Court: Christian printer doesn't have to print gay pride shirts

But a Jewish person owning a McDonald's franchise wold serve you a bacon cheeseburger. And the Jewish owner would not be citing the Totah as an excuse not to serve bacon cheeseburger in a fast food hamburger joint.

Delis would not be serving you a hamburger, but may serve you a turkey and bacon sandwich or a traditional club sandwich though.

 

Refusing to sell for particular events is not discrimination against a group.
I am backed up by the fact that the bakers and florists we have read about have had gay customers. Repeat customers, too.

So, to pretend they are discriminating against a group.... in this case "gays".... is an outright lie.

No, they are in business to make money.
They do so by selling flowers to people.
They can pick and choose which "events" they wish to provide for.

Apparently the law doesn't agree with you.
If it did, it wouldn't become a court decision every time.

Pretty sure this printer wouldn't print Gay Pride tee shirts for a hetero customer either.

 

Christians have boycotted companies such as Starbucks based on a false chain email or threaten movie theaters by boycotting the movie they disagree with such as The Last Temptation of Christ or Different Shades of Gray. Christians have committed murder, robbery, and other crimes. Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, is an example but not the only example .

But what I ave seen and observed is that the so called Religious right are hating the sinner much more than hating the sin while imposing their religious values onto others who may not agree with their interpretation of a religious book And that is where the problem lies in this whole debate.

 

so it's NOT ok when Christians do it... but IS ok when gays do it?


Personally, I've never participated in an organized boycott in my life. For the same reasons I think it's wrong now for gays to politically bully people who disagree.... I feel it's wrong for Christians to do it.


now... with that said... there are plenty of places I will never go to again..... Ben+Jerry's for example. Personal boycotts are fine

Boycotts are a strange thing..... 1000 people personally boycotting individually, hurts business more than 1 person organizing 999 others into a boycott. the organized one creates backlash..... kinda like when the gays boycotted against Chick-fil-a, or even the pizzaria family in Indiana..... that boycott and attack led to the highest sales day ever for CFA and gave them their highest profit year to date.... The Pizzaria family has now retired on over 1 million dollars in donations.

#backfired



here's a off the top of my head list of my personal boycot and why
1. Ben+ Jerry - SSM support
2. Apple - wants to withdraw business from Indiana, while at the same time, expanding in countries that kill gays.


(I can't think of any more right now)

 

Mine:
Boar's Head deli meats - Because they require exclusivity in store they are sold in. Kroger for instance, sell's Boar's Head and Kroger brand, only.




Hmm.. apparently deli meat is more important to me than SSM... lol

 

Just because a business may have repeat customers who are gay does not mean they do not discriminate. This argument was used by businesses in the deep south in the 1950's and 60's. These restaurants that said "Whites Only" had repeat black customers. Those customers simply were served in the back of the restaurant where they threw out the trash.

Although that is a more obvious example, the same principle applies when a service refuses to serve one group for a specific service and offers the same specific service to another group.

Yes, they are in the business to make money. But if one takes that approach, then it goes against the business model to make money by refusing certain customers in the business that is in. In other words, they are not maximizing their potential profit if they refuse to sell their flowers to a specific group. Right?

Acutally, the law is with me on this. Commercial speech is the same rule which Texas has refused to sell Confederate license plates and it is the same law in which the T shirt shop is refusing to print a message that it does not agree with in the best interest of the business. That is why commercial speech is given broad leeway.

 

and it's darn expensive too

 

When a gay customer complains about discrimination at a business he repeatedly spends his money at... make sure to hug him because the rest of us will be laughing at him.

The baker and florist said they wouldn't sell a gay wedding cake to a hetero customer either.

Your business opinion means nothing.
Since when is a business required to maximize their potential profit ?

Some people put principle over money. Why is it always the Christians ?

 

Because as a franchisee he is required to.

A Jew who took their religion seriously, wouldn't own a McDonald's.

 

Except here they wouldnt provide for a same sex marriage for homosexuals, heterosexuals, blacks, whites or jews. There is no discrimination on the basis of these factors. Its the same sex marriage that they disagree with. Not some inherent trait of the people entering the same sex marriage. Would be like claiming a businesses refusal to print KKK rally t-shirts is discrimination against whites. When in fact they would oppose it if the KKK had a black man come in and place the order as well.

 

this is the point the gay mafia refuses to address.... kind of like marrying in the first place.

gays can marry, under the same terms and conditions that hetero's can marry..... Love is not a constitutional garantee, but I would be denied a marraige license just as quickly as a gay would if they tried to marry same gender.

It's not discrimination if it's done equally across the board.


It's not discrimination to deny a cake to a gay wedding because it's denied to both gays and straights equally.

Brother's Fashions could maximize their profits if they started catering to caucasions instead of blacks just due to total population numbers..... but they don't... and that's fine. It's their business.

 

No, but I found your statement implying Christians have not threaten people to be a little ignorant though. And that was my point.

I do not believe in boycotts either and do not particapte on an individual level much less on an organized level ieithr. But at the same time, I will not impose my beliefs onto others who may feel differently.

If I choose not to buy a product or a service, it will be based on a variety of factors, not some obstentious, obtuse, political issue. For example. I like to go to Mcdonals for breakfast if I am away on business. They make a good breakfast and have lots of choices. But I do not like their hamburgers. I am a Whataburger fan myself. It is a Texas thing though. I also like Chick file-A if one wants a good chicken sandwich that McDonalds nor Whataburger can match.

The point is that if I choose to buy somethng or use a service, it will be based on a business decision, not a personal ne influenced by personal beliefs. Businesses understand and respect that methodology and find boycotts ineffective generally.

I am surprised you have not included Starbucks on that list.

For me, Ben and Jerry's make a good product, but they are hard to find here in Texas.

I really respect Apple's innovative mindset with computers and other electronic devices. But I am a PC fan and I would be paying way more for the same Apple computer equivalent than a PC.

 

Ah yes, you being the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But the last laugh would be on you eventually as the business would face civil litigation ovr its "business principles."

that makes no sense. For starters, if a hereo goes to a baker and says I want a wedding cake that says "Congradualtions Mike and Kim" the baker would not sell the cake because he thinks Kim is a guys name only? Or is the business owner going to get into the personal affairs of his customers who are ordering the cake. In either case, your example does not make any logical sense whatsoever.

It is the same line as the Pizzeria who said they will not sell pizzas to a gay wedding party. For starters, who in the hell orders pizza for a wedding. Definitely not a gay couple, much less a hetero couple.

There are princoples in business, but not selling a service to customers where the law forbids you to sell is not one of them. It is pretending to have principle in this case. And yes,

 

And what about the deli shop serving a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, a traditional club with turkety, hame, and bacon. or a turkey and bacon sandwich. In these cases, a Jewish owner is not gong to negate having bacon in his inventory because it is against the Totah. He may have kosher bacon and ham servied if ihe opens up a Kosher Deli. .

 

That is true, but the bakers and the florists are serving or provifing their services to hetero marriages and not to gay marriages. Which means they are not being equal under the eyes of the law.

Fashion Brothers is not going to gell a Caucasian customer they will refuse service simply because the person's skin color does not represent the image of the store. This is true with a store called Forever 21, which is frequented by young, petite Asian woman as well as teenage girls of all races that I have observed.

 

They did speak out then.

They were overruled by activist judges who wished to impose thought control from the bench.

 

When a gay continues to do business with someone they claim is discriminating against them?

You're right.... the left will certainly make an expensive court case out of it, but others will certainly be laughing at the foolishness of a man supporting a business if he feels discriminated against.

To you? Thankfully it doesn't need to.

A gay walks into a bakery and asks for a cake for a wedding, and they don't specify what it's for... they can use it however they want and laugh in the baker's face.

When they ask for two men in dresses on top, the baker has a right to refuse. They may pay for that right... but they have the right.

The business owners don't ask people if they are gay.... it is made known.
Obviously.

It's nothing like the pizzeria. The pizzeria said it doesn't cater any weddings.... gay or straight.
When this law in Indiana was put in place, this very Christian business was targeted by people for an opinion.
The question was answered and the very predictable outrage began.

They weren't dragged to court. They weren't sued. They weren't run out of business. They never even refused to cater a gay wedding.
The only thing in common is that they received numerous death threats.... just like the baker in Oregon.

Talk about not making sense.
You may want to rethink that last sentence and try again.

Then maybe answer why you think businesses are required to "maximize their potential profit".
Even if it means going against their beliefs.

 

Actually, the law is against you on this "Court: Christian printer doesn't have to print gay pride shirts"

 

Great example. He can choose to do whatever he wants. Just has he should be allowed to.

 

You are mistaken. There is no such law in Indianna. The Pizza place could have actually refused gay customers for any purpose without violating ANY law. I believe there are only about 17 states that have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and Indianna isnt one of them.

 

a marraige is not a person....it's should not be against the law to discriminate against an event. I refuse to cater a KKK event, too.

 

I'm talking about the Religious Freedom Law.... in Indiana.

When that law was put in place that pizzeria, which was well known to be "Christian", was targeted for a comment about catering gay weddings.

 

Ah, my bad. But, the pizzaria doesnt even need the religious freedom law. They can exclude gays because they think they are icky if they like.

- - - Updated - - -

Racist!!!!!!, you just hate whites.

 

I'm not sure if they could get away with that excuse, but.... the issue I have is they never did refuse gays.
They said they have nothing against them. They just said they would refuse to cater a wedding.

Any wedding.

That's when the left's hate-filled outrage began.


That law could prevent businesses from being dragged through the court systems costing people a lot of money, and the courts a lot of wasted time.
Unfortunately it will do nothing to quiet the left's hate.

 

What part do you think they would be violating?