nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Equality of marriage and love

Turtwig

Following on from here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056711797&page=244

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Odhinn

robindch wrote: »

Argh, *that* picture!

You won't be saying that when the Globalists turn you gay. Then again it might make it even worse - hard to call it.

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

You won't be saying that when the Globalists turn you gay. Then again it might make it even worse - hard to call it.

In fairness if the globalists did try to turn you gay one look at that picture would put a stop to it.

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In fairness if the globalists did try to turn you gay one look at that picture would put a stop to it.

It might assist the other half of the population in going gay though.

wench

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It might assist the other half of the population in going gay though.

Yep, definitely feeling some saphic urges after that...

Hotblack Desiato

Beulah Print have been rappeed on the knuckles by the WRC

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/firm-told-to-pay-gay-man-2-500-over-refusal-to-print-civil-ceremony-invites-1.3787055

A Co Louth print and design company has been ordered to pay €2,500 to a gay man over its refusal to print invites for his civil partnership ceremony.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that Beulah Print and Design discriminated against Jonathon Brennan on the grounds of sexual orientation under Section 3 of the Equal Status Act.

WRC adjudication officer Orla Jones stated that Beulah confirmed that its wedding invitation service was available to heterosexual couples which made clear that Mr Brennan could have availed of its if he was a heterosexual man.

“I am thus satisfied that in refusing to provide the service to the complainant the respondent did discriminate against the complainant on the ground of his sexual orientation.”

No drama, no gay cake nonsense, seems like an eminently sensible ruling to me... NI is a very abnormal place.

alan partridge aha

The North have it right.

Hotblack Desiato

The North have it far-right.

recedite

Don't forget that Asher's bakery were also slated by the NI equivalent to the Workplace Relations Commission, which is how the whole legal row started.

These kind of public bodies are staffed by graduates of social justice studies, gender studies, and the like. They live inside their own little bubble.

In the end, and after millions of quid of taxpayers money was wasted in numerous courts, Asher's won. And I'd expect Beulah to win in the end too. But don't hold your breath waiting.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Don't forget that Asher's bakery were also slated by the NI equivalent to the Workplace Relations Commission, which is how the whole legal row started.

These kind of public bodies are staffed by graduates of social justice studies, gender studies, and the like. They live inside their own little bubble.

In the end, and after millions of quid of taxpayers money was wasted in numerous courts, Asher's won. And I'd expect Beulah to win in the end too. But don't hold your breath waiting.

The two cases are not the same.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Don't forget that Asher's bakery were also slated by the NI equivalent to the Workplace Relations Commission, which is how the whole legal row started.

These kind of public bodies are staffed by graduates of social justice studies, gender studies, and the like. They live inside their own little bubble . . .

Seriously, rec, you are making this stuff up. You have no clue about the real world.

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The two cases are not the same.

The law here is very clear, Beulah discriminated on one of the specific grounds which is clearly illegal. If they have any sense they'll fold now.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

These kind of public bodies are staffed by graduates of social justice studies, gender studies, and the like.

[citation needed]

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The two cases are not the same.

No two cases are ever the same.

And here we also have two different jurisdictions, each with their own separate sets of legislation.

But the principles involved are very similar.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

No two cases are ever the same.

And here we also have two different jurisdictions, each with their own separate sets of legislation.

But the principles involved are very similar.

they're not. The case here was a case of very blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They refused to deal with anybody that was gay. that was not the case in the north.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they're not. The case here was a case of very blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They refused to deal with anybody that was gay. that was not the case in the north.

Both cases were allegedly "very blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".
Eventually the highest British court disagreed.

Time will tell how the Irish courts view these things.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Both cases were allegedly "very blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".
Eventually the highest British court disagreed.

Time will tell how the Irish courts view these things.

The difference being that ashers did not refuse service to somebody because of their sexual orientation. they refused, so they say, because of the message they wanted on a cake. that is very different to refusing somebody because they are gay. and the court in NI agreed.

recedite

The Beulah customer was often served before in the same shop, and presumably he was just as gay then.
So, yeah, its the same kind of principle. Its not the customer who is being refused, its the type of work.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

In the end, and after millions of quid of taxpayers money was wasted in numerous courts, Asher's won.

It wasn't really wasted. A legal principle which needed to be examined and established was examined and established. Which costs money. And the principle established will no doubt have widespread ramifications, beyond gay wedding cakes. Indeed, should it go to higher court here, I'd imagine the English ruling will be examined closely, even if informally, given Irish law a derivation of English law.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

The Beulah customer was often served before in the same shop, and presumably he was just as gay then.
So, yeah, its the same kind of principle. Its not the customer who is being refused, its the type of work.

Handy hard evidence to have in the event they decide to progress this up the courts. Which I'd guess they will. Otherwise they face a flood of specious wedding invite business..

.......

recedite wrote: »

The Beulah customer was often served before in the same shop, and presumably he was just as gay then.
So, yeah, its the same kind of principle. Its not the customer who is being refused, its the type of work.

Except the type of work, ie, wedding invites, are available for opposite sex couples.

If they want to be non discriminatory then they should be refusing wedding invite business for everyone.

But it is discriminatory, on the basis of sexual orientation, to refuse a type of printing that is available to heterosexual couples.

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

Except the type of work, ie, wedding invites, are available for opposite sex couples.

If they want to be non discriminatory then they should be refusing wedding invite business for everyone.

But it is discriminatory, on the basis of sexual orientation, to refuse a type of printing that is available to heterosexual couples.

Not according to the UK supreme court. It's the message/principle the bakers (and evidentially, the printers) object to involving themselves in. Not cakes or wedding invites per se.

Presumably the invites involved names of the betrothed. If they had been blank generic then the printer would be on a stickier wicket.

.......

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not according to the UK supreme court.

The case involving the NI bakers was a slightly different premise. In that case they disagreed with the slogan on the cake as it was a slogan supporting same sex marriage - which is not legally recognised in NI. If a heterosexual person had gone in and asked for the same cake message they would also have been refused.

Beulah Print werent asked to print a slogan for something not legal. They were asked to print wedding invitations for a legal ceremony. Such printing is available to other people - if they are heterosexual. I would be interested to know if it was simply the names on the invites that "gave the game away" that it was a same sex marriage. Because if they agreed to print such invites for "Tony and Fran" while thinking Fran was a woman but refused while thinking that Fran was a man then they quite clearly ARE refusing on the basis of sexual orientation.

I agree the cases are similar but I think the slight difference is key.

recedite

....... wrote: »

Beulah Print werent asked to print a slogan for something not legal.

You are barking up the wrong tree there. Campaigning for same sex marriage is not illegal in NI. In fact, a person's right to have their own political persuasion is specifically protected by anti-discrimination laws in NI, which is not the case in either RoI or in England.
Asher's bakery won the case because of the basic principle that a person cannot be compelled by the law to actively support something they don't personally believe in.
It does not matter whether SSM is legal or illegal, you cannot compel straight people to get involved in it when they don't want to.

.......

recedite wrote: »

You are barking up the wrong tree there. Campaigning for same sex marriage is not illegal in NI. In fact, a person's right to have their own political persuasion is specifically protected by anti-discrimination laws in NI, which is not the case in either RoI or in England.
Asher's bakery won the case because of the basic principle that a person cannot be compelled by the law to actively support something they don't personally believe in.
It does not matter whether SSM is legal or illegal, you cannot compel straight people to get involved in it when they don't want to.

I think you have entirely misunderstood my post.

I never said nor indicated that it was illegal to campaign for same sex marriage in NI. I said that same sex marriage was illegal in NI.

You can ignore the legal/illegal part of my post actually (I was simply making obversations on that aspect). The point I was making still stands:

Ashers - would not have printed the slogan on the cake for anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Bealuh - would have printed the exact same invites for a heterosexual couple.

recedite

....... wrote: »

I think you have entirely misunderstood my post.

I understood it.

....... wrote: »

You can ignore the legal/illegal part of my post actually

Ashers - would not have printed the slogan on the cake for anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Agreed.

Bealuh - would have printed the exact same invites for a heterosexual couple.

A heterosexual couple would not ask for the same invitations to be printed (for a same sex wedding) but if they did, they presumably would also be refused.

I think the salient point here is that homosexuals can expect certain things from wider society. The right to go about their business without being interfered with. But they cannot demand the approval of heterosexuals.
So, just as a heterosexual cannot nowadays prevent a same sex marriage, neither can they be compelled to participate in or support one in any way.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

I understood it.

OK
Agreed.
A heterosexual couple would not ask for the same invitations to be printed (for a same sex wedding) but if they did, they presumably would also be refused.

I think the salient point here is that homosexuals can expect certain things from wider society. The right to go about their business without being interfered with. But they cannot demand the approval of heterosexuals.
So, just as a heterosexual cannot nowadays prevent a same sex marriage, neither can they be compelled to participate in or support one in any way.

The printers were not asked for their approval. They were asked to print wedding invites and refused because both names were of the same sex. Blatant discrimination.

Hotblack Desiato

A white couple would not ask for the same invitations to be printed (for a black couple's wedding) but if they did, they presumably would also be refused.

I think the salient point here is that blacks can expect certain things from wider society. The right to go about their business without being interfered with. But they cannot demand the approval of whites.
So, just as a white person cannot nowadays prevent a black couple's marriage, neither can they be compelled to participate in or support one in any way.

Doesn't look so good now, does it? But sexual orientation is protected under law in the exact same way as ethnic origin is.

Your post is complete and utter bigotry. Homosexuals are not second-class citizens no matter how much you appear to think they are or wish they were.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Doesn't look so good now, does it? But sexual orientation is protected under law in the exact same way as ethnic origin is.
Your post is complete and utter bigotry. Homosexuals are not second-class citizens no matter how much you appear to think they are or wish they were.

Its not about people looking good, its about how much compulsion the law can use.
Supposing Joe Bloggs refuses to attend his sister's wedding because she is marrying a black man. Yes, you can call him a bigot in his absence, but you can't compel him to attend.

It gets much trickier with professional services rendered, but that is the legal and ethical knife edge we are talking about. If these issues were as "blatant" or clear-cut as some seem to think, they would not be making their way all the way up to the Supreme Court.

As already pointed out, the Beulah "victim" was a regular customer, and had never been refused the print services that Beulah normally provides.

.......

recedite wrote: »

A heterosexual couple would not ask for the same invitations to be printed (for a same sex wedding) but if they did, they presumably would also be refused.

What makes wedding invites for a same sex wedding different for wedding invites for an opposite sex wedding? Genuine question?

How would you know the wedding invites were for a same sex couple other than the peoples names on the invites?

Generally wedding invites follow the format:

"Such and Such would like to invite you to celebrate the marriage and A and B at such a venue on such a date. Please RSVP by whatever date"

Nothing about the sexuality of the couples. Nothing about the fact that the marriage is a same sex marriage.

Do you think that weddings invitations are "different" for same sex couples? And in what way?

recedite

....... wrote: »

What makes wedding invites for a same sex wedding different for wedding invites for an opposite sex wedding? Genuine question?

That's a fair and very pertinent question. If a standard template was being used, and it was simply a question of inserting two names
(male, female, or one of each) then it would be very hard to show any difference. Which leads towards a conclusion of illegal discrimination.
If there is a certain amount of artistry and creativity involved, then it can be argued that this is a specialist service.

This "creativity" aspect came up in previous cases involving cakes in the USA, where it was generally ruled that the artisan can choose to apply their artistic talents, or not, depending on their own personal whims.