T-Shirt Company Sued

[fredtoast]

Eventually the Supreme Court will rule that the LGBTQ is a protected community under the Civil Rights Act and then all this silliness will go away.

I can't believe there are still people asking if it is okay for a business in the United States to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

[BmorePat87]

Political alignment is not a protected class. I can be discriminated against if I want to have "Keep the races separate" shirts printed or even a confederate flag because of that political message.

I cannot be discriminated against if I want to print shirts that say "Jamaican Heritage Group" or "Christian Youth Group" or "Women's Medical Professionals United" if my issue is their ethnicity, religion, or sex, regardless of what my religion says about any of it. Likewise, Gay Pride should fall in that category and does in some jurisdictions.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 02:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: Seems to fit here pretty well.

I agree that one could forcing someone to publish a message that is contrary to his/her Religious beliefs could be considered discrimination based on religion.

You've still never answered: Should the lesbian shop owner be forced to publish a message that says: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.



I personally don't think she should but many religious organization could claim she was discriminating because of their message

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2019, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Yes.

Why should a lesbian be above the law?

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2019, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree that one could forcing someone to publish a message that is contrary to his/her Religious beliefs could be considered discrimination based on religion. 

Your right to worship and believe what you want in this country is protected.  

But when you go into business serving the public you are not allowed to discriminate.  If your religious beliefs forbid you from doing that business then you have to find another business. Discrimination by businesses is not protected in this country.

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2019, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree that one could forcing someone to publish a message that is contrary to his/her Religious beliefs could be considered discrimination based on religion.

Yeah, not really. But whatever makes you feel better.

(11-01-2019, 02:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

Why should a lesbian be above the law?

Yup.

[GMDino]

(11-01-2019, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree that one could forcing someone to publish a message that is contrary to his/her Religious beliefs could be considered discrimination based on religion.

You've still never answered: Should the lesbian shop owner be forced to publish a message that says: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.



I personally don't think she should but many religious organization could claim she was discriminating because of their message

The person getting that shirt printed would never go to the lesbian shop owner.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 02:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

Why should a lesbian be above the law?

Because IMO no one should be forced to produce a message of which they disagree.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 02:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, not really. But whatever makes you feel better.

There was a time when you were better than this condescension. That ship sailed a while back.

It doesn't make me "feel better' I don't think anyone should be forced to produce a message, of which, they disagree. You are forcing them to use their intellectual property to support your beliefs.

I don't feel a homosexual should be forced to promote messages against same sex relationships
I don't feel a person of color should be forced to promote White Pride messages
I don't feel someone who feels homosexuality is a sin should be forced to promote messages supporting it

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2019, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was a time when you were better than this condescension. That ship sailed a while back.

It sailed with you continually making intellectually dishonest arguments and me getting tired of it.

(11-01-2019, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It doesn't make me "feel better' I don't think anyone should be forced to produce a message, of which, they disagree. You are forcing them to use their intellectual property to support your beliefs.

I get you're opinion, but that still isn't discrimination.

Also, no one is being forced to use their intellectual property. When you go into business serving the public, you choose to do so. You choose to use your intellectual property. If you don't like the idea of not discriminating in your business then you don't have to be in business.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-01-2019, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: https://wfpl.org/ky-supreme-court-dismisses-gay-pride-t-shirt-case/


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.

According to the article, Lexington has a city ordnance prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation regarding public accommodations. I don’t know if Lexington includes public retail stores in their definition of public accommodations, but public retail stores are usually included in public accommodations. If so, then the store owner can’t refuse service based upon sexual orientation any more than he could refuse service based upon sex. The store, Hands On Originals offers custom t-shirts so refusing to customize t-shirts is refusing service regardless of the offer to sell non-customized t-shirts.

The case was dismissed because the suit was brought by an organization, not an individual, and the KY court claimed they couldn’t determine if an organization was harmed rather than an individual. Although, I don’t think it is a giant leap in logic to determine if the individuals of the organization were harmed.

Finally, the owner claimed customizing these t-shirts violated his religious freedom. Jesus said, “love they neighbor as yourself.” How did those shirts violate that?

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It sailed with you continually making intellectually dishonest arguments and me getting tired of it.


I get you're opinion, but that still isn't discrimination.

Also, no one is being forced to use their intellectual property. When you go into business serving the public, you choose to do so. You choose to use your intellectual property. If you don't like the idea of not discriminating in your business then you don't have to be in business.

I'm unsure what is intellectually dishonest about my stance in this matter, but sure we can blame me. You might go in business to serve (actually to provide a service to) the public, but it's a private business. Unfortunately in this case the Highest Court ruled on a technicality and not the subject. The district court saw it your way and the Courts of Appeal saw it mine. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

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

I find this statement a bit odd coming from the resident Human Resources expert.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2019, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because IMO no one should be forced to produce a message of which they disagree.

Why not?  This is the united States.  We don't support discrimination.

There is no difference between refusing to serve food or refusing to make a t-shirt.  If your business refuses to do business with a person because of their religious beliefs it is discrimination.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2019, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was a time when you were better than this condescension. That ship sailed a while back.

It doesn't make me "feel better' I don't think anyone should be forced to produce a message, of which, they disagree. You are forcing them to use their intellectual property to support your beliefs.

I don't feel a homosexual should be forced to promote messages against same sex relationships
I don't feel a person of color should be forced to promote White Pride messages
I don't feel someone who feels homosexuality is a sin should be forced to promote messages supporting it

Seems you are just trying to squirm around the issue by using the term "message".

A business should not be treated differently from another business just because their business involves t-shirts instead renting speakers.  Why should a Christian be forced to rent speakers for a Pride Festival but the t-shirt maker not be forced to make the t-shirts?

If you have to discriminate based on your religious beliefs then you have to go into a business that does not involve "messages".

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seems you are just trying to squirm around the issue by using the term "message".

A business should not be treated differently from another business just because their business involves t-shirts instead renting speakers.  Why should a Christian be forced to rent speakers for a Pride Festival but the t-shirt maker not be forced to make the t-shirts?

If you have to discriminate based on your religious beliefs then you have to go into a business that does not involve "messages".

I'm not squirming. promoting the "message" is the crux of the issue. It's why the majority wrote:
"The right of free speech does not guarantee to any person the right to use someone else's property," Kramer wrote. "In other words, the 'service' Hands On Originals offers is the promotion of messages. The 'conduct' Hands On Originals chose not to promote was pure speech."

Your example is a false equivalence as a person who buys a speaker from you they are not forcing you to use your intellectual property to promote a message for them. Your example would make sense if the owner refused to sell them blank T-Shirts for fear they would write "gay things" on them.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 04:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I find this statement a bit odd coming from the resident Human Resources expert.

It's exactly why I stated it. You notice I didn't say it changed its meaning.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 04:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: According to the article, Lexington has a city ordnance prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation regarding public accommodations. I don’t know if Lexington includes public retail stores in their definition of public accommodations, but public retail stores are usually included in public accommodations. If so, then the store owner can’t refuse service based upon sexual orientation any more than he could refuse service based upon sex. The store, Hands On Originals offers custom t-shirts so refusing to customize t-shirts is refusing service regardless of the offer to sell non-customized t-shirts.

The case was dismissed because the suit was brought by an organization, not an individual, and the KY court claimed they couldn’t determine if an organization was harmed rather than an individual. Although, I don’t think it is a giant leap in logic to determine if the individuals of the organization were harmed.

Finally, the owner claimed customizing these t-shirts violated his religious freedom. Jesus said, “love they neighbor as yourself.”  How did those shirts violate that?

Let's assume the person from the organization who requested the message was not homosexual. Was that person denied service because of sexual orientation or because of the message?

I've already mentioned the High Court ruled on a technicality; however, the appeals Court ruled in favor of the defendant.

As I've also said: You don't have to agree with his believes. perhaps he's Jewish or Muslim and doesn't believe in the New Testament.

[Dill]

(11-01-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seems you are just trying to squirm around the issue by using the term "message".

A business should not be treated differently from another business just because their business involves t-shirts instead renting speakers.  Why should a Christian be forced to rent speakers for a Pride Festival but the t-shirt maker not be forced to make the t-shirts?

If you have to discriminate based on your religious beliefs then you have to go into a business that does not involve "messages".

What if a Jewish person runs a t-shirt shop and is patronized by a white nationalist group who wants one-hundred t-shirts saying "Jews shall not replace us!"? 

Is it possible that the message could be considered discriminatory? Or does the owner have to serve white nationalists for fear of discriminating in that direction?

[BmorePat87]

(11-01-2019, 04:59 PM)Dill Wrote: What if a Jewish person runs a t-shirt shop and is patronized by a white nationalist group who wants one-hundred t-shirts saying "Jews shall not replace us!"? 

Is it possible that the message could be considered discriminatory? Or does the owner have to serve white nationalists for fear of discriminating in that direction?

On what basis is the white nationalist being discriminated against?

Their political opinion isn’t protected. Their race and religion are, but is their phrase of “Jews will not replace us” based on their religion or race?
The court would answer that question