No. They refused to print a gay couples gay wedding invites. If a straight person went to the shop ordered 30 invitations for a gay wedding was refused then they are not discriminating. They are refusing all. You need to recognise the difference. You appear to have an agenda by ignoring this point. That is damaging for you and others.
Have you read the Equal Status Rights?
The Equal Status Acts 2000–2008 prohibit discrimination on the
following nine grounds:
The sexual orientation ground: Gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual
(My emphasis)
Refusing because some is straight is no different in the eyes of the law to refusing because someone is gay.
Perhaps you need to recognise where there isn't a difference.
No. They refused to print a gay couples gay wedding invites. If a straight person went to the shop ordered 30 invitations for a gay wedding was refused then they are not discriminating. They are refusing all. You need to recognise the difference. You appear to have an agenda by ignoring this point. That is damaging for you and others.
If my agenda is to be against discrimination, then guilty as charged.
If your a commercial firm offering formal wedding invitations, I can't see how it's not discrimination if you refuse to print gay marriage invitations. It's not like its a different product.
If my agenda is to be against discrimination, then guilty as charged.
If your a commercial firm offering formal wedding invitations, I can't see how it's not discrimination if you refuse to print gay marriage invitations. It's not like its a different product.
But this firm also refused to print
He added they have also refused request to print materials that promote binge drinking, Halloween, "borderline pornography" and what he described as "the dark arts".
No. They refused to print a gay couples gay wedding invites. If a straight person went to the shop ordered 30 invitations for a gay wedding was refused then they are not discriminating. They are refusing all. You need to recognise the difference. You appear to have an agenda by ignoring this point. That is damaging for you and others.
So your invented difference that you are desperately pushing to try and validate your point is: On a standard range of Wedding Invites that the company do, it says Bob & Fred instead of Bob & Sandra.
You talk of an agenda and yet post hyperbole like GAY invites an invention to get your point across.
Invitations are invitations and a product that they already produce. Same sex marriage in now totally legal and to refuse based on sexuality is discrimination.
So your invented difference that you are desperately pushing to try and validate your point is: On a standard range of Wedding Invites that the company do, it says Bob & Fred instead of Bob & Sandra.
You talk of an agenda and yet post hyperbole like GAY invites an invention to get your point across.
Invitations are invitations and a product that they already produce. Same sex marriage in now totally legal and to refuse based on sexuality is discrimination.
No. In your world you would be able to force for example a tshirt printer to print pro isis tshirts. No. The tshirt printer should have the legal support to refuse to print pro isis t shirts as long as he refuses that to everyone.
No. In your world you would be able to force for example a tshirt printer to print pro isis tshirts. No. The tshirt printer should have the legal support to refuse to print pro isis t shirts as long as he refuses that to everyone.
Comprende?
If they don't want to do wedding invitations for gay weddings then they should not be able to do any wedding invitations full stop. It's the same product.
If they don't want to do wedding invitations for gay weddings then they should not be able to do any wedding invitations full stop. It's the same product.
Comprende?
No. I think the point is too subtle for you to grasp.
Nope you ve still not got it. Im not repeating my easy to understand fact. Please re read and the penny will drop.
Oh, I've tried re-reading it, but it still smells of the same old BS!
Trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if a straight person was refused invitations for a gay wedding is as silly as trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if an able-bodied person was refused invitations for a disabled wedding.
If the grounds for refusal are based on sexual orientation or disability, it's discrimination, regardless of who physically places the order.
I do feel sorry for all of these gay couples who have such bad luck as to stumble upon these religious businesses while just trying to pay for the services the businesses provide.
So your invented difference that you are desperately pushing to try and validate your point is: On a standard range of Wedding Invites that the company do, it says Bob & Fred instead of Bob & Sandra.
You talk of an agenda and yet post hyperbole like GAY invites an invention to get your point across.
Invitations are invitations and a product that they already produce. Same sex marriage in now totally legal and to refuse based on sexuality is discrimination.
There perhaps does need to be some clarification in the law, because this case like the last one sounds not like an attempt to discriminate against a person and refuse them service on the grounds of their sexuality, but decline to manufacture a specific product that they might decline to do for anybody who asked for it.
Oh, I've tried re-reading it, but it still smells of the same old BS!
Trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if a straight person was refused invitations for a gay wedding is as silly as trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if an able-bodied person was refused invitations for a disabled wedding.
If the grounds for refusal are based on sexual orientation or disability, it's discrimination, regardless of who physically places the order.
C'mon, it's not difficult!
I feel like you are desperate to see some discrimination here. I have explained the logical flaw. /thread.
There perhaps does need to be some clarification in the law, because this case like the last one sounds not like an attempt to discriminate against a person and refuse them service on the grounds of their sexuality, but decline to manufacture a specific product that they might decline to do for anybody who asked for it.
I feel like you are desperate to see some discrimination here. I have explained the logical flaw. /thread.
Well, why am I not surprised that you don't see any discrimination, and are desperately creating one fantasy scenario after another in order to "prove" some sort of point!
Oh, I've tried re-reading it, but it still smells of the same old BS!
Trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if a straight person was refused invitations for a gay wedding is as silly as trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if an able-bodied person was refused invitations for a disabled wedding.
If the grounds for refusal are based on sexual orientation or disability, it's discrimination, regardless of who physically places the order.
C'mon, it's not difficult!
I'm not sure it is quite that simple, as the service in this instance like the last one revolves around the manufacture of a specific product, and may not constitute a refusal or lessening of service to the customer on the grounds of their sexuality, which is what the law tries to prevent. It needs clarifying.
Comments
Have you read the Equal Status Rights?
The Equal Status Acts 2000–2008 prohibit discrimination on the
following nine grounds:
The sexual orientation ground: Gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual
(My emphasis)
Refusing because some is straight is no different in the eyes of the law to refusing because someone is gay.
Perhaps you need to recognise where there isn't a difference.
If my agenda is to be against discrimination, then guilty as charged.
If your a commercial firm offering formal wedding invitations, I can't see how it's not discrimination if you refuse to print gay marriage invitations. It's not like its a different product.
But this firm also refused to print
So your invented difference that you are desperately pushing to try and validate your point is: On a standard range of Wedding Invites that the company do, it says Bob & Fred instead of Bob & Sandra.
You talk of an agenda and yet post hyperbole like GAY invites an invention to get your point across.
Invitations are invitations and a product that they already produce. Same sex marriage in now totally legal and to refuse based on sexuality is discrimination.
Nope you ve still not got it. Im not repeating my easy to understand fact. Please re read and the penny will drop.
Read this everyone! Just read this.
Any sensible debate can't be had with that sort of reasoning.
No. In your world you would be able to force for example a tshirt printer to print pro isis tshirts. No. The tshirt printer should have the legal support to refuse to print pro isis t shirts as long as he refuses that to everyone.
Comprende?
They advertise the fact presumably that they do wedding invitations which is a specific product.
Therefore if they refuse to provide the product on the basis it is a gay wedding it is discriminatory is it not.
Everyone will read it, but just as you feel gay, I feel god.
How can either one of us say its not real.
No. I don't believe so judging by what else they refused to print.
If they don't want to do wedding invitations for gay weddings then they should not be able to do any wedding invitations full stop. It's the same product.
Comprende?
No.
How about nazi weddings? Would they have to print nazi wedding invitations if a nazi couple ordered nazi wedding invitations?
No. I think the point is too subtle for you to grasp.
Oh, I've tried re-reading it, but it still smells of the same old BS!
Trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if a straight person was refused invitations for a gay wedding is as silly as trying to claim it wouldn't be discrimination if an able-bodied person was refused invitations for a disabled wedding.
If the grounds for refusal are based on sexual orientation or disability, it's discrimination, regardless of who physically places the order.
C'mon, it's not difficult!
DS will say you are comparing gays to nazis now.
What is a Nazi wedding?
I thought Nazis'm was a pretty despicable political ideology not a type of wedding
There perhaps does need to be some clarification in the law, because this case like the last one sounds not like an attempt to discriminate against a person and refuse them service on the grounds of their sexuality, but decline to manufacture a specific product that they might decline to do for anybody who asked for it.
I feel like you are desperate to see some discrimination here. I have explained the logical flaw. /thread.
Ah good someone sees it. Thank you.
Well, why am I not surprised that you don't see any discrimination, and are desperately creating one fantasy scenario after another in order to "prove" some sort of point!
I'm not sure it is quite that simple, as the service in this instance like the last one revolves around the manufacture of a specific product, and may not constitute a refusal or lessening of service to the customer on the grounds of their sexuality, which is what the law tries to prevent. It needs clarifying.