Gay couple sues printing company over homophobic wedding pamphlets

[xRATJARx]

just cos i said shitstabbers...

Thats a pretty clear homophobic slur...

[shadowmouse]

When the fuck does one sue if not now?

After you contact your lawyer and your lawyer contacts the company.

The timing is wrong on this. The company is already saying the weren't made aware of the problem. They can say evidence was lost or confused with the passage of time. They can try to raise doubt by noting that two guys who live in Australia just happened to be holding their wedding in an area where they say they feared for their safety if it were known they were having their wedding there, and that one of them has connections with publishing ... what a coincidence they got specifically targeted hate speech.

From the article:

When contacted by Yahoo Lifestyle, Vistaprint spokesperson Sara Nash offered the following response: “Vistaprint would never discriminate against customers for their sexual orientation. We pride ourselves on being a company that celebrates diversity and enables customers all over the world to customize products for their special events. We have just been made aware of this incident in the last few hours. We understand how upsetting it would be for anyone to receive materials such as these the night before their wedding and we have immediately launched an internal investigation. Until we have had the opportunity to complete our investigation, we cannot comment further.”

Lawyer first, get a company response on record, then act as needed.

[I Push Buttons]

No, it's not. That's how incorporation works in the United States. The employee was acting on behalf of the company, at least in the eyes of civil courts.

That's not how it works... The employee has to be acting in the employer's interest.

For example.

If you own a bowling alley and your employee is a janitor, he is on the clock, he is mopping the floor, and he leaves the floor wet while mopping it and people slip and injure themselves... Then yes, you are liable. Because he was doing the job he was hired to do and it was furthering your interest (keeping the floor in your business clean).

If you own a bowling alley and your employee is a janitor, but instead of mopping, he is dumping lube all over the floor intentionally trying to make people slip and injure themselves... Then no, you are not liable because he was not acting in your interest, further dumping lube on the floor to hurt people was not his job. He is liable for damages and criminal charges, you are not. Unless, of course, the guy has an overt history of hurting people at his jobs that you failed to investigate/uncover with a background check, in which case you could be liable for negligence.

[Socialhealer]

Eh, I'm good with that little fella. Also "The men did not immediately (or at any time since) contact Vistaprint to inquire about the bizarre mailing. Instead, they paid to have quick replacements printed up and went ahead with their wedding — though it was marred by anger and fear, they say." Why not contact Vistaprint before going for the lawsuit. Couple of assholes looking for quick cash? Would you not have contacted them on it?

yup when you order wedding photos and events as a gay couple you're just expecting to get some religious zealot bullshit instead so you can sue the company for big bucks!

oh wait thats just your fetish i guess?

[Machismo]

Then why did you comment? Are you one of those people who feels the need to make sure everyone knows how much you don't care about something?

- - - Updated - - -



In the United States, the actions of an individual within the company are representative of the company as a whole. Now, I'm not saying I believe this lawsuit, it seems almost fake to me. But, going after the company for the actions of a singular employee is actually the standard course of action.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree, it doesn't pass the smell test. I also don't think anyone does think this is anything other than the actions of an asshole employee (if it even happened).

- - - Updated - - -



That is mainly to do with copyright infringement and breaking any laws with what was printed. This is nothing more than a breech of contract dispute. They did not seemingly print what they agreed to print.

- - - Updated - - -



No, it's not. That's how incorporation works in the United States. The employee was acting on behalf of the company, at least in the eyes of civil courts.

- - - Updated - - -





how is what i said homophobic in any way shape or form -i have not said i dont like gays, i have not said i hate gays, i have not said i am against them.

this is one of the problems with the world - just cos i said shitstabbers has NO relevancy what so ever of me being against them.

and for the record - my brother is gay and married and i love them both !!!! and yes i make fun of them now and again all in good humour.
people really need to liven the fuck up

Yes, it was a homophobic comment, stop trying to pretend it isn't.

[Deleted]

Is this going to be another hijab cutting or "fag cake"? At this point, it's all I expect with these stories.

Yeah I'm with you "no coloureds" sign are hopefully making a comeback, eh?

[Machismo]

That's not how it works... The employee has to be acting in the employer's interest.

For example.

If you own a bowling alley and your employee is a janitor, he is on the clock, he is mopping the floor, and he leaves the floor wet while mopping it and people slip and injure themselves... Then yes, you are liable. Because he was doing the job he was hired to do and it was furthering your interest (keeping the floor in your business clean).

If you own a bowling alley and your employee is a janitor, but instead of mopping, he is dumping lube all over the floor intentionally trying to make people slip and injure themselves... Then no, you are not liable because he was not acting in your interest, further dumping lube on the floor to hurt people was not his job. He is liable for damages and criminal charges, you are not. Unless, of course, the guy has an overt history of hurting people at his jobs that you failed to investigate/uncover with a background check, in which case you could be liable for negligence.

The employee was acting on behalf of the company, making the company liable in a civil court. Now, the company can try and fire him, to show that he went rogue, and it will certainly help their case. In the end, if this happens to be true, the company will settle out of court, because there is no way they can walk away from it looking good.

[Citizen T]

This has turned into a sexuality thread. Closed.