Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

shruikan2553 · 07-03-2015 12:09PM

A business can do whatever it wants but if the public decides they want nothing to do with that business and it eventually closes down then they are in the wrong?

MadDog76 · 07-03-2015 12:39PM

Akrasia wrote: »

So you're not going to explain your reasons for opposing gay marriage then?

On this thread? No ........... I'm not going to go off topic.

I will say this .......... I'm not homophobic but I will be voting No in the referendum ........... a printer can refuse to print certain material without discriminating against any one individual/group ......... ie. the printer would refuse to print said material for any individual/group regardless of that individual/group's race, religious beliefs, sexuality, culture etc.

gozunda · 07-03-2015 01:57PM

DeadHand wrote: »

If the company were such rabid homophobic bigots why did they happily deal with the man for four years?

He wasn't refused on the grounds of being gay, he was refused on the grounds that the material would support indirectly a political cause (gay marriage is still a political cause) that people within the company found totally at odds with their personal convictions. I certainly wouldn't print material promoting Sharia law in Ireland or any Catholic misery from the Iona institute. Not because I despise all Muslims and Catholics for being what they are but because I firmly oppose those causes. If a printing company run overwhelming by homosexuals refused to print material supporting a No vote in the upcoming referendum would anyone bat an eyelid? Doubtful.

In a free democracy, people should be just as free to follow the courage of their own convictions as they are to live happily and openly with any sexual orientation they may possess. Irregardless of how distasteful or wrong some others may find those convictions or orientations.

Hope that people within this company don't become subjected to the type of cowardly, personalised vitriol we've seen suffered by people in a similar position from unthinking, bovine "social justice" warriors. Abuse that eventually led them to lose their jobs and businesses. Abuse through a new medium but of a similar dogmatic character that we'd have seen against anyone defying Catholic teaching in the last century.

New dogma. New technology. New direction. Still a herd.

Worp Worp Wrong.

The customer requested some printed invites for a civil union. Civil unions are indeed legal in Ireland! An invite to a civil union is no more supporting a 'political cause' than a McDonalds menu supports hand gliding.

I especially like your association of some civil union invites with sharia law and the sproutings of the Iona institute (sic). It certainly shows an extreme bias and a complete lack of understanding.

As to the rest of your statement. You reveal an inherent bias in your stance with the statement that "Abuse through a new medium ... of a similar dogmatic character that we'd have seen against anyone defying Catholic teaching in the last century."

It would appear that you believe that both the RCC and the printers in this case should somehow be above any criticism or comment.

Personally I am happy that the law prohibits such discriminatin and hope that the printers face the full implications of such behaviour.

gozunda · 07-03-2015 02:24PM

Since the beginning of this thread, I have wondered about the origin of the printers business name . Like the Gay cake issue in NI, where the bakery is called Ashers and refers to an archaic piece of text in the Old Testement, the printers in the case called their business Beulah, another archaic biblical reference.

Now despite having read the bible many times the names of neither business names would impart immediate or even considered recognition. That said of course people can name businesses anything they like, but it doesn't carry that the average person in the street is going to make any religous association. I know I certainly didn't and the only Bula(gh) I was aware of was Bula Mines. Obviously no relation.

Now a strange thing about this, is that the two religious business who have made a stand against SSM (any coincidence?) both appear to have similar biblically derived names.

Now I had to look it up but the name 'Beulah' according to relevant sources is indeed a bible reference and appears to mean 'married' ( I kid you not). Now maybe the printers in question Specialises in wedding type stationary but the fact that a company called 'Married' would come out with a statement that they are vehemently against Same Sex marriage is contextually very deep!

http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/beula

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2011/01-24c.htm

MadDog76 · 07-03-2015 03:03PM

gozunda wrote: »

Worp Worp Wrong.

The customer requested some printed invites for a civil union. Civil unions are indeed legal in Ireland! An invite to a civil union is no more supporting a 'political cause' than a McDonalds menu supports hand gliding.

I especially like your association of some civil union invites with sharia law and the sproutings of the Iona institute (sic). It certainly shows an extreme bias and a complete lack of understanding.

As to the rest of your statement. You reveal an inherent bias in your stance with the statement that "Abuse through a new medium ... of a similar dogmatic character that we'd have seen against anyone defying Catholic teaching in the last century."

It would appear that you believe that both the RCC and the printers in this case should somehow be above any criticism or comment.

Personally I am happy that the law prohibits such discriminatin and hope that the printers face the full implications of such behaviour.

Civil Unions of same-sex couples does support the theory of Gay Marriage which the printer is opposed to (as his is right) so why should he be forced (for money or any other reason) to go against his own moral compass?

The whole point of the discussion on this thread is if the printer's stance in this case was legal or not ......... you believe it is definitely covered under discrimination laws, I believe it is not.
The truth is probably in the grey which will come down to opinion ......... the only opinion that will really matter is that of the presiding Judge in the case ......... if the case even makes it to court at all which I personally doubt.

It's going to be a difficult argument for any presiding Judge .......... on the one side you will have a lawyer saying "my client did not discriminate against this four year long customer, he felt he could not in good conscience go against his own religious beliefs, to force him to do otherwise would impinge on his beliefs would in effect be religious discrimination ........" the opposing lawyer will say "my client was discriminated against simply because he is homosexual" .......... it's 50/50 as to what the Judge's opinion will be when weighing up all the facts of the case.

Specialun · 07-03-2015 03:07PM

gozunda wrote: »

Since the beginning of this thread, I have wondered about the origin of the printers business name . Like the Gay cake issue in NI, where the bakery is called Ashers and refers to an archaic piece of text in the Old Testement, the printers in the case called their business Beulah, another archaic biblical reference.

Now despite having read the bible many times the names of neither business names would impart immediate or even considered recognition. That said of course people can name businesses anything they like, but it doesn't carry that the average person in the street is going to make any religous association. I know I certainly didn't and the only Bula(gh) I was aware of was Bula Mines. Obviously no relation.

Now a strange thing about this, is that the two religious business who have made a stand against SSM (any coincidence?) both appear to have similar biblically derived names.

Now I had to look it up but the name 'Beulah' according to relevant sources is indeed a bible reference and appears to mean 'married' ( I kid you not). Now maybe the printers in question Specialises in wedding type stationary but the fact that a company called 'Married' would come out with a statement that they are vehemently against Same Sex marriage is contextually very deep!

http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/beula

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2011/01-24c.htm

Im not the first cousin of a church goer and i knew beulah is a name associated with jeresulam and christanity. Just because you didnt know it please dont assume the average person doesnt just to suit your agenda

keanosbeard · 07-03-2015 03:19PM

Meanwhile, in The US and A

" Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, recently received a notice of a complaint alleging discrimination. She told the Associated Press and KUSA-TV that the complaint stemmed from a customer's visit on March 2014 in which he asked for Bible-shaped cakes. The customer asked that Silva inscribe anti-gay messages, such as "God hates gays," onto the cakes and include an image of two men holding hands crossed out by a large X.

Silva reportedly refused to write the messages, although she said she would finish the cakes and provide the customer with icing and a pastry bag so he could write the messages himself.

The customer, who KUSA-TV identified as Bill Jack, filed a complaint to the civil rights division of Colorado's Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). Jack told KUSA-TV, "I believe I was discriminated against by the bakery based on my creed. As a result, I filed a complaint with the Colorado civil rights division. Out of respect for the process, I will wait for the director to release his findings before making further comments."

DORA is currently reviewing the case, but a decision isn't expected for at least a couple months, according to KUSA-TV. "

gozunda · 07-03-2015 03:52PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Civil Unions of same-sex couples does support the theory of Gay Marriage which the printer is opposed to (as his is right) so why should he be forced (for money or any other reason) to go against his own moral compass?

"Civil unions support the theory" - really? do explain how such disjointed logic can be used to refuse am order for some printed invites to a private celebratory occasion for a civil cermony for two people. The point I was arguing against that such an invite was for a private event and NOT a political cause.

MadDog76 wrote: »

[The whole point of the discussion on this thread is if the printer's stance in this case was legal or not ......... you believe it is definitely covered under discrimination laws, I believe it is not.
The truth is probably in the grey which will come down to opinion ......... the only opinion that will really matter is that of the presiding Judge in the case ......... if the case even makes it to court at all which I personally doubt.

It's going to be a difficult argument for any presiding Judge .......... on the one side you will have a lawyer saying "my client did not discriminate against this four year long customer, he felt he could not in good conscience go against his own religious beliefs, to force him to do otherwise would impinge on his beliefs would in effect be religious discrimination ........" the opposing lawyer will say "my client was discriminated against simply because he is homosexual" .......... it's 50/50 as to what the Judge's opinion will be when weighing up all the facts of the case.

Many posters here have opined that looking at the law as it stands that s finding of discrimination is very likley. That aside of course you are welcome to your opinion regardless of the law as it stands.? Btw in the first instance there will be no 'court' and no 'presiding judge':rolleyes: the issue will most likley go before an Equality Tribunal where an Equality Officer will make a final determination based on the current law and the submissions made. As for statistics it is important to remember that at least 50% of all statistics are made up in the spot ...

gozunda · 07-03-2015 04:03PM

Specialun wrote: »

Im not the first cousin of a church goer and i knew beulah is a name associated with jeresulam and christanity. Just because you didnt know it please dont assume the average person doesnt just to suit your agenda

Was that before you checked its up online? Btw can you point out the Jerusulam reference from the following?

Buggered if I can find it. You must be a bit of a biblical scholar ...

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-62-4/

But yes not too many people I knew have actually read the bible in its entirety
And as it is OT it would not be a well known text.

Oh btw exactly what 'is my agenda' - I didn't know I had one - is that mentioned in the bible as well?

DeadHand · 07-03-2015 04:04PM

gozunda wrote: »

Worp Worp Wrong.

The customer requested some printed invites for a civil union. Civil unions are indeed legal in Ireland! An invite to a civil union is no more supporting a 'political cause' than a McDonalds menu supports hand gliding.

I especially like your association of some civil union invites with sharia law and the sproutings of the Iona institute (sic). It certainly shows an extreme bias and a complete lack of understanding.

As to the rest of your statement. You reveal an inherent bias in your stance with the statement that "Abuse through a new medium ... of a similar dogmatic character that we'd have seen against anyone defying Catholic teaching in the last century."

It would appear that you believe that both the RCC and the printers in this case should somehow be above any criticism or comment.

Personally I am happy that the law prohibits such discriminatin and hope that the printers face the full implications of such behaviour.

Making some prejudicial, personal assumptions about me there. Ironic from someone ostentatiously on the "tolerant" side.

I didn't compare civil unions to anyone's sproutings, I used examples to make the point that people should not be compelled by law to propagate any information that is at odds with their personal beliefs.

Civil unions could still be linked with the gay marriage cause. If not, people should still not be compelled to promote institutions or laws they disagree with. I disagree with many of this country's laws. I should be free not to promote these laws if I so wish.

In the end, this company did not hang the man from a lampost. They did not encourage others to do so. They politely refused an order on principle. The principle being an opposition to an institution (same sex civil unions), not an inherent opposition to homosexuals in general (they dealt with the man for four years).

I believe people should be free to stick to their principles, within reason, without fear of persecution by the state. You, on the other hand, seem eager to see people punished for possessing beliefs that are distasteful to you. For thought crime.

So which of us is really the tolerant liberal?

MadDog76 · 07-03-2015 04:07PM

gozunda wrote: »

"Civil unions support the theory" - really? do explain how such disjointed logic can be used to refuse am order for some printed invites to a private celebratory occasion for a civil cermony for two people. The point I was arguing against that such an invite was for a private event and NOT a political cause.

Many posters here have opined that looking at the law as it stands that s finding of discrimination is very likley. That aside of course you are welcome to your opinion regardless of the law as it stands.? Btw in the first instance there will be no 'court' and no 'presiding judge':rolleyes: the issue will most likley go before an Equality Tribunal where an Equality Officer will make a final determination based on the current law and the submissions made. As for statistics it is important to remember that at least 50% of all statistics are made up in the spot ...

The printer's belief's are also not political, they are religious ......

Just as many posters (actually more) have opined that this is not a case of discrimination under the law ......... in any case it will come down the opinion of the Judge or Equality Officer or whoever if it ever gets that far.

Specialun · 07-03-2015 04:15PM

gozunda wrote: »

Was that before you checked its up online? Btw can you point out the Jerusulam reference from the following?
Buggered if I can find it. You must be a bit of a biblical scholar ...

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-62-4/

But yes not too many people I knew have actually read the bible in its entirety
And as it is OT it would not be a well known text.

Oh btw exactly what 'is my agenda' - I didn't know I had one - is that mentioned in the bible as well?

Your on this thread for the last 2 days, more than likely you have posted over 30 times. You have completely ignored facts and completely disregarded the statement of one of the parties involved, its clear as the nose on your face what your agenda is..but hey ho you keep pretending there kid, knock yourself out.

gozunda · 07-03-2015 04:55PM

DeadHand wrote: »

Making some prejudicial, personal assumptions about me there. Ironic from someone ostentatiously on the "tolerant" side.

No that was as read and no I am not tolerant of the use off such associations for bizarre comparisons with extreme fundamentalism or beliefs.

DeadHand wrote: »

I didn't compare civil unions to anyone's sproutings, I used examples to make the point that people should not be compelled by law to propagate any information that is at odds with their personal beliefs.

You used extreme comparisons such as sharia law and the Iona institute, which both are example of extreme belief systems as opposed to a simple invite to a (legal) civil union.

DeadHand wrote: »

Civil unions could still be linked with the gay marriage cause. If not, people should still not be compelled to promote institutions or laws they disagree with. I disagree with many of this country's laws. I should be free not to promote these laws if I so wish.

You can link anything to anything else but that does not make it a valid argument. The printer was not asked to 'promote anything' they were asked to print a simple invite. I wonder does the same printer refuse to do business with single parents and children born out of wedlock or are they just hopping on the anti SSM bandwagon??

DeadHand wrote: »

In the end, this company did not hang the man from a lampost. They did not encourage others to do so. They politely refused an order on principle. The principle being an opposition to an institution (same sex civil unions), not an inherent opposition to homosexuals in general (they dealt with the man for four years).

The printers came out and made a clear statement that they did not support SSM nothing about civil unions. They also refused a customer an order for a service that they supply to other customers. Btw there is no evidence that the printer was aware of the customers sexuality before this order. But don't let detail like that bother you.

DeadHand wrote: »

I believe people should be free to stick to their principles, within reason, without fear of persecution by the state. You, on the other hand, seem eager to see people punished for possessing beliefs that are distasteful to you. For thought crime.
So which of us is really the tolerant liberal?

I personally believe that businesses should operate within the legal framework the same as other business and not discriminate against others by reason of bigotry. I also believe you should await further developments before attempting to climb to the moral high ground as I believe you will find it will quickly dissolve into quicksand around such blatent bias. And to answer your question I do not find your opinions either "tolerant or liberal"

bjork · 07-03-2015 05:01PM

I was in a pub last night with a big Statue of St. Bernadette sitting on the bar

I said to himself >> We better get out of here quick before the swat team from the Equality Authority storm the building

Oddly enough, they never arrived and nobody complained > Everyone just got on with their drinks

gozunda · 07-03-2015 05:04PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

The printer's belief's are also not political, they are religious ......

Just as many posters (actually more) have opined that this is not a case of discrimination under the law ......... in any case it will come down the opinion of the Judge or Equality Officer or whoever if it ever gets that far.

Your point is? DeadHand made the statement that the invites "would support ... a political cause". The printers beliefs are immaterial to the point I made.

Again it will come down to the submissions made by each party and the equality officer. I would suggest you read up on some previous cases.

gozunda · 07-03-2015 05:10PM

Specialun wrote: »

Your on this thread for the last 2 days, more than likely you have posted over 30 times. You have completely ignored facts and completely disregarded the statement of one of the parties involved, its clear as the nose on your face what your agenda is..but hey ho you keep pretending there kid, knock yourself out.

Btw there is a close line between attacking a post and attacking the poster. I asked you what you believed 'my agenda' was supposed to be that you accused me of. An answer would be appreciated. Oh by the way you also didn't answer my question about/ regarding Jerusalem and Beulah. I would appreciate an answer to that question as well. Thanks

gozunda · 07-03-2015 05:17PM

bjork wrote: »

I was in a pub last night with a big Statue of St. Bernadette sitting on the bar

I said to himself >> We better get out of here quick before the swat team from the Equality Authority storm the building

Oddly enough, they never arrived and nobody complained > Everyone just got on with their drinks

Is St. Bernadette not a 'she'? Has she gone transgender by any chance? Good for Bernadette

bjork · 07-03-2015 05:21PM

gozunda wrote: »

Is St. Bernadette not a 'she'? Has she gone transgender by any chance? Good for Bernadette

No it was herself > Himself is the lucky lad that had the pleasure of my company.

BTW there were a few transgenders in the bar, some gay people and some straight people, and many religions and not one person complained they were offend and demanded it be removed.

But then maybe round here we believe in live and let live

Annasopra · 07-03-2015 05:24PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Will the equality authority be pursuing this printing business?

The customer would have to request them to do so

Annasopra · 07-03-2015 05:29PM

Riskymove wrote: »

The law does not force or oblige anyone or any business to accept the order of the next customer who walks in the door

Well it depends but in some cases it does.

MadDog76 · 07-03-2015 05:32PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Well it depends but in some cases it does.

Which cases exactly???

lazybones32 · 07-03-2015 05:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Well it depends but in some cases it does.

Such as?...If the Printers were funded by the Public purse, they would be obliged but I can't see how a private business is compelled to accept a request.

Annasopra · 07-03-2015 05:42PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

What law have they broken though. They can just say we do not provide a service for something that is illegal in this country no?

Civil partnership isn't illegal

bjork · 07-03-2015 06:04PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Civil partnership isn't illegal

Neither is having a sauna

One eyed Jack · 07-03-2015 06:08PM

gozunda wrote: »

No that was as read and no I am not tolerant of the use off such associations for bizarre comparisons with extreme fundamentalism or beliefs.

gozunda what's extremist about one of the basic principles of Christianity? While I can understand you may not have been familiar with the origin of the printers' name, the flat screen tv when you walk in the door showing religious information might be a bit of a giveaway (a poster early in the thread provided this information). You can hardly claim you aren't familiar with Christian teaching on homosexuality?

You used extreme comparisons such as sharia law and the Iona institute, which both are example of extreme belief systems as opposed to a simple invite to a (legal) civil union.

In much the same way as you've used examples of extreme prejudice like what if they were black, if they were unmarried mothers, and the newest armageddon scenario - 'children born out of wedlock', as opposed to a simple refusal to print a simple invite to a (legal) civil partnership ceremony (point of note: Is it discrimination that civil partnerships are not available to heterosexual couples? Might want to get on that :rolleyes: ).

You can link anything to anything else but that does not make it a valid argument. The printer was not asked to 'promote anything' they were asked to print a simple invite. I wonder does the same printer refuse to do business with single parents and children born out of wedlock or are they just hopping on the anti SSM bandwagon??

"You can link anything to anything else but that does not make it a valid argument", and then you go on to link unmarried mothers and 'children born out of wedlock', to two men who want a printer to print invitations to their same-sex civil partnership ceremony. I'm struggling to keep my serious face on having even typed that.

And as for "hopping on the anti-SSM bandwagon", I'd say they've been there a while longer than the salon owner thought about marrying his boyfriend. I certainly don't think their objection to homosexual acts and same-sex relationships is a recent development :pac:

The printers came out and made a clear statement that they did not support SSM nothing about civil unions. They also refused a customer an order for a service that they supply to other customers. Btw there is no evidence that the printer was aware of the customers sexuality before this order. But don't let detail like that bother you.

Do you have any evidence that they provide civil partnership ceremony invitations to anyone? You're able to suggest that civil partnerships are the equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples (I was surprised nobody pulled you up on that, but then when you're saying all the right things, people tend to overlook the few times you'll put your foot in it!), but then you're able to make the point that civil partnerships are not the same as same-sex marriage so the printers were wrong. You just want to find the printers wrong either way, any way, and ignore evidence and tie yourself up in contradictory knots in doing so.

You're right about one thing - there is no evidence to suggest that the printer knew the customer was gay. There's also no evidence to suggest that the printers religious beliefs meant he had any issue with a person who is homosexual. I think the printers statement was fairly unambiguous, but you just chose to read it how it suited you and then jumped to your own conclusions without any form of evidence.

Speaking of evidence - as I pointed out earlier, there's no possible way the salon owner couldn't have known the printer was religious (all that's missing now is the candlestick maker

), given that the printers incorporate their religious beliefs in every aspect of their daily life.

I personally believe that businesses should operate within the legal framework the same as other business and not discriminate against others by reason of bigotry. I also believe you should await further developments before attempting to climb to the moral high ground as I believe you will find it will quickly dissolve into quicksand around such blatent bias. And to answer your question I do not find your opinions either "tolerant or liberal"

Beam in your own eye much?

(you may not recognise the biblical origin of that phrase either

)

Do you also believe that people who are LGBT should have obeyed the laws that made homosexuality illegal before 1993, y'know, since you believe people should obey the law and all?

Should we also call off the campaign for marriage equality and simply tell people the law is the law and if they just obey the law there won't be any problems?

Judge Dredd would love you

tonycascarino · 07-03-2015 06:13PM

60 pages on this?? Unbelievable

MadDog76 · 07-03-2015 06:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

gozunda what's extremist about one of the basic principles of Christianity? While I can understand you may not have been familiar with the origin of the printers' name, the flat screen tv when you walk in the door showing religious information might be a bit of a giveaway (a poster early in the thread provided this information). You can hardly claim you aren't familiar with Christian teaching on homosexuality?

In much the same way as you've used examples of extreme prejudice like what if they were black, if they were unmarried mothers, and the newest armageddon scenario - 'children born out of wedlock', as opposed to a simple refusal to print a simple invite to a (legal) civil partnership ceremony (point of note: Is it discrimination that civil partnerships are not available to heterosexual couples? Might want to get on that :rolleyes: ).

"You can link anything to anything else but that does not make it a valid argument", and then you go on to link unmarried mothers and 'children born out of wedlock', to two men who want a printer to print invitations to their same-sex civil partnership ceremony. I'm struggling to keep my serious face on having even typed that.

And as for "hopping on the anti-SSM bandwagon", I'd say they've been there a while longer than the salon owner thought about marrying his boyfriend. I certainly don't think their objection to homosexual acts and same-sex relationships is a recent development :pac:

Do you have any evidence that they provide civil partnership ceremony invitations to anyone? You're able to suggest that civil partnerships are the equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples (I was surprised nobody pulled you up on that, but then when you're saying all the right things, people tend to overlook the few times you'll put your foot in it!), but then you're able to make the point that civil partnerships are not the same as same-sex marriage so the printers were wrong. You just want to find the printers wrong either way, any way, and ignore evidence and tie yourself up in contradictory knots in doing so.

You're right about one thing - there is no evidence to suggest that the printer knew the customer was gay. There's also no evidence to suggest that the printers religious beliefs meant he had any issue with a person who is homosexual. I think the printers statement was fairly unambiguous, but you just chose to read it how it suited you and then jumped to your own conclusions without any form of evidence.

Speaking of evidence - as I pointed out earlier, there's no possible way the salon owner couldn't have known the printer was religious (all that's missing now is the candlestick maker ), given that the printers incorporate their religious beliefs in every aspect of their daily life.

Beam in your own eye much?

(you may not recognise the biblical origin of that phrase either )

Do you also believe that people who are LGBT should have obeyed the laws that made homosexuality illegal before 1993, y'know, since you believe people should obey the law and all?

Should we also call off the campaign for marriage equality and simply tell people the law is the law and if they just obey the law there won't be any problems?

Judge Dredd would love you

I take issue with this post .......... because I wish I had written it!!

Extremely well written to say the least ...........

Akrasia · 07-03-2015 07:12PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

On this thread? No ........... I'm not going to go off topic.

I will say this .......... I'm not homophobic but I will be voting No in the referendum

Its a shame.

I have yet to hear a coherent non homophobic, non religious reason to oppose gay marriage

I was hoping you might provide one

Annasopra · 07-03-2015 07:20PM

robindch wrote: »

No, they didn't. They refused to print a political message which they did not support.

Sorry what? Since when are civil partnership invitations a political message?

gozunda · 07-03-2015 07:21PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

gozunda what's extremist about one of the basic principles of Christianity? While I can understand you may not have been familiar with the origin of the printers' name, the flat screen tv when you walk in the door showing religious information might be a bit of a giveaway (a poster early in the thread provided this information). You can hardly claim you aren't familiar with Christian teaching on homosexuality?

To the best recall of my biblical knowledge I don't believe Jesus Christ ever had a go at homosexuals tbh. I certainly don't consider it a basic principle of "Christianity". Its certainly in the OT where they suggest stoning homosexuals and others. My point was that few of the general public would be aware that the Printers were fundamental Christians even with that archaic reference to the OT.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In much the same way as you've used examples of extreme prejudice like what if they were black, if they were unmarried mothers, and the newest armageddon scenario - 'children born out of wedlock', as opposed to a simple refusal to print a simple invite to a (legal) civil partnership ceremony

I knew this thread has been going on for a while and I cant blame you for getting a bit mixed up, but I was not using "examples of extreme prejudice"(!)) rather I asked a very valid question - if the printer refuses to do business with single parents and children born out of wedlock based on his fundamental beliefs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(point of note: Is it discrimination that civil partnerships are not available to heterosexual couples? Might want to get on that ).

I suggest you start a new thread on that if it bothers you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"You can link anything to anything else but that does not make it a valid argument", and then you go on to link unmarried mothers and 'children born out of wedlock', to two men who want a printer to print invitations to their same-sex civil partnership ceremony. I'm struggling to keep my serious face on having even typed that.

How many times and in how many ways can you ask the same question?
I asked a very valid question - if the printer refuses to do business with single parents and children born out of wedlock based on his fundamental beliefs. Thankfully children are no longer referred to as 'bastards' and I put it in a way that I've seen it in fundamentalists literature. Hilarious alright.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And as for "hopping on the anti-SSM bandwagon", I'd say they've been there a while longer than the salon owner thought about marrying his boyfriend. I certainly don't think their objection to homosexual acts and same-sex relationships is a recent development

I didn't say otherwise, but the accidental opportunity and time of this incident is highly unlikely imo.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

1)Do you have any evidence that they provide civil partnership ceremony invitations to anyone? 2) You're able to suggest that civil partnerships are the equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples (I was surprised nobody pulled you up on that, but then when you're saying all the right things, people tend to overlook the few times you'll put your foot in it!), but then you're able to make the point that civil partnerships are not the same as same-sex marriage so the printers were wrong 3) You just want to find the printers wrong either way, any way, and ignore evidence and tie yourself up in contradictory knots in doing so.

1) Who are providing civil partnerships?
2) Please provide reference
3) I've no need to find the printers 'wrong' The customer has already found that and I'm sure he will be taking it further if required

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right about one thing - there is no evidence to suggest that the printer knew the customer was gay. There's also no evidence to suggest that the printers religious beliefs meant he had any issue with a person who is homosexual. I think the printers statement was fairly unambiguous, but you just chose to read it how it suited you and then jumped to your own conclusions without any form of evidence.

You do go on ;. The customers statement and reaction is fairly self explanatory imo - I do not need to embellish that any further

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Speaking of evidence - as I pointed out earlier, there's no possible way the salon owner couldn't have known the printer was religious (all that's missing now is the candlestick maker ), given that the printers incorporate their religious beliefs in every aspect of their daily life.

I'm sure that will have to be demonstrated. Im sure you will be attending to give your absolute version of events for the benefit of the Equality Officer :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you also believe that people who are LGBT should have obeyed the laws that made homosexuality illegal before 1993, y'know, since you believe people should obey the law and all?

I'm sure they did, and where they didn't I'm sure there was prosecutions

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should we also call off the campaign for marriage equality and simply tell people the law is the law and if they just obey the law there won't be any problems?

I suggest again you start another thread on that rather than derail this one

OEJ - You appear every now and again to move between playing good cop / reasonable fellow with your opinions and arguments. And then launch into bad cop / extreme dito. Any reason for the dichotomy?

Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

Comments