Drogheda Printers Refuse To Print Same Sex Wedding Invitations

Rick_ · 05-03-2015 9:50pm #1

As per the title, and a similar case last year in the North, a company has refused to print or create material for a gay customer on the basis of their strongly held religious beliefs.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31753375

The usual lines are trotted out, including not wanting to support the "gay agenda" (we must stop doing that as a group) and also that the owners are incredibly religious, Christian, Bible loving people... (but just only the parts of the Bible that suit them, obviously).

*sigh*

Grandeeod · 05-03-2015 9:51pm

Sad. Very sad.

J_E · 05-03-2015 11:34pm

This one really did my head in...

jungleman · 05-03-2015 11:43pm

In fairness to our generation, (teenagers up to maybe 35, shall we say?) the majority of us are embarrassed and appalled when we read something like this. I'm just glad that in a few years time when I have kids, they won't have to be on the receiving end of any homophobia or social injustice like this. Well I would hope so anyway. Attitudes are changing and most if not all of the people I know in my own twenty-something age group have a strong social conscience and moral compass with these issues.

The actions of these printers is bigotry, plain and simple. They can dress it up and hide behind any sanctimonious religious reasoning they want, but they are still perpetrators of inequality and bigotry. It's just shameful. I live with a gay couple, and they are two of my best mates. To think that one day they might go somewhere, or do something, and be discriminated against because they love each other just makes me boil with anger.

Annasopra · 05-03-2015 11:55pm

J_E wrote: »

This one really did my head in...

Where was that?

Kalman · 05-03-2015 11:59pm

jungleman wrote: »

In fairness to our generation, (teenagers up to maybe 35, shall we say?) the majority of us are embarrassed and appalled when we read something like this. I'm just glad that in a few years time when I have kids, they won't have to be on the receiving end of any homophobia or social injustice like this. Well I would hope so anyway. Attitudes are changing and most if not all of the people I know in my own twenty-something age group have a strong social conscience and moral compass with these issues.

The actions of these printers is bigotry, plain and simple. They can dress it up and hide behind any sanctimonious religious reasoning they want, but they are still perpetrators of inequality and bigotry. It's just shameful. I live with a gay couple, and they are two of my best mates. To think that one day they might go somewhere, or do something, and be discriminated against because they love each other just makes me boil with anger.

Each to their own!

Ten of Swords · 06-03-2015 12:44am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where was that?

Belfast, it was a state run boys home that was closed in the 1980s. It was a huge scandal involving members of the RUC, military and the government.

Annasopra · 06-03-2015 1:32am

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Belfast, it was a state run boys home that was closed in the 1980s. It was a huge scandal involving members of the RUC, military and the government.

No I meant what website was the comment left on

jungleman · 06-03-2015 2:03am

Kalman wrote: »

Each to their own!

What's that supposed to mean? That it's okay to discriminate against someone if you feel like it?

Guffy · 06-03-2015 2:06am

Just use a different printers. Does this really need to be blown up by media?

jungleman · 06-03-2015 2:24am

gufc21 wrote: »

Just use a different printers. Does this really need to be blown up by media?

Well, yeah it does. It's homophobia - plain and simple. Do you think it would be okay if a black couple went into the printers and were turned away because their beliefs didn't agree with black people? "Just use a different printers" wouldn't really cut it in that scenario either.

gozunda · 06-03-2015 2:27am

Thread ongoing in AH

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057392013/11/#post94566009

Guffy · 06-03-2015 2:34am

jungleman wrote: »

Well, yeah it does. It's homophobia - plain and simple. Do you think it would be okay if a black couple went into the printers and were turned away because their beliefs didn't agree with black people? "Just use a different printers" wouldn't really cut it in that scenario either.

Well people have no problem with it if its a black taxi driver, travellers in a pub, etc. This one man is homophobic. So what. He holds whatever religious beliefs he has and doesn't want to, in his eyes, support a gay wedding. Particularly now in a referendum year. Just use a different printers and leave him off.

Scratch thyst. Read into it more, its the wedding he wouldn't print for. He has printed for him in the past so not homophobic, just objects to same sex marriage.

jungleman · 06-03-2015 3:00am

gufc21 wrote: »

Well people have no problem with it if its a black taxi driver, travellers in a pub, etc. This one man is homophobic. So what. He holds whatever religious beliefs he has and doesn't want to, in his eyes, support a gay wedding. Particularly now in a referendum year. Just use a different printers and leave him off.

Yeah you're right, let's just lay off black taxi drivers being racially abused or gay couples being turned away by businesses. Who cares?

Daith · 06-03-2015 10:10am

gufc21 wrote: »

Just use a different printers. Does this really need to be blown up by media?

It was blown up on social media, then the media.

Sure how else would people know not to use them for their business?

If someone refused to print a birthday card for a child born out of wedlock would that be ok?

rainbow kirby · 06-03-2015 10:30am

gufc21 wrote: »

Just use a different printers. Does this really need to be blown up by media?

Absolutely, let people vote with their wallet. I for one wouldn't want to financially support a printer who behaved like this one.

Rick_ · 06-03-2015 10:40am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No I meant what website was the comment left on

It's a Facebook post.

Alarmingly, whilst looking through his profile, I see one of his pictures was liked by a friend of mine. Small world. I wonder if she knows about his narrow mindedness as she is very supportive of LGBT rights.

Needless to say he only has one picture of himself on the profile and it's well hidden, the rest if random stuff and lots of Irish historical or political stuff.

Icepick · 06-03-2015 7:54pm

gufc21 wrote: »

Well people have no problem with it if its a black taxi driver, travellers in a pub, etc.

speak for yourself

Guffy · 06-03-2015 7:57pm

Icepick wrote: »

speak for yourself

I wasn't talking about myself, I meant general public reaction. This happens on a nightly basis and there is never any uproar.

Icepick · 06-03-2015 8:12pm

gufc21 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about myself, I meant general public reaction. This happens on a nightly basis and there is never any uproar.

two (3, 4...) wrongs don't make a right

If you know about these daily occurrences, what are you doing about it?

Guffy · 06-03-2015 8:16pm

Icepick wrote: »

two (3, 4...) wrongs don't make a right

If you know about these daily occurrences, what are you doing about it?

What do you do about it? Or have you never seen this happen?

Ninjamonkey · 06-03-2015 8:51pm

gufc21 wrote: »

Just use a different printers. Does this really need to be blown up by media?

Absolutely it does ........
Should Rosa Parks, just got on a different bus ?

Its time we came out of the dark ages, and respected our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. people have different sexual preferences, but that doesn't make them any different from anyone else.

I as a straight heterosexual male, who is married with 3 kids, will be making it my business to go out and vote in favour of gay marriage - because who am I , to decide on what makes other people happy ... I mean come on guys, this is about people who have been in relationships for years, and want to have the same rights and recognition as anyone else in this country. I believe (and I have conservative beliefs) that we have no right to inhibit the happiness of others, so I vote in favour for Gay Marriage, and I fully support Jonathon Brennan and his partner, and I hope they will have an incredibly happy day, and may they both have a very happy life together. ..

eviltwin · 06-03-2015 9:35pm

The guy is running a business. He should have enough cop on to realise that some potential customers might not live lifestyles he agrees with but that's the risk you take in business. You think you can't offer a service maybe it's time to find another line of work. I used to be a travel agent, imagine me asking every couple booking a double room 'are ye married cause if you're not it'll be two singles or go elsewhere'...you can't work like that, it's laughable. What's worse is he has worked with this guy before over the past four years and still refused. It's incredibly judgemental and unfair.

Guffy · 07-03-2015 12:20am

Ninjamonkey wrote: »

Absolutely it does ........
Should Rosa Parks, just got on a different bus ?

Its time we came out of the dark ages, and respected our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. people have different sexual preferences, but that doesn't make them any different from anyone else.

I as a straight heterosexual male, who is married with 3 kids, will be making it my business to go out and vote in favour of gay marriage - because who am I , to decide on what makes other people happy ... I mean come on guys, this is about people who have been in relationships for years, and want to have the same rights and recognition as anyone else in this country. I believe (and I have conservative beliefs) that we have no right to inhibit the happiness of others, so I vote in favour for Gay Marriage, and I fully support Jonathon Brennan and his partner, and I hope they will have an incredibly happy day, and may they both have a very happy life together. ..

Christ almighty. How can you equate the southern American states during and before the race rights movements to Drogheda, Ireland today? I also will be voting yes to the gay marriage referendum. That doesn't mean that I can't tolerate the beliefs of one man (or a minority of conservatives in this country). Yes, obviously, homosexuals should have equal rights I am not disputing that. All I said was is there a need to make a big national story out of this? I mean it is one little man's views. Rosa Parks didn't eradicate racism did she? just use a different printing agency and leave him off.

Ninjamonkey · 07-03-2015 10:37am

gufc21 wrote: »

Christ almighty. How can you equate the southern American states during and before the race rights movements to Drogheda, Ireland today? I also will be voting yes to the gay marriage referendum. That doesn't mean that I can't tolerate the beliefs of one man (or a minority of conservatives in this country). Yes, obviously, homosexuals should have equal rights I am not disputing that. All I said was is there a need to make a big national story out of this? I mean it is one little man's views. Rosa Parks didn't eradicate racism did she? just use a different printing agency and leave him off.

With respect I think you are missing the point. If a person was refused service because of the colour of their skin, it would be a national outrage, and they would even likely be prosecuted. But because this chap just has a different sexual orientation, then we should just take no notice and allow it? , and he should just go elsewhere? No. I think not. It needs to be highlighted, and we need to ensure that everyone on this island is treated equally and fairly

Icepick · 07-03-2015 2:41pm

gufc21 wrote: »

What do you do about it? Or have you never seen this happen?

No, I haven't.

Absolam · 08-03-2015 3:01am

eviltwin wrote: »

The guy is running a business. He should have enough cop on to realise that some potential customers might not live lifestyles he agrees with but that's the risk you take in business.

What's the risk you take in business? That you might have to do some business you don't want to? I would have thought most businesses don't take that risk; if there's a deal you don't like you don't do it.

eviltwin wrote: »

You think you can't offer a service maybe it's time to find another line of work. I used to be a travel agent, imagine me asking every couple booking a double room 'are ye married cause if you're not it'll be two singles or go elsewhere'...you can't work like that, it's laughable. What's worse is he has worked with this guy before over the past four years and still refused. It's incredibly judgemental and unfair.

So, do you reckon he realised suddenly after four years the customer was gay and he decided he no longer wanted to do business with him? Or do you reckon he had no problem doing business with a gay guy, but there was some business he didn't want to do with anyone?
We know from the customer the printer definitely did business with gay people.
Do we know from anyone if the printer ever printed material supporting same sex marriage for straight people?

robp · 10-03-2015 7:49pm

eviltwin wrote: »

The guy is running a business. He should have enough cop on to realise that some potential customers might not live lifestyles he agrees with but that's the risk you take in business. You think you can't offer a service maybe it's time to find another line of work. I used to be a travel agent, imagine me asking every couple booking a double room 'are ye married cause if you're not it'll be two singles or go elsewhere'...you can't work like that, it's laughable. What's worse is he has worked with this guy before over the past four years and still refused. It's incredibly judgemental and unfair.

Would you say that about boycotts of South Africa in the 1980s? They are right to stick to their principles. If your profits are more important then your ethics you shouldn't be business IMO.

In addition its extremely hard to see ant ground for legal action.

eviltwin · 10-03-2015 7:56pm

robp wrote: »

Would you say that about boycotts of South Africa in the 1980s? They are right to stick to their principles. If your profits are more important then your ethics you shouldn't be business IMO.

In addition its extremely hard to see ant ground for legal action.

The difference being racism in South Africa actually did create harm to an entire race of people. Two lads getting married don't cause anyone any harm. It just offends the morals of some people but that is life. You can't turn away everyone who offends you, you would never have a workable business then. If they want to act like this fine, I don't believe they should be forced to print invites they don't want to but their business will live or die by those principals now this is out there.

Annasopra · 10-03-2015 8:00pm

robp wrote: »

In addition its extremely hard to see ant ground for legal action.

How?

For me its clear that a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and civil status would be considered by The Equality Tribunal.

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/What_You_Should_Know/Equal_Status/

http://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/what-is-equality/frequently-asked-question1.html

robp · 10-03-2015 8:02pm

eviltwin wrote: »

The difference being racism in South Africa actually did create harm to an entire race of people. Two lads getting married don't cause anyone any harm. It just offends the morals of some people but that is life. You can't turn away everyone who offends you, you would never have a workable business then. If they want to act like this fine, I don't believe they should be forced to print invites they don't want to but their business will live or die by those principals now this is out there.

That is a fallacy. Who decides to vet each cause as worthy? Either you can object out of conscience or not.

Whether or not the business does well subsequently is irrelevant to the concept of the right to refuse service. Anyway the vast majority of people wouldn't give a damn.

robp · 10-03-2015 8:06pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How?

For me its clear that a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and civil status would be considered by The Equality Tribunal.

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/What_You_Should_Know/Equal_Status/

http://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/what-is-equality/frequently-asked-question1.html

They didn't refuse service. They refused to make homosexual wedding invites. They decide the service they provide. No equality tribunal can force a printer or a cake maker to sell products that they had never intended to sell or implied that they sell.

Otherwise vegan grocers could be busted for not selling meat products

This Colorado baker refused to put an anti-gay message on cakes. Now she is facing a civil rights complaint.
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24687970/no-right-refuse-gay-couples-wedding-cake

L1011 · 10-03-2015 8:17pm

robp wrote: »

They didn't refuse service. They refused to make homosexual wedding invites. They decide the service they provide. No equality tribunal can force a printer or a cake maker to sell products that they had never intended to sell or implied that they sell.

Otherwise vegan grocers could be busted for not selling meat products

Completely failed attempt at a comparison here.

What a shop stocks and provision of services on an equal basis are not the same thing. Drop the idea from your mind and come back to the topic.

You would be well advised to read the Equal Status Act and learn what the grounds of discrimination are before trying to make such a poor analogy again.

If this goes to the Equality Authority the printers are completely and utterly screwed - well, more so than they are already.

Annasopra · 10-03-2015 8:27pm

robp wrote: »

They didn't refuse service. They refused to make homosexual wedding invites. They decide the service they provide. No equality tribunal can force a printer or a cake maker to sell products that they had never intended to sell or implied that they sell.

Otherwise vegan grocers could be busted for not selling meat products

This Colorado baker refused to put an anti-gay message on cakes. Now she is facing a civil rights complaint.
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24687970/no-right-refuse-gay-couples-wedding-cake

Whats your legal qualification exactly?

Absolam · 11-03-2015 12:20am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How?
For me its clear that a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and civil status would be considered by The Equality Tribunal.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/What_You_Should_Know/Equal_Status/
http://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/what-is-equality/frequently-asked-question1.html

Only if they accepted the presumption of the basis on which the service was refused; if they accept the reasoning the printer gave, there's no case to be considered.

L1011 wrote: »

Completely failed attempt at a comparison here. What a shop stocks and provision of services on an equal basis are not the same thing. Drop the idea from your mind and come back to the topic.

Well, provision of goods and services are covered under the Act, so it's not out of the ballpark; the grounds for breach are the same for both.

L1011 wrote: »

If this goes to the Equality Authority the printers are completely and utterly screwed - well, more so than they are already.

I very much doubt it; a lot of people are assuming the grounds for the printers refusal to take the job are different from those he stated, but nobody has yet provided any reasonable grounds to believe that is the case.

Mr. G · 11-03-2015 12:25am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How?

For me its clear that a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and civil status would be considered by The Equality Tribunal.

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/What_You_Should_Know/Equal_Status/

http://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/what-is-equality/frequently-asked-question1.html

Last time I checked discriminatory law applies to both in the workplace and when buying goods and services.

Tbh, I don't understand why they would have any problem with it. Why do they care? They're just a printers. Goods out => money in.

L1011 · 11-03-2015 10:40am

Absolam wrote: »

Well, provision of goods and services are covered under the Act, so it's not out of the ballpark; the grounds for breach are the same for both.

Non-stocking of goods at all != refusal to supply goods. Utterly unconnected.

Absolam wrote: »

I very much doubt it; a lot of people are assuming the grounds for the printers refusal to take the job are different from those he stated, but nobody has yet provided any reasonable grounds to believe that is the case.

The grounds stated by the printers themselves are in breach. There is no need for people to make any other assumptions as the printers have admitted it.

Absolam · 11-03-2015 11:31am

L1011 wrote: »

Non-stocking of goods at all != refusal to supply goods. Utterly unconnected.

Can not stocking goods not be the same as refusing to supply them? For instance, the printer doesn't stock gay wedding invitations; he refuses to supply them.

L1011 wrote: »

The grounds stated by the printers themselves are in breach. There is no need for people to make any other assumptions as the printers have admitted it.

I don't think so. Refusing to support gay marriage isn't illegal, nor is it a breach of the Equal Status Act. The printer didn't 'admit' anything, he simply gave his reasons for not doing as the customer asked.

L1011 · 11-03-2015 11:36am

Absolam wrote: »

Can not stocking goods not be the same as refusing to supply them? For instance, the printer doesn't stock gay wedding invitations; he refuses to supply them.

No, it isn't and it can't.

The printer prints wedding invitations on demand. They don't have a stock of invitations with every potential heterosexual name and date combo on them pre-printed in the hope of selling them.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so. Refusing to support gay marriage isn't illegal, nor is it a breach of the Equal Status Act. The printer didn't 'admit' anything, he simply gave his reasons for not doing as the customer asked.

You think wrong. The printer refused to supply a service on grounds of the potential purchasers sexual orientation. There are no subtleties to this, no arguments about "forcing" someone to sell something. They provide a service to heterosexuals and refused it to homosexuals, which breaks the Equal Status Act.

As with the previous poster, I'd suggest you do a bit of reading in to the Act and some case law before continuing to make extremely bad assumptions based on next to no knowledge of it.

Absolam · 11-03-2015 11:54am

L1011 wrote: »

No, it isn't and it can't.
The printer prints wedding invitations on demand. They don't have a stock of invitations with every potential heterosexual name and date combo on them pre-printed in the hope of selling them.

Ah, I probably should have been clearer. Not stocking goods can be the same as refusing to sell them; if I don't want to sell something I won't stock it.
The printer certainly does produce wedding invitations on demand (though in fairness, probably printed on wedding invitation cards that he stocks). Apparently he doesn't produce gay wedding invitations at all though, so I'd guess he doesn't stock a gay wedding invitation card.

L1011 wrote: »

You think wrong. The printer refused to supply a service on grounds of the potential purchasers sexual orientation.

Ah now... that's not what the printer said! He said it was because he didn't support same sex marriage. He never mentioned the customers sexuality. Are you assuming for some reason his reasons were other than those he gave? Is there a reason (other than the simple fact the customer was gay) you can share with us why that might be?

L1011 wrote: »

There are no subtleties to this, no arguments about "forcing" someone to sell something. They provide a service to heterosexuals and refused it to homosexuals, which breaks the Equal Status Act.

That's not true though; the service the homosexual requested (other than the other services he had requested and received over the preceding four years) was not one the printer ever provided to hetrosexuals.

L1011 wrote: »

As with the previous poster, I'd suggest you do a bit of reading in to the Act and some case law before continuing to make extremely bad assumptions based on next to no knowledge of it.

Thanks for the suggestion! I'm reasonably well read on the subject, though it's apparent you are a little inclined to presume things about people, so I suppose your assumption I have next to no knowledge is understandable.

L1011 · 11-03-2015 12:01pm

Your posts make it clear you've next to no knowledge on this - there is nothing to assume.

Your attempts to try portion off and segregate issues to claim they're not covered by the Act is both laughable and proof you don't know what you're talking about.

Absolam · 11-03-2015 12:08pm

L1011 wrote: »

Your posts make it clear you've next to no knowledge on this - there is nothing to assume. Your attempts to try portion off and segregate issues to claim they're not covered by the Act is both laughable and proof you don't know what you're talking about.

Certainly, trying to denigrate posters rather than engaging with their posts, whilst avoiding dealing with specifics, would appear to be a great way to avoid demonstrating your own ability to understand the discussion, but once it's pointed out... it sort of stops working

L1011 · 11-03-2015 12:13pm

We've dealt with specifics - you then went in to ridiculous, irrelevant minutiae as if it changed the situation.

You don't understand the law, so you should really stop making pronouncements based on that flawed 'knowledge'

gozunda · 11-03-2015 12:32pm

Absolam wrote: »

Certainly, trying to denigrate posters rather than engaging with their posts, whilst avoiding dealing with specifics, would appear to be a great way to avoid demonstrating your own ability to understand the discussion, but once it's pointed out... it sort of stops working

Absolam - you have tried this tactic before. It doesn't wash.

Absolam · 11-03-2015 12:33pm

L1011 wrote: »

We've dealt with specifics - you then went in to ridiculous, irrelevant minutiae as if it changed the situation.

Have we? I haven't noticed any posts from you discussing them; only posts flatly contradicting people. Is that what you mean by 'dealt with'? Just to be clear, which specifics are specifics, and which are minutiae?
Is it possible that you're going to tell us that the fact that the printer generally prints invitations is specific, but the specific kinds of invitations he prints is minutiae?

L1011 wrote: »

You don't understand the law, so you should really stop making pronouncements based on that flawed 'knowledge'

There you go again, assuming what I understand. What exactly is your assumption based on? And even if my 'pronouncements' are based on 'flawed knowledge' (though I admit, I don't think they are), what compelling reason can you give me as to why should I stop making them?
Really, I think it might be more conducive to the discussion if you discussed the content of my posts (if you want to engage at all), rather than me

Absolam · 11-03-2015 12:37pm

gozunda wrote: »

Absolam - you have tried this tactic before. It doesn't wash.

It does sometimes... other times people continue to insist on engaging the poster rather than the post. Hmmmm.

L1011 · 11-03-2015 12:41pm

The content of your posts was discussed. It bears no further discussion as you will just attempt restating your disproven point in another way, thinking you'll fool someone.

If a printer prints wedding invites for heterosexual couples and refuses for a homosexual couple they have broken the law. Your distractions about shops, stocking cards (as if there's a difference) and so on don't change this.

When you have a substantive point, that shows you understand the issue, someone will discuss it

Absolam · 11-03-2015 12:59pm

L1011 wrote: »

The content of your posts was discussed.

Where exactly did you discuss them? I might have missed it amongst the unsubstantiated contradictions.

L1011 wrote: »

It bears no further discussion as you will just attempt restating your disproven point in another way, thinking you'll fool someone.

Why do you imagine anyone would try to fool someone? What exactly would the point be?

L1011 wrote: »

If a printer prints wedding invites for heterosexual couples and refuses for a homosexual couple they have broken the law. Your distractions about shops, stocking cards (as if there's a difference) and so on don't change this.

However, if a printer prints wedding invites for hetrosexuals and homosexuals, and doesn't print same sex wedding invites for hetrosexuals and homosexuals, he hasn't broken the law. Pretending the differences are simply 'minutiae' doesn't change this.

L1011 wrote: »

When you have a substantive point, that shows you understand the issue, someone will discuss it

How do you know? Is that another assumption?

L1011 · 11-03-2015 1:02pm

Absolam wrote: »

Where exactly did you discuss them? I might have missed it amongst the unsubstantiated contradictions.

Post 37. You have one single point, on which you are wildly mistaken, and everything else is just an attempt to spin out from that.

Absolam wrote: »

However, if a printer prints wedding invites for hetrosexuals and homosexuals, and doesn't print same sex wedding invites for hetrosexuals and homosexuals, he hasn't broken the law.

There is no difference.

The printers have broken the law.

Absolam · 11-03-2015 1:15pm

L1011 wrote: »

Post 37. You have one single point, on which you are wildly mistaken, and everything else is just an attempt to spin out from that.

This one?

L1011 wrote: »

Non-stocking of goods at all != refusal to supply goods. Utterly unconnected.
The grounds stated by the printers themselves are in breach. There is no need for people to make any other assumptions as the printers have admitted it.

Looks like two unsubstantiated contradictions to me. For someone so hot on telling others how little they know about the law, I'd think you'd at least cite the portion of legislation you're claiming the printers are breaching. Pointing out how the objectively rendeded actions of the printer specifically contravene the particular article, now that would be discussion."The grounds stated by the printers themselves are in breach".... not so much.

L1011 wrote: »

There is no difference.

And yet we're about to have a referendum to remedy the difference. How curious. Perhaps you should tell the Taoiseach there is no difference before he spends all that money?

L1011 wrote: »

The printers have broken the law.

You've mentioned that a few times before. Do you think you'll ever try to substantiate it? Or are you hoping repetition will make it true?

L1011 · 11-03-2015 1:18pm

Absolam wrote: »

And yet we're about to have a referendum to remedy the difference. How curious. Perhaps you should tell the Taoiseach there is no difference before he spends all that money?

In terms of supply of services there isn't - which is the topic here as you well know

The only difference between marriage invitations and same-sex marriage invitations is the sexual orientation of the subjects of the invitation - which is protected by the Equal Status Act. The printer has broken the law by refusing to provide service in this case.

I'm not even dealing with the rest of your diversionary ramble there. Claiming contradiction when you either simply can't understand the difference between stocking an item and providing a service or are doing it to cause a diversion shows you have at least one of two very major problems trying to debate here - a total lack of understanding of the subject or extremely devious means of debate. Do you want to admit to the latter or let us continue with the former?

Drogheda Printers Refuse To Print Same Sex Wedding Invitations

Comments