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

Drogheda Printers Refuse To Print Same Sex Wedding Invitations

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    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 :confused:

    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


  • Options
    #33
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #34
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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 :confused:

    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?

    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



  • Options
    #35
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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.


  • Options
    #36
    Mr. G
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 4,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Mr. G


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #38
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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.


  • Options
    #39
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #40
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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.


  • Options
    #41
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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 :)


  • Options
    #43
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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'


  • Options
    #44
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.


  • Options
    #45
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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 :)


  • Options
    #46
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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.


  • Options
    #47
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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


  • Options
    #48
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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?


  • Options
    #49
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #50
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    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?


  • Options
    #51
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    The attitude of this printing company is wrong on so many levels. They are a business and as such promote their services in an open market. Denying one customer or group of customers the option to purchase their services on spurious grounds such as these is discrimination plain and simple. The arrogance of it is breathtaking.

    It's ridiculous in the extreme. They are a business and as such they provide goods and services in order to make a profit, not make judgements about the lifestyles or moral choices of their customers.

    SD


  • Options
    #53
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    L1011 wrote: »
    In terms of supply of services there isn't - which is the topic here as you well know
    The printer was asked to supply a service for an event which was legally distinct from the events he previously supplied services for; in terms of supply of service it appears to be a distinctly different service so.
    L1011 wrote: »
    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.
    Well, a substantive difference would be they're for two different events; not just two individually distinct events but two events that are legally distinguished from each other. So the printer has not broken the law by refusing to provide service in this case.
    L1011 wrote: »
    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?
    Is it your superior knowledge of the law that forces me to choose between the two options you're offering?
    I think I'll stick with an unsubstantiated contradiction is not a discussion. I am of course more than happy to discuss anything you think substantiates your contradiction, if not so much your desire to attribute 'major problems' to posters rather than discuss the content of their posts :)


  • Options
    #54
    jungleman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 803 ✭✭✭jungleman


    Absolam, just give it up.


  • Options
    #55
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    There only difference is one protected in law by the Equal Status Act.

    You can make up ridiculous analogies all you want, try drag the conversation away all you want but this doesn't change


  • Options
    #56
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    L1011 wrote: »
    There only difference is one protected in law by the Equal Status Act.
    I don't think the event is protected in law by the Equal Status Act; as far as I'm aware only people are. The only events I thought were mentioned were sporting events, but you have mentioned your apparent superior knowledge of the legislation, so you might cite the relevant article that supports your assertion.
    L1011 wrote: »
    You can make up ridiculous analogies all you want, try drag the conversation away all you want but this doesn't change
    I'm not sure the legal distinction between a marriage and a civil partnership is a ridiculous analogy, though again I note you have recommended other posters should improve their understanding of the relevant legislation. Anyway, by all means, lets stay on topic.


  • Options
    #57
    L.Jenkins
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,240 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    Mod Note: Arguing the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage is in no way related to this thread. Further discussion will result in comments being deleted and infractions being handed out. You have been warned!


  • Options
    #58
    generallyjack
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭generallyjack


    Although this video makes reference to laws in the U.S., I believe similar principles are applicable here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWW0wHiRso


  • Options
    #59
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    Seeing as its now in my head anyway after the last video heres that certain someone who left the cake out in the rain. Ah memories

    Skip to 1.50 if the intro is too much for you

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF_o7aSjl_E


  • Options
    #60
    Celly Smunt
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,464 ✭✭✭Celly Smunt


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think the principle "the reason for the refusal matters" would definitely be applicable. I'm not convinced of the rest though. The basic foundation of his argument is that the one detail that sets a gay wedding apart from a straight wedding is sexual orientation. That is not (currently) the case in Ireland; they are set out as distinctly different events in law. If and when the referendum passes and there is no legal difference between the two, it will be interesting to see if there is then any grounds for a service provider to refuse to facilitate a wedding he disagrees with.

    You do realise businesses are allowed to serve or not serve anybody they choose regardless of reasons?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    You do realise businesses are allowed to serve or not serve anybody they choose regardless of reasons?

    Given Itzys post I removed my comment, rather than have it turned into a discussion of whether or not I was arguing the difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage :-)

    And yes I do (outside the obvious constraints of the relevant legislation); that doesn't mean they can't still be accused of not serving people for reasons others might believe are obvious, even if the business never gave them.


Advertisement