a lot of folks who would quite like to see all other religious beliefs except their own be challenged.


  • Options
    #6
    Atomicjuicer0
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭Atomicjuicer0


    OP is so poorly written it seems like a strawman but let me say that I agree that forcing artistic expression against the moral values of an employee shouldn't be encouraged.

    I can imagine an artist forced to create propaganda against their ethical values and then later put to trial for not opposing.

    Which is it? "Only following orders" or anything goes if you want to keep a job?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    FAILSAFE 00
    Registered Users Posts: 5,417 ✭✭✭FAILSAFE 00


    duffman3833 wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/firm-refuses-to-print-invites-to-gay-wedding-for-second-time-35145587.html

    i have nothing against same sex couples but im backing the shop owners in their decision. There are a lot of very religious people out there still and if they don't want to accept the business due to their beliefs then that's OK too.
    Is the women been attention seeking as a lot of people mentioned in the indo comments or were the business owners wrong to refuse her.
    In today's world we are expected to accept pretty much everything, change is happening and people need to accept it, but not all people want to

    LOL, they choose that shop deliberately. Everyone out this way and most of the country knows about the previous incident where the shop wouldn't print invites for a gay wedding.

    It's most likely trouble makers trying to kick off again at the same place.


  • Options
    #8
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,147 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    baby and crumble wrote: »
    But I think they SHOULD be forced to.

    Do you really want to live in a country where people are forced to do things against their beliefs just because they go against your beliefs.
    If they don't want to make the cards leave them to their own devices. What your suggesting is straight up facism.


  • Options
    #9
    baby and crumble
    Registered Users Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭baby and crumble


    Atomicjuicer0 wrote: »
    OP is so poorly written it seems like a strawman but let me say that I agree that forcing artistic expression against the moral values of an employee shouldn't be encouraged.

    I can imagine an artist forced to create propaganda against their ethical values and then later put to trial for not opposing.

    Which is it? "Only following orders" or anything goes if you want to keep a job?

    In all honesty, printing pre-designed invitations for an event that is 100% legal is NOT the same as being forced to create propaganda. To conflate the two is nonsensical.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Do you really want to live in a country where people are forced to do things against their beliefs just because they go against your beliefs.

    If they don't want to make the cards leave them to their own devices. What your suggesting is straight up facism.

    What I make no bones about is being disgusted by people who will, for example, view other human beings as less than them, or "wrong", not for a choice they make that may be morally questionable (ie murder, theft, etc.), but for something they cannot change, like the colour of their skin or their sexuality.

    I also said in my original response to this thread that I don't have a problem with them refusing business- that's their own look out. I do have a problem with someone holding on to prejudicial beliefs that are harmful to society because of something that cannot be proven (i.e. a religious belief).


  • Options
    #10
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Do you really want to live in a country where people are forced to do things against their beliefs just because they go against your beliefs.
    If they don't want to make the cards leave them to their own devices. What your suggesting is straight up facism.

    The firm doesn't want people having same-sex marriages. They want to force (gay) people to do something against their beliefs (get married to same sex) because it goes against the firms beliefs. So are they fascist also?

    People are forced to do things against their beliefs all the time, it's why we have so many laws - people believe they should be able to do things, but their beliefs have been deemed to be damaging to society so they don't get to act on them.
    If the firm was refusing because of race or nationality, would you be defending them?


  • Options
    #11
    8mv
    Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭8mv


    I think the firms reasons for refusing to print are outdated and archaic in this instance, but I would defend their right to refuse business if they find it offensive, however ridiculous it seems to me. What if the print job was coming from the other end of the spectrum, from some anti-immigration organisation, or the Westboro baptists or some event posters that objectified women or advocated blood sports - things that I find repulsive. Should they be legally obliged to print those as well?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    duffman3833 wrote: »
    but for the owners themselves, its their beliefs and they shouldn't be forced to change their beliefs because the world is changing.

    Nobody is trying to force them to change their beliefs. Printing wedding invitations is not likely to have any effect on their beliefs at all.


  • Options
    #13
    irish_goat
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 5,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭irish_goat


    Don't understand why a gay couple would want to give this business their money when there's plenty of other printing shops who'll welcome them with open arms any day of the week.


  • Options
    #14
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    8mv wrote: »
    I think the firms reasons for refusing to print are outdated and archaic in this instance, but I would defend their right to refuse business if they find it offensive, however ridiculous it seems to me. What if the print job was coming from the other end of the spectrum, from some anti-immigration organisation, or the Westboro baptists or some event posters that objectified women or advocated blood sports - things that I find repulsive. Should they be legally obliged to print those as well?

    They should be legally obliged to quote for or print anything that itself is legal.


  • Options
    #15
    Hoboo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    irish_goat wrote: »
    Don't understand why a gay couple would want to give this business their money when there's plenty of other printing shops who'll welcome them with open arms any day of the week.


    Exactly!! I could give multiple reasons WHY they would do it, but all are assumptions so will refrain. Non story, and should have been told as much by the journalist.


  • Options
    #16
    Conall Cernach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,936 ✭✭✭Conall Cernach


    Splitting hairs here I know, but I think, at first glance, that this could be a case where the business is not refusing the order based on the sexuality of the customer (though they probably are in all honesty) but rather on the product they are being asked to produce. Or at least that is what they are arguing. So in that case it is not like refusing to serve a traveller in a pub but it is more like refusing to serve a particular brand of beer in a pub to anyone e.g. "we don't do Carlsberg here".

    If the business refused to print, say, birthday invites for a gay customer but would print them for a straight customer then that is obviously discriminatory. But since the marriage equality act all weddings are now treated similarly under the law so I imagine that there is no "we don't do gay weddings" defence available. If they'd print wedding invites for a straight wedding then surely they can have no reasonable excuse for not printing ones for a gay wedding. Unless they can show that they only do church wedding invites or some such.


  • Options
    #17
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,147 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    People are forced to do things against their beliefs all the time, it's why we have so many laws - people believe they should be able to do things, but their beliefs have been deemed to be damaging to society so they don't get to act on them.
    If the firm was refusing because of race or nationality, would you be defending them?

    I'm defending their right to run their business as they see fit, most print shops would print them just for profit, this business has a religious belief that goes against their faith.
    What your suggesting is bringing in a law to force them to conform. That's a massive step backwards.
    I'm more pro freedom of choice than equality.
    The girls are free to have their wedding and the printer is free to print what he likes and doesn't like, that's a free society, I'd take that over a future of your perception of equality any day.


  • Options
    #18
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I'm defending their right to run their business as they see fit,.

    No one has the right to run their business 'as they see fit ' , just according to the law .


  • Options
    #19
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,147 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    marienbad wrote: »
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I'm defending their right to run their business as they see fit,.

    No one has the right to run their business 'as they see fit ' , just according to the law .

    Which law is this that states everybody is entitled to be serviced by a private business?


  • Options
    #20
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Which law is this that states everybody is entitled to be serviced by a private business?

    That's not what I said , but if you do decide to run a business than you must do so according to the law and that includes the laws on discrimination


  • Options
    #21
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,147 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    marienbad wrote: »
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Which law is this that states everybody is entitled to be serviced by a private business?

    That's not what I said , but if you do decide to run a business than you must do so according to the law and that includes the laws on discrimination

    Hence we have a problem, your putting God against the laws of man. God usually wins, we have blasphemy laws here, is the girl not insulting his beliefs?
    There's a pair or them in it, neither of them should be given any air or print time.
    She's had to go to another shop, he's lost some profit we don't need laws to define how that situation must play out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I'm defending their right to run their business as they see fit, most print shops would print them just for profit, this business has a religious belief that goes against their faith.
    What your suggesting is bringing in a law to force them to conform. That's a massive step backwards.
    I'm more pro freedom of choice than equality.
    The girls are free to have their wedding and the printer is free to print what he likes and doesn't like, that's a free society, I'd take that over a future of your perception of equality any day.

    You are just repeating your assertions, you haven't actually answered my questions:
    If the firm was refusing because of race or nationality, would you be defending them?


  • Options
    #23
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    baby and crumble wrote: »
    I wouldn't be backing the shop owners in their decision because it's a stupid, and bigoted decision I reckon, but good luck to them. They're only going to loose business from it.

    It's rare enough to be newsworthy, we've had nothing but excitement and congratulations from any and all vendors we've approached for ours. Most folks in the trade- especially those specifically courting the wedding trade (as opposed to these guys who seem to be a general printing service so probably get their main money from corporate gigs) know it's stupid to refuse jobs for this reason.
    Jesus (sic) you'd think that they'd just give a PFO quote if I don't wanna work for someone I just quote triple and if they go with it may arvice makes me get over it


  • Options
    #24
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Which law is this that states everybody is entitled to be serviced by a private business?

    Nine so they should just quote much higher and there you go
    Sayin it's no because of reasons is bad business


  • Options
    #25
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,147 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are just repeating your assertions, you haven't actually answered my questions:
    If the firm was refusing because of race or nationality, would you be defending them?

    If it was state run then no, this is private so I believe it's up to the owner, it's his business and he should be able to choose who he does business with on his time in his premises. If you don't like how he runs his business then don't go there.
    We don't need a law to force him to deal with people that go against his deeply held political or religious beliefs.
    If the Gay cake controversy was Martin McGuinness trying to force Ashers to make a tiocfaidh ar la cake who are a norther protestant family(i think there not can't remember the exact religion) and they refused, what's your opinion?
    This isn't something you can fix with an equality law it's about giving people freedom of choice.
    We should be reinforcing laws about choice not creating ones based on equality but not fairness or reason.


  • Options
    #26
    baby and crumble
    Registered Users Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭baby and crumble


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    If it was state run then no, this is private so I believe it's up to the owner, it's his business and he should be able to choose who he does business with on his time in his premises. If you don't like how he runs his business then don't go there.

    I really think that kind of attitude is what contributes to major exclusion in society.


  • Options
    #27
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,147 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    baby and crumble wrote: »
    I really think that kind of attitude is what contributes to major exclusion in society.

    So what's your solution? have you read animal farm?


  • Options
    #28
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,502 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #29
    baby and crumble
    Registered Users Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭baby and crumble


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    So what's your solution? have you read animal farm?

    The fictional childrens book? Yes, yes I have.

    As for my solution, it's fairly simple. Don't be a dick. It's how I live my life in general. It make no difference to me who a person is, who they sleep with or what way they spend their spare time so long as you act in a decent and humane way to your fellow humans and living creatures.

    That means be religious all you want, don't use it to denigrate another person. Nobody is inherently better than me, or worse than me because I am one religion and they are not.

    Advocate for "free speech" all you want, but know that that doesn't mean spewing hate and discrimination is ok.

    Tolerate other peoples ways of living, but don't think you're "right" and they're "wrong". In particular when it comes to providing services to people. I totally understand that these are just my opinions, and you have yours. That's cool. But I will always advocate for fairness and equality over someone not having access to something everyone else has because of sexuality, gender, race or some other thing.

    It's not rocket science.


  • Options
    #30
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    Quote 20k for the job. Problem solved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    If it was state run then no, this is private so I believe it's up to the owner, it's his business and he should be able to choose who he does business with on his time in his premises. If you don't like how he runs his business then don't go there.

    What if, instead of being one of several printers, it was the only food shop for miles around? What if it was the last taxi driver of the night or a doctors surgery? To what extent should ones bigotry be defended?
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    We don't need a law to force him to deal with people that go against his deeply held political or religious beliefs.

    What difference does it make that the belief is religious or political in origin? That doesn't make it more or less thought out, or more or less bigoted.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    This isn't something you can fix with an equality law it's about giving people freedom of choice.
    We should be reinforcing laws about choice not creating ones based on equality but not fairness or reason.

    "Because I want to" is not a reason to enshrine something in law.


Advertisement