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
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

1…3132343637…57

Comments

  • #992
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    The printers are in the clear so ........ they refused to print the material because of the material's content ........ didn't see that on your list :confused:
    They don't understand. They don't understand that a law forcing a private business to print those wedding invitations could just as easily be a law forcing that business to print homophobic leaflets or invitations to a lynching of black people.


  • #993
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Nomis21 wrote: »
    "They can't legally refuse to supply goods or services to a person because of their

    Gender: this means man, woman or transsexual"


    The gay sauna, The Boilerhouse, in Dublin, does not allow women to enter.

    Not even gay women.

    Are not they themselves discriminating on the basis of gender?

    (They don't allow transexuals either)

    Don't bother that falls on deaf ears, Many examples Of discrimination from the other side, is met with having a safe environment to express sexuality and all that.


  • #994
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    The printers are in the clear so ........ they refused to print the material because of the material's content ........ didn't see that on your list :confused:

    No

    He is offering a service of printing and has refused to provide that service under 2 of the 9 grounds.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #995
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    K4t wrote: »
    They don't understand. They don't understand that a law forcing a private business to print those wedding invitations could just as easily be a law forcing that business to print homophobic leaflets or invitations to a lynching of black people.

    Printing leaflets promoting a lynching of black people would be illegal under the incitement to hatred act 1989.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #996
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    No

    He is offering a service of printing and has refused to provide that service under 2 of the 9 grounds.

    Has this been the Ruling in a court of law ? Or is it an opinion ?


  • Advertisement
  • #997
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Has this been the Ruling in a court of law ? Or is it an opinion ?

    An opinion but it's very clearly stated by the printer themselves anyway.

    This idea about "content" or "material" would never be accepted by the equality tribunal

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #998
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    No

    He is offering a service of printing and has refused to provide that service under 2 of the 9 grounds.
    Ugh, you're so wrong, but this is the danger when you discriminate against a group of people for so long, a group which you are a part of. If myself or any other straight person walked in to that business and asked for those invitations to be printed, we'd be refused as well. If myself and a gay person walked in and asked for invitations to be printed for our respective birthday parties, we'd be provided with that service.


  • #999
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Were your wedding invites a political cause when they were printed?

    I (or more accurately my now wife) wasn't happy with the first print which resulted in a dispute between ourselves and the printer ......... we didn't feel the need to go to the media, campaign on social media or turn our dispute into a political cause.


  • #1000
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    An opinion but it's very clearly stated by the printer themselves anyway.

    This idea about "content" or "material" would never be accepted by the equality tribunal

    How would anyone know this ? Another opinion.


  • #1001
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Printing leaflets promoting a lynching of black people would be illegal under the incitement to hatred act 1989.
    What good is that law when the state is forcing the private business to print the leaflets! And you could just change it to racist leaflets anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #1002
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    Wouldn't be so sure about that.
    Yeah it's simplified,but it's the meat and bones of it.

    No it's not ........ I support the stance (although not the beliefs) of the printer yet I'm not a homophobe hidden or otherwise.


  • #1003
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Would you like to join us?

    bjork you'd better book that sauna!

    ROAD TRIP EVERYONE!! :D

    I bags the back seat on the bus, who's with me? :)

    No thanks - you already take up way too much text space already ;)


  • #1004
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Nomis21 wrote: »
    "They can't legally refuse to supply goods or services to a person because of their

    Gender: this means man, woman or transsexual"


    The gay sauna, The Boilerhouse, in Dublin, does not allow women to enter.

    Not even gay women.

    Are not they themselves discriminating on the basis of gender?

    (They don't allow transexuals either)

    Yes. I am opposed.


  • #1005
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    Pedro Gonzalez wrote: »
    I'm asking an honest question and if you think I'm taking the piss,you're incorrect.
    Nevertheless,I'll stop contributing here and sorry you think that way.

    If you've an issue with any mod action, send us a PM - posting on thread draws it off topic.


  • #1006
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »

    This idea about "content" or "material" would never be accepted by the equality tribunal
    So in your world, a person who walks into a printing business and asks for homophobic leaflets to be printed, and is refused due to the owner's belief that there is nothing wrong or unnatural about homosexuality, can take the business owner to court for sexual discrimination if the customer considers themselves gay!


  • #1007
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    No

    He is offering a service of printing and has refused to provide that service under 2 of the 9 grounds.

    In your opinion .......... where your argument (and opinion) falls down is the fact that you're wrong .......... you can't interpret the law to fit your own personal point of view.


  • #1008
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Yes. I am opposed.

    So when can we expect the papers and social media to be calling for this Discrimination to stop immediately ? Or as I have a sneaking suspicion, Would be asked for them to have there day in court. And not to jump to conclusions in interpreting the law.


  • #1009
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    K4t wrote: »
    They don't understand. They don't understand that a law forcing a private business to print those wedding invitations could just as easily be a law forcing that business to print homophobic leaflets or invitations to a lynching of black people.

    No - very simply one was an invite to a celebratory event / civil union

    The printers print them all the time. The business name even means 'married'!

    THE OTHER EXAMPLE

    would be classified as incitement to hatred and could be refused

    Get it?


  • #1010
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    The crowd the hung the flag outside the offices are the usual rent a mob

    Drogheda Community Resistance

    Their main issue is water, but they diversity Mission: To encourage and assist a grassroots fightback to austerity and water charges on every road and every street.


    It's not half Ironic that they claim>> “no consent, no contract” to Irish water then you don’t have to pay the water charge.


  • #1011
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    How would anyone know this ? Another opinion.

    Read the relevant legislation ...


  • Advertisement
  • #1012
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    K4t wrote: »
    So in your world, a person who walks into a printing business and asks for homophobic leaflets to be printed, and is refused due to the owner's belief that there is nothing wrong or unnatural about homosexuality, can take the business owner to court for sexual discrimination if the customer considers themselves gay!

    No. That makes no sense.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1013
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    gozunda wrote: »
    Read the relevant legislation ...

    And my interpretation would count for what ? The only interpretation that counts is the judges in the relevant civil case.


  • #1014
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    In your opinion .......... where your argument (and opinion) falls down is the fact that you're wrong .......... you can't interpret the law to fit your own personal point of view.

    Thats laughable

    On the one hand you dismiss my opinion. On the other you give your opinion. Utterly laughable.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1015
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    gozunda wrote: »
    No - very simply one was an invite to a celebratory event / civil union

    The printers print them all the time. The business name even means 'married'!

    THE OTHER EXAMPLE

    would be classified as incitement to hatred and could be refused

    Get it?
    When the state decides it can force people to support certain beliefs, laws such as incitement and so on, they don't matter any more! Get it?


  • #1016
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Thats laughable

    On the one hand you dismiss my opinion. On the other you give your opinion. Utterly laughable.

    I didn't offer my opinion of your list ......... I just pointed out the fact that none of the 9 people listed covers discrimination of material goods in of themselves.


  • #1017
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    K4t wrote: »
    When the state decides it can force people to support certain beliefs, laws such as incitement and so on, they don't matter any more! Get it?

    Who are "they"?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1018
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I didn't offer my opinion of your list ......... I just pointed out the fact that none of the 9 people listed covers discrimination of material goods in of themselves.

    Yes. You presented an opinion that what happened was not illegal. Not a fact. Merely your opinion. You are interpreting the law to suit your opinion and point of view. Something you accused me of doing. Thats why it's so laughable.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1019
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Yes. You presented an opinion that what happened was not illegal. Not a fact. Merely your opinion. You are interpreting the law to suit your opinion. Something you accused me of doing. Thats why it's so laughable.

    Yup it is, That's why the aggrieved People in the story should have gone the legal rout before seeking the Wrath of the Internet. This could be ruled either way, That's how the law works. If it had been a case that was ruled on it may have been received a lot better. At the moment it just looks like a political stunt. And maybe even a grab for free stuff.


  • #1020
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    No. That makes no sense.
    Yes, it does, though I can see how you might not understand. You've lost all sense of objectivity here.

    For example, say a gay person asks a business to print leaflets in opposition to the 1993 decriminalising of homosexuality. And the business owner refuses to carry out the request due to his own belief that it was the correct decision to make homosexuality legal. The gay customer is very unhappy that his request has been declined and decides that he was discriminated against because of his sexuality. Now you, I and everyone else know that he was not discriminated against in anyway. Yet in the case in Drogheda somehow you are adamant that the person was discriminated against because of his sexuality, even though the principles of the case are the same.
    If you think the business in Drogheda should have been forced by law to print the invitations, then you also think the business should have been forced to print the homophobic leaflets. If you think the gay guy in Drogheda was discriminated against, then you must also think the gay guy in the example was discriminated against.


  • Advertisement
  • #1021
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,874 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gozunda wrote: »
    I'm glad you are not writing on paper - there would be none feking left :rolleyes: can you reduce the diatribes please?


    I'm glad I'm not writing on paper either, technology has come a long way in enabling a person with dyslexia to dictate lengthy diatribes, though at this point, bog roll may indeed be a more suitable medium :pac:

    I have ALREADY explained that homophobia is a not a "basic principle" of Christianity imo. I have read the bible myself believe it or not and its not there. Sorry!


    And I have already explained to you that your ideas about Christianity are at best misguided. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by denying one of the most commonly accepted principles of Christianity. I'm not going to start quoting scriptures and bore the tits off everyone here, you'll simply have to accept that your ideas about Christianity don't jig with the printers religious beliefs.

    As I said not all christians would refuse such an order. Therefore the fracking TV is irelevant get it? Tv + christian does not equal friggin fundamentalist ok?


    So now you're gone from "It wasn't obvious that the printers were religious" to "any evidence which points to the fact that they were religious is irrelevant!".

    Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

    Ah your getting your fundamentalist mixed up. But yeah refusing something as simple as a piece of printed paper because of religous belief is fairly fundamental. Btw christians actually first adopted the word 'fundamentalism' for themselves before it was applied to other religions - bet you didn't know that!


    "Even when it was the Creationists, it was the Evangelists"... splitters!

    "Refusing a piece of paper", where do you come up with this stuff? You wonder then why half the time it's difficult for me to take you seriously. If you're not talking about refusing pieces of paper to gay black unmarried mothers, you're finagling over the minutae of flat screen tv's and your own interpretation of the Bible.

    As I said give your conscience a break and don't encourage those social media justice warriors. Put down the laptop and stop the prosecution complex.


    There's no persecution complex here I assure you, unlike the stench of persecution complex off a salon owner who went looking to kick up a stink and incite hatred among the general public for a person with religious beliefs.

    Your words - your message - don't expect anyone else to do your dirty work.
    I don't know if the salon owner is a Christian - maybe while your there you could ask him?


    What does it matter if the salon owner is or isn't a Christian? Is that some sort of justification you're offering to excuse his attitude and his behaviour towards another human being? I don't think you need religion to tell you how not to behave like an asshole.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement