Commission says Christian business owners should leave religion at home

A Christian business owner, whether an individual or a corporation is an oxymoron.

 

I didn't read the Fox story beyond getting to the link to the decision.

I read the decision instead. I don't care about Fox's take on it.

The decision is quite clear and unambiguous.

The defendant did not deny that as a business that serves the public, they are a public accomodation.

And, as such, they clearly violated the law by refusing to serve a customer based on their gender preference.

The is no question here.

You cannot descriminate against people based on their gender preference according to Kentucky law, any more than you can discriminate against them on the basis of race or any other issue.

That's the law.

If Fox wants to pander to evangelicals and bigots (not one in the same),by feigning outrage over this, that's their right too.

It's phony, and it plays right into Obama's famous remark about "guns, God and gays" that he once used to describe the way right wing media panders to its audience.

 

Not so.

Hand's on Origninals is in the shirt business, not the slogan business.

They could have turned the work away by pleading that they were too busy, or had something else to do, or scheduling issue, or any other sort of bland assurance.

Instead, they decided to make their real reason clear and advertise their willingness to break the law.

 

What are you talking about? Who is talking about “slogan business”?

Why would they lie about their reason? Why should they lie about their reason?

To me this is a constitutional issue; something you ignored in my question about the Muslim restaurant. Care to answer that?

 

"Re-education camps". Your hysteria is laughable and pitiable at the same time.

 

If pigs were invisible, pork prices would be higher. Another absurd "if" proposal. Yours, only slightly less.

Please, I ask you. Quit embarrassing yourself with those absurdities.

 

And they say there's no such thing as a stupid question! Pffft!

 

they get to choose what they sell, but to whom is another story

 

Just going by the "it's a pubic business therefore must accommodate all the public regardless" position. So.............

How about a Jewish printer and a Muslim group wants a bunch of posters printed to promote it's death to Israel and the Jews rally?

 

What they sell is printed material as ordered by the person buying it, like a gay couple wanting a cake with two women's name on it or two little female statues on it.

The wedding planner can choose what kind of wedding they will plan and orchestrate?

 

same as if it's a Christian organization, they get an exemption, but if the owner just happens to Jewish, then they can not discriminate against anyone based on religion

 

I’m never embarrassed with believing our constitution dictates law – well it should, but it’s obvious it doesn’t. I’m never embarrassed in pointing out that the constitution limits the power of government, NOT the power of the people; but it gets used by progressives all the time to limit people.

You can place your little dodge game if you want, it only shows how disingenuous you are. It’s a very REAL question that you know the answer to, but not honest enough to answer it. Because if you did answer it honestly you know where it leads and destroys this whole nonsense about forcing faith-based businesses to comply with things that go against their faith.

I encourage you to go back and look at the logo of ‘Hands on Originals’ and note what it says below their title: “CHRISTIAN OUTFITTERS”. This makes it perfectly clear to me that this gay group targeting the company knowing full-well what the results would be. They USE this ordinance to get a Christian-based company to comply with their agenda. The embarrassing part about this is, there are so many of you out there that are so narrowly focused on what Hands on Originals did, and not see what the gay group did. You’re so stuck in your belief that Christians are a bunch of bigots that you can’t see, and won’t see how bigoted this gay group has acted. Not only is this an embarrassment for society in general, but you should be ashamed of yourself for purposely overlooking this. But shame doesn’t exist in the mind of a progressive that so is so myopically focused on their agenda that they can’t see beyond their collective and elitist noses.

 

I'll go with that example. Just like I asked domer (which he/she refuses to answer)... If a Christian group went to a Muslim restaurant to have BLT sandwiches made for a revival; the restaurant should not be allowed to refuse them under this ordinance. These progressives make it clear that they are targeting Christians. They don't have the courage to admit they wouldn't apply this standard to Muslims or even gays.

If a gay person was running a bakery and I wanted a cake baked for my hetero wedding, and they refused would these same people condemning this t-shirt company say the hetero couple's civil rights were violated and this law should apply?

 

---I agree but it's hard to get behind that message (no pun intended) when it comes to Gays and religion. They're not allowed to marry which is a case in point about only certain classes of people being protected to practice their lifestyles.

 

it is obvious that the left are targeting Christianity

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...succumbs-pressure-permits-christian-club.html

 

I’ve stated before in other related threads that I don’t believe in banning things. I don’t believe the government should be in the practice of managing our lives to this degree. I believe the constitution limits government’s authority in dictating to private citizens how they conduct their own affairs. The only time their responsibilities come into place is when someone is getting harmed. Refusing to sell t-shirts to someone is not harming anyone. We’ve decided to place on the government’s back to enact laws down to the micro level; removing any sense of personal responsibility and any sense of common sense. It makes no sense to me for a gay group to walk into a business that is clearly a Christian-based company to ask them to do something the know will go against their faith; just as it would make no sense for a Christian to go into a Muslim restaurant and demand they make them food that would go against their faith. Me being a Christian, I have enough respect for their faith to never put them in that position. It appears people in the LGBT community (and their fanatical supporters), this level of respect for one’s faith doesn’t exist.

 

---I couldn't have stated this better myself.

 

The guy is using a government create form of business ownership that gives him the privilege of operating a business with no (or limited) personal liability.

Do you have a problem with the government giving this privilege to the business owner? Or just with the government protecting employee or consumer rights?

 

Sigh! You just don't get it!

- - - Updated - - -

If, if, if, if, if...... Can't you argue a REAL situation rather than making things up to suit your purpose?

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did you get this info? Are you saying Hands on Originals is subsidized by the government?

 

The Commission left their brains at home.

The Commission should leave their stupid opinion at home.

 

Corporations, which give owners the privilege of ownership without personal liability, are creatures of the government -- state law.

Do you have a problem with the government giving this privilege to the business owner? Or just with the government protecting employee or consumer rights?

 

What do think justices do when making decisions? They weight what the law is and the consequences it MAY have IF hypotheticals come up. It's a perfectly legitimate means to come to conclusions. How you think this law was enacted? They operated on the premise of IF this happens, these are the consequences.

 

The government doesn’t GIVE privilege to run a business. I apply for a business license and the government grants it. Licenses are more for the purpose of establishing taxes. They do not have the authority to just arbitrarily reject applications to run businesses. They have to have just cause to reject an application. I am not asking permission to run a business; I am simply putting myself on the district’s tax rolls. The only red tape involved is zoning in regards to environmental impact, and proximity to like businesses or schools and such. In other words you likely will not get the okay to put a porn bookstore near an elementary school. That isn’t getting permission; that is ensuring your business doesn’t interrupt existing business and other local operations.

Your assertion is that somehow because you have to apply for a license that your business isn’t yours, a PRIVATE business; that somehow it belongs to the government. I know how much you probably subscribe to the Obama ideology “you didn’t build that”, but my business is my business and the government does not have the authority to dictate how my business is run; except in instances where harm to others may occur.

 

Stop discriminating and the commission will leave them alone. Simple!