Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

bjork wrote: »

We can, but we can't force the lad in the Vatican to be head of it

Hey maybe I'll force you to be the head of my religion

No don't understand your point. We were talking about 'made up' religions.


You said:

Bjork wrote:

Sure, we can all make up our own religion and call it whatever we like.

There are many religions worldwide. Many have 'heads'. Perhaps you could clarify?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Bjork you do poorly enough in terms of dealing with what I have actually said to be wasting your time inventing patent untruths.

I never blamed Catholics. I was responding to Reprises point, that is all.

So who are you blaming?
Can you give us an example of a organisation or institution you feel do not discriminate against homosexuals?

bjork wrote: »

We were blaming the Catholics until it turned out the gay man identified as Catholic> although his own version, not the pope's version.

I believe he is a drogheda catholic, not the roman kind > I don't remember that split in the church, but there you go


Maybe we could still blame the roman catholic splitters?

There is no 'blame' imo. Catholicism has been raised but so has a host of other religions and the only reason we know one of the prospective couple is Catholic - is that he said it himself.

Many Catholics In Ireland don't follow every ordnance of the RCC - if they did why would many churches have falling congregations and falling number of clergy. This man is no different in not following or necessarily agreeing with every tenant of that faith. What I have seen is the presumption that the other party(s) are also Catholic. Remember that there are many variety of christians out there.

bjork wrote: »

Don't worry, that presumption is not made by me, I pointed out a few pages ago it was unknown if the printers were catholic.

He can pick and choose what bits of the catholism he wants, if he wants to identify as catholic, go for it. But as far as I am aware Catholics and Christians have the same stance on homosexual marriage. He can't complain when someone follows the rules of his club, just because he doesn't.

Ok I see what you are saying but that's not necessarily true. Many Christian denominations have varying views on homosexual marriage - one for example the Community of Christ.

The Community of Christ officially decided to extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples where gay marriage is legal, to provide covenant commitment ceremonies where it is not legal, and to allow the ordination of people in same-sex relationships to the priesthood.

http://www.cofchrist.org

Tbh an individuals religous convictions are private matters relevant to a persons private home life and in church. The customer was not using his religion as an excuse to complain about anything imo.

bjork wrote: »

We were blaming the Catholics until it turned out the gay man identified as Catholic> although his own version, not the pope's version.

I believe he is a drogheda catholic, not the roman kind > I don't remember that split in the church, but there you go


Maybe we could still blame the roman catholic splitters?

Oh yes of course,silly me.The Drogheda Catholics split from Rome when they rewrote the bible to suit there likings....
I believe there traditional dress includes a tinfoil hat....

bjork wrote: »

If the Mormons identify closer with his beliefs, then he should join them.

No that wouldn't work 100% either.While they don't see homosexuality as a sin per say,acting on the attraction is in there beliefs.Oh well we'll just have to keep looking for him I guess....

bjork wrote: »

if the Mormons identify closer with his beliefs, then he should join them.

If you look closer the community of Christ are Separate from the mainstream Mormon church (who all fall under the Christian umbrella)

We are not questioning his beliefs imo. You said

Bjork wrote:

But as far as I am aware Catholics and Christians have the same stance on homosexual marriage

That was just one example of variance of belief within 'Christianity' on SSM. So no not all catholics and christians (catholoics do belong to the christian tradition btw) have 'the same stance on SSM. And that even alone does not prevent any individual taking their own standing from any particular religion.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Who is blaming anyone? What has blame to do with my post.

You used the word blame,not I.But your right,you were being a bit dramatic and flamboyant there.Let me rephrase,If not Catholics,then who would you like to hold to account for the invitations that were refused to be printed on religious grounds?

bjork wrote: »

He is a hypocrite.
He is berating printer for his beliefs when he is a member of a club that believes the same.

That is your opinion and completly unwarranted imo. We do not know what 'club' the printer belongs to if any. The matter in question is to do with a business transaction governed by civil and business law. Not religion.

bjork wrote: »

If it's private, why did he put it in the national papers? Or is he following his version of privacy As well?

Who knows?

bjork wrote: »

It would be like me joining the hells angels and demanding they slow down because I can't keep up with them on my push bike, while secretly having a lot of high powered motorbikes at home.

No don't get that one either sorry. I think we need to leave the religion at home or in church / temple where it firmly belongs.

gozunda wrote: »

Removing any specific groups or beliefs and going back to the facts - there is an instance of a business making a statement refusing a customer a order or service on an aspect of their sexuality. Which if I understand correctly is covered by discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Or not, since the printer says he refused the order based on the nature of the event, and quite clearly said he wasn't against homosexuals.

Just so we don't lose sight of what actually happened

fran17 wrote: »

So one should ignore there beliefs and faith when outside the home and church?

That was not said.

fran17 wrote: »

no this is not.This is an instance of a man standing up for what he believes in.And an instance of another man not respecting that purely for publicity and lines on a newspaper.There is numerous publishing companies which he is free to avail of.

No simply the facts we know is that a customer walked into a shop and was refused custom. => that happened.

That both parties then publicised the matter was their decision.

The remainder is speculation

bjork wrote: »

The facts we know is that a customer walked into a printers and was refused custom because it was not a service the printer provided. => that happened.

No that has not been shown. The printer printed invites but he refused to print invites for a customer who is gay.

With regards religous belief and the workplace - you might be interested a fairly recent European Court of Human Rights Case that ruled:

Individual conscience or religious belief, however sincerely held, does not provide a free pass from the requirements of anti-discrimination law”,

“... the Court has drawn a bright line between this right to religious expression and attempts to use conscience or religion to justify discrimination. The State has a legitimate aim, indeed an obligation, to provide and facilitate equal access to services. As such, it is well within its rights to prohibit the withholding of services to same-sex couples, even if this is purportedly on the grounds of conscience or sincerely held religious belief”.

http://www.iccl.ie/news/2013/01/15/european-court-crucifix-case-draws-“bright-line”-between-religious-freedom-and-discrimination-says-iccl.html