Judge Wants To Force A Printer To Make Pro-Gay T-Shirts

Why do the same old questions get asked every time something like this comes up? The situation is perfectly clear and the fundamental legislation has existed for a long time.

Being gun politics or diet are not protected characteristics in anti-discrimination law. They vary slightly by jurisdiction but generally cover religion, race, nationality, gender and sexuality. Note that this doesn't mean only blacks or homosexuals are protected, it means discrimination in any direction on those grounds. It also means a similar company is prevented from discriminating against Christians, heterosexuals or white people for example.

Now you're perfectly entitled to argue that businesses should be permitted to refuse service to anyone on any grounds but that is an argument against anti-discrimination law in its entirety. I can see no logical or moral argument to say it's acceptable to discriminate on grounds of sexuality but not on grounds of religion or race. I've yet to see the pro-discrimination campaign present its case though.

 

he isn't refusing to do business on the grounds that the customer is gay he is refusing to print a pro gay message on a T-Shirt that goes against his belief and faith
the customer can be straight and he still would have refused to print the pro gay message or if the gay customer wanted "I love cats" printed im sure the business owner would have taken that order

of lets say the t-shirt printing business owner is Gay and a Christian customer walks in and wants t-shirts printed up that says "Being Gay is a Sin" should that Gay business owner be forced to print those t-shirts? and will remind you a religion is a protected class

 

The Kentucky Civil Rights act.

The giving of a discount is not the same thing as denying service.

I think the sign was from Geno's in Philly, and he was sued and the board decided it wasn't discrimination, but it went through a system.

But here is the thing, these rules are local and a local commission decides these things often.

What I don't understand is the number of people so comfortable standing up for bigotry.

 

i find it interesting how many want to preserve this good Christian by suggesting he lie. Bigotry rots your soul.

 

That's what he claimed but, based on all the actual evidence, the commission found otherwise. It didn't help that, at the point of refusal, the owner hadn't actually seen the design of the t-shirt.

That’s irrelevant speculation. Only what actually happened is relevant to the case. Apparently there are examples of other materials the company has printed which could be considered inappropriate on Christian grounds though, not deemed directly relevant to the ruling but somewhat telling in general.

Nobody is being forced to print anything, they're being required not to discriminate. Any company would be entitled to refuse to print anti-homosexual material or anti-religious material for that matter. They wouldn't be entitled to refuse to print the material because the customer was Christian though.

 

Should a Jewish owned printer be forced to print out campaign collateral for a Nazi rally? If a guy with a Swastika tattooed on his forehead walked into a Jewelry store, could the Jewish owners ask them to leave or be forced to sell them a ring?

 

I'm curious. If a socialist printer refused to print t-shirts with this picture on it, would anyone get their knickers in a twist?

 

Business owners can refuse service to anyone with the exception that they can't discriminate on grounds of race, religion, gender or sexuality. The religous beliefs of the owner is irrelevant. Legally any printer could refuse to print Nazi material if they disaprove of Nazism (politics isn't a protected characteristic) but they can't refuse the print the material becuase the customer was white or German, for example.

It's really only difficult if you want to make it difficult.

 

the business owner has gays working for him and has done business with gays before in the past he just refused to print t-shirts that promoted homosexuality it had nothing to do with the customer and everything to do with the message there for he isn't being forced to do business with Gays he has already done so he is forced to promote a message that goes against his belief the same as forcing a gay business owner to promote an anti gay message

 

Isn't that the same thing that happened here? They didn't refuse the customer...they refused the message.

 

I know that is what he claimed but it is not what the commission, after reviewing all of the relevant evidence including interviewing all the relevant parties, concluded. It's all laid out fairly clearly (albeit with a little legalese) in their report.

But you'll know that already because you'll have read it too...

 

If you're one of the chosen ones then the full-force of the government will be brought to bear on people who offend you. If you're not one of the chosen one, you're out of luck.

 

"Fairy tales"

You do realize that being a prick is fully the right of every American right?

Nobody calls you out for being one as above.

Ones right to practice homosexuality does not and should not encroach on others rights to be opposed to end. It isn't complicated.

 

I'm also wondering if the people who support this insane overreach in government/judiciary authority would be quite so accepting of a Christian (versus progressive) theocracy sentencing one of them to church.

 

and what evidence was presented that proves the business owners stated intent not wanting to promote homosexuality was not his true intent?

 

Wrong. Discrimination laws don't refer to types of people, they refer to types of discrimination. It isn't just illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, it's illegal to discriminate against any sexuality. It isn't just illegal to discriminate against black people, it's illegal to discriminate against any racial grouping. It isn't just illegal to discriminate against Christians, it's illegal to discriminate against is religion.

It's undeniable that some of these characteristics became protected because of widespread discrimination against certain types of people but the laws are quite deliberately written to protect anyone who is discriminated against on the basis of these characteristics. If you find you're never one of these "chosen ones", you should consider yourself lucky because that means you're not being discriminated against.

 

It's often considered bad form to link directly to PDFs but to save you an extra click; http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HOOrecommendation.pdf

You should really read it all but the point in question starts on page 11.

 

So anyone can refuse to serve gay people because they don't agree with their life style? its not because they're actually gay They just don't like how they act. Got it.

 

Where in the Kentucky Civil Rights act?

 

You're clearly either trolling or an idiot so I'm not interest in explaining something you're unwilling or incapable of hearing. Please do start a business and actively discriminate on that basis.

 

Well, courts can't make a restaurant serve a certain type of food. But I guess if you make a certain product, they can force you to make that product available to everyone.

 

I agree with this. It is all in the manner you advertise and/or what services you offer. I also find this subject and the debate nonproductive since neither side is willing to allow common sense and logic to enter. This is just emotionally charged discontent.

What many people do not realize is that many of these laws were enacted because the anti-establishment crowd was discriminating against police officers and the military during the 60's. Race was definitely included once the discussions hit the floor and legislation created, but these laws protect anyone and everyone in some cases from being discriminated against.

T-shirt stores offer silkscreen services for any and all causes or for any event, and bakeries do the same. Their advertisement says cakes for any and all occasions/events. By law they are obligated to honor their advertisement, not just when it suits them. They are a business open to the public, and they cannot discriminate as a licensed business.

What I am curious about is if a t-shirt silk screening business was to lay out certain perimeters for the services they offer, would it make a difference? Also if they were asked to provide a nudest colony with a shirt showing naked people playing volleyball, could they refuse to offer services for lewd/inappropriate logos or depictions? What if a Church that believed in having a priestess who accepted oral sex from practitioners, and wanted shirts with that act depicted, would it be discrimination to refuse to make such a 'distasteful' screening?

The best way to get around this would be to advertise that you would not be a party of creating political material, and skip the we do shirts for any and all events/groups/occasions tag.

 

read it no evidence was provided that proves he denied business to the customer because the customer was gay. the business owner wasn't even sure if the customer was gay no where in the conversation did the sexual orientation of the customer come up
the business owner didn't need to see the design of the shirt requested he knew the shirt was promoting homosexuality because of the title of the festival the t-shirts was going to be printed for
what we have is a liberal activist judge that set a very dangerous precedent that I hope bites the judge and the gay gestapo in the ass when a Christian walks into a gay owned printing business and orders an anti gay message to be printed and they will be forced to do so

 

You're damn right they would. And the shrieks of "Injustice!" would be so loud you'd hear them at the edge of the universe.

 

Easily solved. They can get a private club license like Costco or Sam's Club. They can discriminate all they like at that point.

The rest of your post I completely agree with.