T-Shirt Company Sued

[*bfine32*]

https://wfpl.org/ky-supreme-court-dismisses-gay-pride-t-shirt-case/

Quote:The Kentucky Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit against Lexington T-shirt maker Hands On Originals, which refused to print T-shirts for a 2012 gay pride festival on religious grounds.

The courts in this case dismissed it on a technicality and never answered the question, so I thought I'd pose it here. Should this company be forced to make shirts that display a message of which they do not agree?

My view is exactly that of the well publicized baker case. If they would have refused to sell them shirts then there's a case. But just like the Wedding Cake, they shouldn't be forced to provide the message.

[Au165]

Depends, if they refused to print shirts that had generic messaging because the place they were to be used or the people buying them were gay then they should be punished. If the message they were printing was specifically something they disagreed with then I'd allow them safe harbor to an extent.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 12:06 PM)Au165 Wrote: Depends, if they refused to print shirts that had generic messaging because the place they were to be used or the people buying them were gay then they should be punished. If the message they were printing was specifically something they disagreed with then I'd allow them safe harbor to an extent.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article150169482.html

[Au165]

(11-01-2019, 12:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote:

If that's the shirt, then yes I'd hold the printer liable. If I was Muslim and told a group of women I can't sell them food because I disagree with women gathering in public without a male chaperone then I'd be discriminating. I really find no difference in these two instances, but because this country allows discrimination based on Christian religious beliefs we find ourselves acting as if this is some crazy idea. Religion isn't a shelter to discriminate and this isn't a messaging issue this is a disagreement with their existence which is a problem. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 12:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: If that's the shirt, then yes I'd hold the printer liable. If I was Islamic and told a group of women I can't sell them food because I disagree with women gathering in public without a male chaperone then I'd be liable. Religion isn't a shelter to discriminate and this isn't a messaging issue this is a disagreement with their existence which is a problem. 

He didn't refuse to sell them shirts; he refused to use his business to promote their cause. he did offer to help them find another vendor that would do it for the cost he would charge.

[Au165]

(11-01-2019, 12:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He didn't refuse to sell them shirts; he refused to use his business to promote their cause. he did offer to help them find another vendor that would do it for the cost he would charge.

He refused to complete their order. Again, If I tell women I will give them food but they can't eat their because of my religious beliefs and I can recommend a place where they could go eat, people wouldn't blink an eye saying that is discriminatory.

[GMDino]

Based on the article they broke the ordinance but because a group filed and not an individual they won't hear the case at all.

But honestly I will never understand why someone goes into business if they only want to do business with people the agree with and like.

You print the "gay" shirt and take the "gay" money.  It spends just like "straight" money.


Nothing about the shirt or the organization or the message was illegal as far as I can tell.  It was not hate speech, it wasn't targeting another group or individual.  

But people have always fallen back on their religion so they could discriminate and they always will.

[Au165]

(11-01-2019, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Based on the article they broke the ordinance but because a group filed and not an individual they won't hear the case at all.

But honestly I will never understand why someone goes into business if they only want to do business with people the agree with and like.

You print the "gay" shirt and take the "gay" money.  It spends just like "straight" money.


Nothing about the shirt or the organization or the message was illegal as far as I can tell.  It was not hate speech, it wasn't targeting another group or individual.  

But people have always fallen back on their religion so they could discriminate and they always will.

The same thing was often pondered about white business owners who would not serve black customers. People do irrational things in regards to irrationally discriminating against others, who would have thought?

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 12:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: The same thing was often pondered about white business owners who would not serve black customers. People do irrational things in regards to irrationally discriminating against others, who would have thought?

They did not refuse to serve them. They said they would happily sell them T-Shirts; they just would not promote their message using their name-brand. It is no where near the same. in your original response you stated this:

Quote:If the message they were printing was specifically something they disagreed with then I'd allow them safe harbor to an extent.

[Au165]

(11-01-2019, 12:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They did not refuse to serve them. They said they would happily sell them T-Shirts; they just would not promote their message using their name-brand. It is no where near the same. in your original response you stated this:

Right, the organization's name is what they disagree with i.e. their existence. Had the shirt said "Being gay is the way" or "Support gay sex" I'd give them a pass but they are saying because their organization is about being gay we disagree with their message. That is a no no.

As to did they refuse to serve them, the answer is yes. Printing is part of their business meaning they refused part of their business offering to a specific group based on their sexual orientation. How would printing the shirts be endorsing it with their name brand? Does the printer put their name on the shirts they print? If so, would not putting it on these shirts be a reasonable accommodation? I don't see how selling them the shirts wouldn't be any more an endorsement then printing them if in both cases no one knows who sold/printed them.

[GMDino]

(11-01-2019, 12:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: The same thing was often pondered about white business owners who would not serve black customers. People do irrational things in regards to irrationally discriminating against others, who would have thought?

I know, I know.  

I was raised Roman Catholic in the 70's and 80's.  Catholic school and all and it never crossed my mind to deny someone a right or services because they were gay, or black, or Muslim or whatever.

I just will never understand how someone thinks that way no matter how indoctrinated they are.  With the caveat that I understand how cults work and how simple minded people can be and how "groupthink" works.  I just expect more from us as rational human beings...so I get disappointed a lot.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 12:42 PM)Au165 Wrote: Right, the organization's name is what they disagree with i.e. their existence. Had the shirt said "Being gay is the way" or "Support gay sex" I'd give them a pass but they are saying because their organization is about being gay we disagree with their message. That is a no no.

As to did they refuse to serve them, the answer is yes. Printing is part of their business meaning they refused part of their business offering to a specific group based on their sexual orientation. How would printing the shirts be endorsing it with their name brand? Does the printer put their name on the shirts they print? If so, would not putting it on these shirts be a reasonable accommodation? I don't see how selling them the shirts wouldn't be any more an endorsement then printing them if in both cases no one knows who sold/printed them.

It was not their name he disagreed with printing it was the message of taking pride in being gay. The name of the Company is Gay and Lesbian Services Organization. You may not like that he feels it is nothing to be proud of but I don't think you can force him to use his intellectual and tangible property to promote it.

Should he be required to create a T-Shirt for Budweiser that says "Drink until you get toasted" if he feels drinking to access is a sin?  Should a homosexual business owner be forced to print shirts that say "Gos says marriage is only between a man and woman"?



With that said; I appreciate your civil responses in this back and forth. We just disagree on the outcome as do others. Here a article about a homosexual business owner supporting the T-Shirt makers choice.

https://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2019/08/19/blaine-adamson-has-an-unlikely-supporter

I don't think she should be forced to print a shirt that says "Be proud that God only recognizes a marriage between a man and woman", but we probably disagree on that as well.  

[BmorePat87]

Unfortunately, there's no federal anti-discrimination legislation to explicitly protect the LGBT community as a class in situations like this, but I think it's reasonable to interpret the law as doing so because of sex based discrimination.

The printer should be required to print the shirts. Religion is a bad excuse for being a bigot.

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2019, 01:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Unfortunately, there's no federal anti-discrimination legislation to explicitly protect the LGBT community as a class in situations like this, but I think it's reasonable to interpret the law as doing so because of sex based discrimination.

The printer should be required to print the shirts. Religion is a bad excuse for being a bigot.

My take on it is pretty much the same. Were there a case like this against an explicitly protected class then there would be near unanimous condemnation. If he had the same response to a group coming in looking to print African-American heritage festival shirts or Latin American, then he would be denounced as racist. However, because it's bigotry towards the GSM community he is defended because (a) it isn't explicitly protected federally and (b) it's still one the acceptable prejudices in many circles around the country.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 01:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My take on it is pretty much the same. Were there a case like this against an explicitly protected class then there would be near unanimous condemnation. If he had the same response to a group coming in looking to print African-American heritage festival shirts or Latin American, then he would be denounced as racist. However, because it's bigotry towards the GSM community he is defended because (a) it isn't explicitly protected federally and (b) it's still one the acceptable prejudices in many circles around the country.

Should the company be forced to print the shirts for the African-American heritage Festival regardless of the message the heritage wants to use to promote their festival or should the content of the message have a bearing?

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2019, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should the company be forced to print the shirts for the African-American heritage Festival regardless of the message the heritage wants to use to promote their festival or should the content of the message have a bearing?

I would say that if the message is not obscene or a promotion of violence then service could be denied. Since those things are not protected speech I can see valid arguments for denying service for such things. Other than that, the message should not matter.

[Au165]

Religion was used as an excuse to discriminate during the civil rights era, these are all the same arguments just reskinned for the LGBQT community.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 02:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would say that if the message is not obscene or a promotion of violence then service could be denied. Since those things are not protected speech I can see valid arguments for denying service for such things. Other than that, the message should not matter.

So the lesbian vendor should be required to publish a shirt from a religious organization that states: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


Personally I don't think she should be required to publish a message with which she disagrees.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 02:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: Religion was used as an excuse to discriminate during the civil rights era, these are all the same arguments just reskinned for the LGBQT community.

And discrimination is a term that has long ago lost its impact. 

Would it be discrimination is the Lesbian owner refused to publish a shirt that said: Marriage is between a man and woman

[Au165]

(11-01-2019, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And discrimination is a term that has long ago lost its impact. 

Quote:In the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics, including:

Age
Disability
Ethnicity
Gender
Marital status
National origin
Race,
Religion, and
Sexual orientation.

Seems to fit here pretty well.