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

The LAW in Fayette County

 

No. But if you refused to sell books to someone because of their sexual orientation you would probably be sued.

I don't think you guys understand how this (*)(*)(*)(*) works

 

Not likely. I doubt offensive speech would hold up in court. You can turn down printing jobs because of inappropriate content, you cannot however turn away customers because of their orientation, or religion for that matter.

However, if the Christian wanted a cross or other religious symbol than the gay run business would have to comply.

 

That's your personal opinion but it is not one commonly shared and, significantly here, is not one recognised in the law. Some people think Christianity should be criminalised but thankfully, we're not ruled by their personal opinion either.

Of coruse by your argument there are loads of things that would be "anti-Christian" yet you don't seem to be railing against all of those.

 

what is offensive and inappropriate is subjective. homosexuality is offensive and inappropriate to many. probably more then who would find calling it a sin or wrong offensive and inappropriate

so should a gay owned printing business be forced to print t-shirts stating "Homosexuality is a Sin"

 

You're still making a false equivalency.

"Gay Pride" isn't in itself anti-Christian. The fact (some) Christians fundamentally object to it doesn't change that. A t-shirt reading "Bacon is great!" isn't anti-Jewish for the same reason.

Obviously "Homosexuality is a Sin" is anti-homosexual - that's the point. "Christianity is great!" isn't in itself anti-homosexuality, even though there can be elements of the faith that is. "Christianity is great!" is the equivalent to "Gay Pride" here. "Homosexuality is a Sin" would be the equivalent to "Christianity is evil".

If the gay organisation had wanted t-shirts reading "Christianity is evil", the company would be on much stronger ground to refuse to print them.

 

what is offensive and inappropriate is subjective. homosexuality is offensive and inappropriate to many. probably more then who would find calling it a sin or wrong offensive and inappropriate

who are you to decide what someone should find offensive and inappropriate

 

no and this ruling would not be about that. Why do people who want legally supported bigotry come with stupid analogies.

Here is the thing, if you read the ruling it is simple.

1. The printer took the order and worked on the art.
2. When the person who ordered it called to negotiate a price the owner decided to say that he won't do it because he doesn't support gay people because of his religion.
3. The printer had printed many shirts that would be in violation of Christian values including vulgarity and sexual jokes.

The ruling was based on the fact that the printer didn't want to print something for a gay person in support of gays which is arguably in violation of local law.

 

Like most christians they think they have a right to be bigots. I can promise you this keep it up and when enough people get tired of the crap those rights can be repealed. Simply put if christians justify being a bigot because of religion maybe just maybe christians should not be in business or in public view.

 

That's not what Hands on Originals did. Someone asked them to make something that didn't exist, and because it went against their RELIGIOUS beliefs they refused. That's not the same thing as having something that already exists sitting on the shelf and a gay person picking it up and buying it. They were expressing asked to produce/provide something they didn't have. That is akin to going into a Christian bookstore and demanding they sell atheist books.

It's seem you and so many others don't have a clue about ...the free exercise thereof...

 

Wait a minute! You call it bigotry when a business owner refuses to produce something that goes against their faith, but don’t call it bigotry when someone FORCES someone to act against their faith. Why would have been so hard for the gay person to just go somewhere else to get what they want rather than target someone they probably knew was Christian and knew what the results would have been just to try to expose ‘bigotry’.

I don’t support bigotry at all. But I do support the constitution that DEMANDS the government not “prohibit the free practice” of my faith. As much as that may cause your stomach to sour, THAT is the overriding law of the land; and no law should be passed to quash anyone’s free practice of their religion.

Given the ordinance, I agree what the owner did may have violated that. But since the law also protects discrimination based on religion, I think you have a bit of a paradox here. The commission felt sexual orientation overrides religion; which violates the 2nd amendment; which means this ordinance violates the 2nd amendment.

 

This has nothing to do with "offensive and inappropriate". I'm not denying that some Christians consider homosexuality in general and Gay Pride in particular "offensive and inappropriate" (though other Christians feel differently and some non-Christians feel the same).

That doesn't make "Gay Pride" anti-Christian though and thus it is not equivalent to "Homosexuality is a Sin".

 

It is not a "public" business as in a restaurant, bar, theme park etc. It is a printer which produces goods and therefore they are within their rights not to print something if they don't want to. In fact I used to work in the printing industry and one of the companies I used to work for did lots of porn and tabloid type stuff. They slowly began turning down that type of work so that they could build up a more professional business clientele (catalogs, seasonal flyers etc) in order to change their image to be a more business orientated.

Having stated that the business should not have taken the job and started it if they were so opposed to it. I don't know if some sales person took it up and the boss found out later but that business needs to set up some clear employee guidelines.

 

I think you may mean the 1st Amendment.

The free exercise of religion or speech or any other right have already been ruled to have limitations. No right is absolute.

The Constitution sets up the courts as arbiters as to what is... and what is not constitutional. 230 years of American jurisprudence and many many Judicial rulings has confirmed that reality.

There may be a religious right to discriminate...there is just not a religious right to discriminate in the public square.

The faithful can hate whom ever they wish in their Churches, homes, and private lives...that is the faithful's right.

 

Again this ruling doesn't change his ability to practice nor keep his faith. Producing the t-shirt is not an endorsement nor agreement with the march. And this particular person produces shirts now that are in opposition to Christian teaching as noted in the ruling so no it is not bigotry to make this business adhere to the law.

Again your ignorance is showing. He called the company who agreed to do the t-shirts worked with his art and when he called back to negotiate a price he was told that the company wouldn't do it, surprising the customer who had already had a contract with them. So no this business was not targeted. Also what he was called on was a violation of a law.

if you support this business owner yes you do.

How is this limiting his free practice of religion, unless you think that includes treating some people as less human.

Actually I support it all the time....marched for it in fact. Again how is this guy's practice of religion stifled by anti-discrimination laws.

Only because you don't understand the law, the Constitution or the ruling.

the 2nd has nothing to do with it. Tell you what, go learn what you are talking about and come back and we can have a discussion

 

I will challenge that these laws will be overturned in higher courts, as your right to force those of faith to do things they run against their faith do not override what has been established in the constitution. The precedence is in the Hobby Lobby case. I do agree we need these laws to protect groups from discrimination; but not at the expense of violating the constitutional rights of others.

 

There are court rulings affirming the civil rights act Title II public accommodations as constitutional.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

What would be the judicial reasoning for not adding sexual orientation to this list? Why is discrimination against sexual orientation more sacred a religious right than just ol' plain discrimination?

How is it that religion is protected and sexual orientation is not?...Maybe we should remove religion from Title II.

You want the protections...but fight allowing everyone equal right.

 

You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding what ‘free practice’ is and what a person’s dictates to them.

Given that this isn’t an isolated incident, I believe he was targeted. That’s my opinion. But it doesn’t matter the circumstances. The end result is what matters; and the owner decided – for whatever reason – not to provide the t-shirts. At this point the gay person should have voiced their opinion then shopped somewhere else rather than FORCE someone of faith to compromise their faith.

I support the constitution. That document protects every person’s right to freely exercise their religion without the government intruding on that. This has been violated on every level. I happen to think it’s bigoted to FORCE, by government mandate, someone of faith to compromise their beliefs.

You’re myopic view of this doesn’t change that the constitution protects the owner from being forced to compromise their faith. What you’re telling me is the rights of this gay person overrides the rights of people practicing their religion.

When someone is forced to compromise their faith, that stifles their religion. How was the gay person’s rights stifled when they could have gone to another business? I mean if you’re claim is the owner can still practice their religion, then equally you could argue that the gay person can still equally express their gayness through patronizing another business. And I’ll tell you what’s even more disturbing is the radical belief by some that people of faith should be limited to church or their homes to practice their religion. That is the extreme some have gotten in regards to a constitutionally protected right. I would also state that if an enumerated right needs to be limited to this level, ALL rights – including one expressing their sexual orientation – should be limited to this extent.

Yeah, okay. I must be debating with a constitutional scholar.

 

Read this very carefully: THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT VIOLATE ONE PERSON’S RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER'S.

Please note the bolded and think very carefully about this statement before you reply.

 

No I do not. It is not about the practice of his faith and his own behavior proved that to the panel.

This sums up the failure of the right wing. You can have an opinion but the facts prove that your opinion makes no sense. so you ignore the facts.

So you are all for violating the law.

Again no one has proved this compromises any belief. Nor does it stop him from holding, expressing or practicing his faith. Unless you are arguing that his faith forces him to be bigoted to gays then is that really a value of Christianity.

Again the owners religion is not compromised.

Except the issue is a violation of the law.

yes but the fact remains the business owner knowingly violated the law. That is the point.

of course i am not one of them and that is not what the ruling said either.

All rights have limits...

No just pointing out your stunning ignorance of this case and what the Constitution actually says since you thought this was about the 2nd amendment.

 

People do not have a right to your t-shirts. People do not have a right to your cakes.

If you are not serviced by business #1, you go to business #2.

No reason to use the violence of the state to force someone to bake your cake. Don't be ridiculous.

 

That's a load of dung. Are you telling me that if some Nazis wanted Nazi t-shirts he'd have to print them whether he liked it or not? Are you telling me that if some pedophiles wanted pedophile t-shirts he'd have to print them whether he liked it or not?

And by the way, what in blazes is a "public" business? Its a private business, hence the term "private sector". Its unconstitutional to force private business to do things or serve people they don't want to serve.

But of course Leftists these days spit on the constitution, so what do they care.

 

Doubtless the same liberals who support this nonsense would object if white supremacists demanded a Jewish printing house to reprint Mien Kompf or a black printing house to print Klan literature...

 

his business is open to the public.... he allows customers to design their own shirts, if he only offered per-designed shirts he would of had a case to deny them

 

You need to learn the Constitution.