The Hazards of Belief

MrPudding · 30-03-2013 06:08PM

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/29/printer-refuses-publish-gay-magazine

Charmers.

I think Mr Williamson may find himself in a spot of bother. Will be an interesting one to follow.

MrP

Gbear · 01-04-2013 01:44PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I think Mr Williamson may find himself in a spot of bother. Will be an interesting one to follow.

MrP

That sort of stuff really annoys me.

It should be entirely down to the printer to print what he wants and he shouldn't have to justify why.

This kind of overstepping the bounds tolerance is why "PC Brigade" gets irritatingly thrown around all the time.

TheChizler · 01-04-2013 02:06PM

Gbear wrote: »

That sort of stuff really annoys me.

It should be entirely down to the printer to print what he wants and he shouldn't have to justify why.

And in the same way it's entirely down to other customers if they want to give their business to people who openly refuse to publish certain types of media.

MrPudding · 01-04-2013 03:35PM

Gbear wrote: »

That sort of stuff really annoys me.

It should be entirely down to the printer to print what he wants and he shouldn't have to justify why.

This kind of overstepping the bounds tolerance is why "PC Brigade" gets irritatingly thrown around all the time.

If you are providing a service to the public, or you are an organ of the state, you are not allowed to discriminate on certain protected grounds. It really is quite simple. Homosexuality is one of those protected grounds. Where you discriminate you must justify why, and this is perfectly correct.

This has nothing to do with overstepping the bounds of tolerance. As a businessman he is bound by the equality act. And just like he could not refuse a job because the customer is black, he can't refuse because the customer is gay. The fact that he is too stupid/honest to hide the fact that he is discriminating on a protected ground is neither here nor there. The law is there to prevent discrimination. Do you not agree with reducing discrimination?

MrP

recedite · 01-04-2013 04:22PM

If it was a publican refusing to serve beer to a gay or black person, instead of a printer refusing to print, I think it would be easier for people to see that this is plain old discrimination. The principle is the same.

If Mr Robinson really didn't want to have his name associated with the LGBT community, all he had to do was submit a very high quote for the job, and then sit back and say nothing. But no, he wanted to be able to put it about to his buddies in his "faith" community that he had rejected the gay offer "as a matter of principle" which IMO is tantamount to incitement to hatred.
Hopefully he will now feel the full force of the law on his ass, as they say :pac:

01-04-2013 04:27PM

It's what he was asked to print rather than who asked that's the issue. I'm not too sure what law can be used to molest his ass.:rolleyes:

Galvasean · 01-04-2013 06:38PM

Aren't people working in shops like Boots etc. allowed refuse to sell contraceptives based on religious grounds? I think the printer could use the same defense in this situation. I think it's a somewhat bogus defense, but it seems to work.

Nodin · 01-04-2013 06:46PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Aren't people working in shops like Boots etc. allowed refuse to sell contraceptives based on religious grounds? I think the printer could use the same defense in this situation. I think it's a somewhat bogus defense, but it seems to work.

Presumably in Boots, someone else just handles the sale, where here ye have to feck off to an entirely different chemist, then go through the whole Nurofen plus interrogation again....

The Black Oil · 01-04-2013 09:26PM

Wouldn't someone then argue that their human rights, were undermined by having to against their personal beliefs in order to comply with equality legislation, and they weren't allowed to exercise freedom of conscience? At least, that is what seems to come across as a sticking point when some of these cases end up before the courts as the oppressed Christian routine gets thrown around...or something.

recedite · 02-04-2013 10:43AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's what he was asked to print rather than who asked that's the issue.

Good point, but you are getting dangerously close to the religious position of tolerating the homosexual "sinner", but not the sin itself. It seems that the material to be printed is not illegal, but it does involve taking homosexuality out of the closet.

Robinson will probably get away with it though, because if you plead "religious exemption" you can get away with all kinds of discrimination. Including relgious discrimination itself, for example in the hiring of teachers at a denominational school.
Someone can refuse to handle condoms at a chemist on religious grounds, but if the person working at a supermarket checkout refused to handle meat on the grounds that they were vegetarian, they would be sacked immediately.

MrPudding · 02-04-2013 11:32AM

Galvasean wrote: »

Aren't people working in shops like Boots etc. allowed refuse to sell contraceptives based on religious grounds? I think the printer could use the same defense in this situation. I think it's a somewhat bogus defence, but it seems to work.

There is a difference here though, and I think it is one that the courts are keen use. If a person believes that contraception is wrong then forcing them to provide contraception can be considered to be an unacceptable burden. They are, in effect, facilitating the wrong doing.

A printer, on the other hand, by printing a newsletter or magazine is not facilitating the act that is the subject of the material. It might be argued that by printing the magazine might, somehow, indirectly facilitate gay sex, but I would not expect the courts to find that particularly convincing.

To give a real world example, has anyone heard of the case of the two Glasgow midwives? They conscientiously objected to abortion and they took a case claiming that having to supervise other midwives that did work on abortions violated their human rights. The court did not agree, as they were not directly involved in the provisioning of abortions their conscientiously objection was not held to be violated.

MrP

Gbear · 02-04-2013 02:29PM

MrPudding wrote: »

This has nothing to do with overstepping the bounds of tolerance. As a businessman he is bound by the equality act. And just like he could not refuse a job because the customer is black, he can't refuse because the customer is gay. The fact that he is too stupid/honest to hide the fact that he is discriminating on a protected ground is neither here nor there. The law is there to prevent discrimination. Do you not agree with reducing discrimination?

MrP

Whether he wants to discriminate because they're gay, or because he doesn't like the look of them or because it's a fella who slept with his wife makes no odds to me. He should be allowed to print what he wants.

It's a bit like having a gentleman's club banned because they don't allow women in. Discrimination should be solely down to the person running the business and the reasons for doing so should be immaterial.

If you don't like it, go to another publisher.
The state, of course, has to represent it's citizens but a private business shouldn't.

SebBerkovich · 02-04-2013 02:36PM

Gbear wrote: »

Whether he wants to discriminate because they're gay, or because he doesn't like the look of them or because it's a fella who slept with his wife makes no odds to me. He should be allowed to print what he wants.

It's a bit like having a gentleman's club banned because they don't allow women in. Discrimination should be solely down to the person running the business and the reasons for doing so should be immaterial.

If you don't like it, go to another publisher.
The state, of course, has to represent it's citizens but a private business shouldn't.

I disagree, it's the governments job to ensure that no entity private or otherwise discriminates against it's citizens

If what you're saying where true then no private company would bother hiring women, because they might decided to have a kid and cost a poor harmless corporation money.

Gbear · 02-04-2013 03:20PM

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I disagree, it's the governments job to ensure that no entity private or otherwise discriminates against it's citizens

If what you're saying where true then no private company would bother hiring women, because they might decided to have a kid and cost a poor harmless corporation money.

Except they would, because women are worth hiring regardless.

And it's not like you can really police it. All you're stopping is them telling the candidate outright "we won't hire you because you're a women". That sort of discrimination happens regardless.

I don't think that it's the government's business to decide what opinions are or are not valid.

SebBerkovich · 02-04-2013 03:33PM

Gbear wrote: »

Except they would, because women are worth hiring regardless.

And it's not like you can really police it. All you're stopping is them telling the candidate outright "we won't hire you because you're a women". That sort of discrimination happens regardless.

I don't think that it's the government's business to decide what opinions are or are not valid.

Certain opinions are not valid. it's that simple. some people out there are stupid -really stupid. If someones stupid opinion has been proven overwhelmingly to harm other people or society in some way, it is not valid and the government should protect it's people with laws...

e.g. Hate crime legislation, equal pay act and work discrimination legislation.

The government has a right/mandate to protect it's citizens from other peoples bigotry.

02-04-2013 04:46PM

If I went in and asked for him to print the same gay stuff I'd likely be turned down, so it's pretty obvious that it's the material rather than the person he's discriminating against and I'm fine with that. If it was politics or football-related (can't choose that! :pac: ) or just about anything other than teh gays there'd be no issue and the person who had been turned down would sensibly say "**** you, I'm glad I'm not giving you my money."

Gbear · 02-04-2013 05:34PM

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Certain opinions are not valid. it's that simple. some people out there are stupid -really stupid. If someones stupid opinion has been proven overwhelmingly to harm other people or society in some way, it is not valid and the government should protect it's people with laws...

e.g. Hate crime legislation, equal pay act and work discrimination legislation.

The government has a right/mandate to protect it's citizens from other peoples bigotry.

First of all.. can open, worms everywhere. What on earth was I thinking getting into this debate.:p

You're quite correct that certain opinions are not valid. However, I don't trust the government to decide which is which. That they're deciding one particular opinion is verboten correctly isn't really important. The fact that they're correct is incidental. They could just as easily be wrong.

To give an example - once upon a time a government took it upon itself to regulate where people of different skin colour could go to the toilet or sit on a bus. Up until quite recently being gay was illegal. Were those decisions justified because they were popular?

I don't want governments to make better decisions in these circumstances. I don't want them to be the ones making the decisions at all because I don't trust them to.

joseph brand · 02-04-2013 06:04PM

Robertson: God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science.

On Monday’s episode of CBN’s The 700 Club, Robertson responded to a viewer who wanted to know why “amazing miracles (people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking) happen with great frequency in places like Africa, and not here in the USA?”

“People overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools,” the TV preacher laughed. “We’re so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out. We know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real.”

“We have been inundated with skepticism and secularism,” he conintued. “And overseas, they’re simple, humble. You tell ‘em God loves ‘em and they say, ‘Okay, he loves me.’ You say God will do miracles and they say, ‘Okay, we believe him.’”

“And that’s what God’s looking for. That’s why they have miracles.”

Seems legit! God awards ignorance.

Brian Shanahan · 02-04-2013 08:25PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Wouldn't someone then argue that their human rights, were undermined by having to against their personal beliefs in order to comply with equality legislation, and they weren't allowed to exercise freedom of conscience? At least, that is what seems to come across as a sticking point when some of these cases end up before the courts as the oppressed Christian routine gets thrown around...or something.

They'd fall foul of European human rights legislation, like the woman, Lillian Ladele, who refused to perform her registry duties in the case of same sex Civil Partnerships in the UK. And even that one* who "won" her case to wear religious iconography at work, only won because her employer, British Airways, in an effort to compromise with her had previoulsy changed their rules on wearing religious symbols. And it is interesting to note that no mention of her other cases, namely to proselytise aggressively to other BA employees, and "pray the gay" out of homosexual passengers, never got near the courts so laughable they were.

* I know the woman's name, but I won't darken myself to speak or type it.

Hotblack Desiato · 02-04-2013 10:22PM

Gbear wrote: »

Discrimination should be solely down to the person running the business and the reasons for doing so should be immaterial.

Right.
So would you be OK with a guest house owner refusing to accommodate a gay couple?
Or an inter-racial couple?
Or even just an unmarried heterosexual couple?
No blacks, no dogs, no Irish?

Telling a gay man there are other printers he can use is exactly the same as telling a black man there are other counters he can eat lunch at.

02-04-2013 10:27PM

ninja900 wrote: »

Right.
So would you be OK with a guest house owner refusing to accommodate a gay couple?
Or an inter-racial couple?
Or even just an unmarried heterosexual couple?
No blacks, no dogs, no Irish?

Telling a gay may there are other printers he can use is exactly the same as telling a black man there are other counters he can eat lunch at.

Again, you need to prove that it was because he was gay that the printer didn't want to do it rather than the material he wanted printed. If a printer/publisher is going to be compelled by law to print whatever someone requests then I think we're going down a very odd path given that the internets is going exactly the opposite way.

Hotblack Desiato · 02-04-2013 10:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, you need to prove that it was because he was gay that the printer didn't want to do it rather than the material he wanted printed. If a printer/publisher is going to be compelled by law to print whatever someone requests then I think we're going down a very odd path given that the internets is going exactly the opposite way.

They can and are compelled by law not to refuse business on the basis of an illegal form of discrimination.

Drawing a distinction between homosexuals (yay!) and homosexual acts (boo!) is exactly what the RCC does isn't it - it's OK to be gay but not to get a pro-gay leaflet printed? How is this position any different, or any more defensible, than the ludicrious RCC position?

02-04-2013 10:45PM

But it wasn't the sexual persuasion of the the client that was the issue, so I don't see how it's discrimination.

Hotblack Desiato · 02-04-2013 11:30PM

That was the point I was making in the second paragraph of my post. In practice I think the distinction being made is a false one, a smokescreen.

Cork Boy · 02-04-2013 11:34PM

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

If a printing press can refuse to print, say pro FF literature for FF, then he's ok me thinks.

Regarding the analogy to refusing a black man in a pub i think it's different because by refusing him a pint you are refusing him a service he would normally render to white customers.

If a straight man were to have printing services declined for a sex-ed mag on the basis that printing promotion of birth control isn't something the printer wants to do as he's a papist... would that be [illegal] discrimination?

Now, if he refused to print something for a gay person that he prints for a straight person - then he's in trouble.

I'm an atheist btw, very staunchly so.

02-04-2013 11:47PM

ninja900 wrote: »

That was the point I was making in the second paragraph of my post. In practice I think the distinction being made is a false one, a smokescreen.

So publishing a magazine is a typical homosexual act? I don't think so, it's something that an individual wanted to do, I don't think there's quite the same strength of correlation between being gay and publishing a gay-centric magazine and being gay and performing gay sexual acts.
I'm not gay though, I don't know what they get up to.

Hotblack Desiato · 03-04-2013 12:05AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So publishing a magazine is a typical homosexual act?

No, but there is legal precedent that a business (guesthouse) can't refuse service on the basis that they dislike homosexuality. I'm having difficulty seeing why it's then OK to refuse to print a leaflet with pro-gay content on the basis that the printer dislikes homosexuality.

I'm not gay though,

Glad you cleared that up :rolleyes:

03-04-2013 12:08AM

ninja900 wrote: »

No, but there is legal precedent that a business (guesthouse) can't refuse service on the basis that they dislike homosexuality. I'm having difficulty seeing why it's then OK to refuse to print a leaflet with pro-gay content on the basis that the printer dislikes homosexuality.

Is the legal precedent to with liking/disliking the person rather than the service being sought? I can't believe you can't see any difference.
Do you think if the potential customer had been looking to get something about fishing published that there would have been an issue? The issue appears to be with what he wanted published, not the fact that he is gay.

Hotblack Desiato · 03-04-2013 12:16AM

Actually the issue appears to be that the printer is a bigot, and thinks they can justify that with religion

now whether they can, under the law as it stands, remains to be seen but morally I think that what they are doing is wrong.

ShooterSF · 03-04-2013 03:34AM

joseph brand wrote: »

Robertson: God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science.

Seems legit! God awards ignorance.

You're talking about the same guy who punished people for eating from a tree of knowledge tbf.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments