T-Shirt Company Sued

[Dill]

(11-01-2019, 05:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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

Thanks.  

[*bfine32*]

(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?

I would call it discrimination but IMO it's not against a protected class. Although I disagreed with the refusal to sell a wedding came not being protected I can see the legal merit in it. In this care no one was discriminated because of sexual orientation. He would refused to sell the same shirt to the Klan

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2019, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Why should intellectual property be treated different from other property?

If your business is to provide a product what difference does it make if it is intellectual property or not.  What is it about intellectual property that makes it okay to discriminate based on religion?

And if the customer provides the design there is no intellectual property involved at all.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-01-2019, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

What message was too objectionable for the owner to accommodate the customer?

Quote: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.

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10505

Possibly he is Jewish or Muslim, but you can watch the video of the owner and draw your own conclusion.

It doesn’t matter if I agree with the owner’s beliefs or the customer’s belief, the local law which is designed to prevent discrimination based upon sexual orientation is what is applicable.

But, I think it is a fair to deduce the owner is Christian and if so my question applies.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 06:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why should intellectual property be treated different from other property?

If your business is to provide a product what difference does it make if it is intellectual property or not.  What is it about intellectual property that makes it okay to discriminate based on religion?

And if the customer provides the design there is no intellectual property involved at all.

I see you're back to the "I am only going to quote part of what you said" tactic. But I will extend you the courtesy of addressing your whole point.
 Intellectual property is different than tangable property as it's your thoughts and ideas. If the customer provides an idea. The creator is the one that has to bring it into reality. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2019, 06:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What message was too objectionable for the owner to accommodate the customer?


http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10505

Possibly he is Jewish or Muslim, but you can watch the video of the owner and draw your own conclusion.

It doesn’t matter if I agree with the owner’s beliefs or the customer’s belief, the local law which is designed to prevent discrimination based upon sexual orientation is what is applicable.

But, I think it is a fair to deduce the owner is Christian and if so my question applies.

I see you didn't answer my question. Just asked more of your own. But I will extend you the courtesy of addressing your question. He found taking pride in sin to be objectable.

Regardless of his religion it's not up to you to tell him what to believe

[Benton]

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

That becomes the shifting line.

I don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because I don't like gays. They can get another cake.
I don't want to sell sandwiches to a gay couple, because I don't like gays. They can make their own food.
I don't want to give a home loan to a gay guy, because I don't like gays. He can go to the gay bank down the street, the one with twice the APR.
I don't want to put out the fire at a gay couple's house, because I don't like gays. They can use the gay public fire department an hour away.

And, ultimately, it isn't about gays. Or blacks. Or women. Or any other subgroup. The purpose is that people shouldn't discriminate against other people. The irony is, the foundation for the law is one of the only edicts from the prophet of the same religion that's trying to erode that bedrock. It's become: Love thy neighbor as they love thyself... unless he's different, let's stone that guy!

I don't disagree that the foundation for the country is based in Christianity. The problem is, the Christians stopped acting like Christians.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2019, 07:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see you're back to the "I am only going to quote part of what you said" tactic. But I will extend you the courtesy of addressing your whole point.
 Intellectual property is different than tangable property as it's your thoughts and ideas. If the customer provides an idea. The creator is the one that has to bring it into reality. 

I see you are back to changing my words instaed of addressing what I really said, but I will extend you the courtesy of addressing exactly what you said.

I did not say the customer brought him an "idea".  I asked about when the customer brought him the "design".  From what I understand they brought him this




and told him to print it on t-shirts.

So I don't see where he "designed" anything.  It seems this is just someone using semantics to support discrimination.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-01-2019, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see you didn't answer my question. Just asked more of your own. But I will extend you the courtesy of addressing your question. He found taking pride in sin to be objectable.

Regardless of his religion it's not up to you to tell him what to believe

Look, you asked me this question:

(11-01-2019, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

How am I supposed to answer your question if I don't know what the message is?  I can't.  Which is why I asked what was the message.  You're not showing me any courtesy, you're just being your usual condescending self which is the opposite of courtesy.

(11-01-2019, 12:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article150169482.html

I will assume that was the actual t-shirt design the prospective customer requested.  There is nothing in that t-shirt design that violates community standards of decency.  I don't see any sort of message about taking pride in sin.  I've looked at their website and there is no message about taking pride in sin, either. So to answer your question; no, they weren't refused service based upon the message.  The group was refused service based upon the owner's pride in his own sanctimony.

But, here's the thing about sin.  We're all sinners.  Who teaches that?  Christians.  The owner of the company is a sinner.  His pastor is a sinner.  All his fellow parishioners are sinners.  All of his customers are sinners.  So if the owner had a deeply held belief against doing business with sinners he wouldn't have a single customer.  Obviously, he isn't morally opposed to doing business with sinners because his company isn't out of business.  If Christian churches refused to minister to sinners they would be empty and out of business, too.

I've never attended a gay pride event.  However, I did watch this documentary about how the Mormon church ostracizes LGBTQ  individuals which has lead to a rash of suicides: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/believer.  These events aren't about taking pride in sin so much as helping people realized they aren't the worthless piece of shit they and others are lead to believe by the Church. It's not just Mormons, though.  Last time I was in Ohio in 2016 I was listening to an AM radio broadcast of some ignorant hillbilly pastor's sermon from somewhere in BFE Kentucky preaching nothing but hate to his congregation regarding homosexuals.  

Jesus teaches y'all to love one another, forgive one another, and don't judge one another because y'all ain't fit to judge anyone. Speaking of taking pride in sin, pride is a sin.  Pride in one's own virtue as in putting one's self above others.  As in one sinner believing they're better than another sinner.  As in another Christian business owner who is a sinner refusing to do business with another sinner because they think they're too virtuous to do business with a customer because they . . . gasp . . . are a sinner. 

[GMDino]

(11-04-2019, 11:48 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Look, you asked me this question:


How am I supposed to answer your question if I don't know what the message is?  I can't.  Which is why I asked what was the message.  You're not showing me any courtesy, you're just being your usual condescending self which is the opposite of courtesy.


I will assume that was the actual t-shirt design the prospective customer requested.  There is nothing in that t-shirt design that violates community standards of decency.  I don't see any sort of message about taking pride in sin.  I've looked at their website and there is no message about taking pride in sin, either. So to answer your question; no, they weren't refused service based upon the message.  The group was refused service based upon the owner's pride in his own sanctimony.

But, here's the thing about sin.  We're all sinners.  Who teaches that?  Christians.  The owner of the company is a sinner.  His pastor is a sinner.  All his fellow parishioners are sinners.  All of his customers are sinners.  So if the owner had a deeply held belief against doing business with sinners he wouldn't have a single customer.  Obviously, he isn't morally opposed to doing business with sinners because his company isn't out of business.  If Christian churches refused to minister to sinners they would be empty and out of business, too.

I've never attended a gay pride event.  However, I did watch this documentary about how the Mormon church ostracizes LGBTQ  individuals which has lead to a rash of suicides: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/believer.  These events aren't about taking pride in sin so much as helping people realized they aren't the worthless piece of shit they and others are lead to believe by the Church. It's not just Mormons, though.  Last time I was in Ohio in 2016 I was listening to an AM radio broadcast of some ignorant hillbilly pastor's sermon from somewhere in BFE Kentucky preaching nothing but hate to his congregation regarding homosexuals.  

Jesus teaches y'all to love one another, forgive one another, and don't judge one another because y'all ain't fit to judge anyone. Speaking of taking pride in sin, pride is a sin.  Pride in one's own virtue as in putting one's self above others.  As in one sinner believing they're better than another sinner.  As in another Christian business owner who is a sinner refusing to do business with another sinner because they think they're too virtuous to do business with a customer because they . . . gasp . . . are a sinner. 

Once again we are getting tied up in the word "pride".  bfine has staked his position that it okay to deny service over the fact that a christian/muslim/religious person working in a secular shop considers a "pride march" the same as that service provider agreeing that they are "proud" about being gay.

They hide behind "it's a sin".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-01-2019, 07:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see you're back to the "I am only going to quote part of what you said" tactic. But I will extend you the courtesy of addressing your whole point.
 Intellectual property is different than tangable property as it's your thoughts and ideas. If the customer provides an idea. The creator is the one that has to bring it into reality. 

Oh, so the NFL's shield logo is the intellectual property of Nike because they printed it on a t-shirt?  LOL

Just so you know, I could have made my point with a declarative sentence, but I know how much question marks trigger you.

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 11:48 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Look, you asked me this question:


How am I supposed to answer your question if I don't know what the message is?  I can't.  Which is why I asked what was the message.  You're not showing me any courtesy, you're just being your usual condescending self which is the opposite of courtesy.


I will assume that was the actual t-shirt design the prospective customer requested.  There is nothing in that t-shirt design that violates community standards of decency.  I don't see any sort of message about taking pride in sin.  I've looked at their website and there is no message about taking pride in sin, either. So to answer your question; no, they weren't refused service based upon the message.  The group was refused service based upon the owner's pride in his own sanctimony.

But, here's the thing about sin.  We're all sinners.  Who teaches that?  Christians.  The owner of the company is a sinner.  His pastor is a sinner.  All his fellow parishioners are sinners.  All of his customers are sinners.  So if the owner had a deeply held belief against doing business with sinners he wouldn't have a single customer.  Obviously, he isn't morally opposed to doing business with sinners because his company isn't out of business.  If Christian churches refused to minister to sinners they would be empty and out of business, too.

I've never attended a gay pride event.  However, I did watch this documentary about how the Mormon church ostracizes LGBTQ  individuals which has lead to a rash of suicides: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/believer.  These events aren't about taking pride in sin so much as helping people realized they aren't the worthless piece of shit they and others are lead to believe by the Church. It's not just Mormons, though.  Last time I was in Ohio in 2016 I was listening to an AM radio broadcast of some ignorant hillbilly pastor's sermon from somewhere in BFE Kentucky preaching nothing but hate to his congregation regarding homosexuals.  

Jesus teaches y'all to love one another, forgive one another, and don't judge one another because y'all ain't fit to judge anyone. Speaking of taking pride in sin, pride is a sin.  Pride in one's own virtue as in putting one's self above others.  As in one sinner believing they're better than another sinner.  As in another Christian business owner who is a sinner refusing to do business with another sinner because they think they're too virtuous to do business with a customer because they . . . gasp . . . are a sinner. 

The message is Being prideful in what the owner considers a sin. I thought that was already crystal clear. Your opinion on the subject is yours but you cannot force it on others. Dude thinks homosexuality is a sin and I'm sure he recognizes all have sinned but it doesn't mean he has to use his product promote pride in it.

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see you are back to changing my words instaed of addressing what I really said, but I will extend you the courtesy of addressing exactly what you said.

I did not say the customer brought him an "idea".  I asked about when the customer brought him the "design".  From what I understand they brought him this




and told him to print it on t-shirts.

So I don't see where he "designed" anything.  It seems this is just someone using semantics to support discrimination.

There is no semantics (on my part). He refused to use his property and talents to promote a message he views as taking pride in sin. Why didn't the customer just print the message on there himself if the owners talents were not required to do so?

The majority in the appeals court understood it.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2019, 12:53 AM)Benton Wrote: That becomes the shifting line.

I don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because I don't like gays. They can get another cake.
I don't want to sell sandwiches to a gay couple, because I don't like gays. They can make their own food.
I don't want to give a home loan to a gay guy, because I don't like gays. He can go to the gay bank down the street, the one with twice the APR.
I don't want to put out the fire at a gay couple's house, because I don't like gays. They can use the gay public fire department an hour away.

And, ultimately, it isn't about gays. Or blacks. Or women. Or any other subgroup. The purpose is that people shouldn't discriminate against other people. The irony is, the foundation for the law is one of the only edicts from the prophet of the same religion that's trying to erode that bedrock. It's become: Love thy neighbor as they love thyself... unless he's different, let's stone that guy!

I don't disagree that the foundation for the country is based in Christianity. The problem is, the Christians stopped acting like Christians.

Your ability to decide for how every Christian should act aside (oh the irony).

He didn't discriminate against anyone because they were gay. he chose not to promote a message he viewed as being prideful of sin. If I had walked in there and requested the same shirts be printed he would deny me and I'm heterosexual. if a homosexual would have walked in there and asked him to print jerseys for his softball team with names and number he would have filled the order. That's about as simple as I can explain it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-04-2019, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your ability to decide for how every Christian should act aside (oh the irony).

He didn't discriminate against anyone because they were gay. he chose not to promote a message he viewed as being prideful of sin. If I had walked in there and requested the same shirts be printed he would deny me and I'm heterosexual. if a homosexual would have walked in there and asked him to print jerseys for his softball team with names and number he would have filled the order. That's about as simple as I can explain it.

(11-04-2019, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The message is Being prideful in what the owner considers a sin. I thought that was already crystal clear. Your opinion on the subject is yours but you cannot force it on others. Dude thinks homosexuality is a sin and I'm sure he recognizes all have sinned but it doesn't mean he has to use his product promote pride in it.

Oh, so he didn't discriminate against anyone because they were gay, he discriminated against them because they were a homosexual?

You've out done yourself with the double speak as usual.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your ability to decide for how every Christian should act aside (oh the irony).

He didn't discriminate against anyone because they were gay. he chose not to promote a message he viewed as being prideful of sin. If I had walked in there and requested the same shirts be printed he would deny me and I'm heterosexual. if a homosexual would have walked in there and asked him to print jerseys for his softball team with names and number he would have filled the order. That's about as simple as I can explain it.

He runs a business.  He can't refuse to serve someone (either gay or straight) because of his religious beliefs.  That is discrimination.  That is as simple as I can explain it.  If he can't run his business without discriminating then he needs to find a new business.

Everyone in this country is allowed to worship and believe what they want.  But if you run a business that serves the public you can't discriminate based on religious beliefs.

[BmorePat87]

(11-04-2019, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your ability to decide for how every Christian should act aside (oh the irony).

He didn't discriminate against anyone because they were gay. he chose not to promote a message he viewed as being prideful of sin. If I had walked in there and requested the same shirts be printed he would deny me and I'm heterosexual. if a homosexual would have walked in there and asked him to print jerseys for his softball team with names and number he would have filled the order. That's about as simple as I can explain it.

I don't see how they don't get this. It's like interracial marriage. I'm not racist, I just think it's a sin. It doesn't matter what race you are or if it was the bridesmaid who is married to someone of her own race getting the shirts made for the interracial couple.

It's not racist!!!


Oh wait, it is and this is a terrible defense of homophobia. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 03:25 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, so he didn't discriminate against anyone because they were gay, he discriminated against them because they were a homosexual?

You've out done yourself with the double speak as usual.

If you cared to look at what was said instead of trying to condescend you'd see there's an obvious difference in the two thoughts you quoted.

Who is this "them" that you refer to? He did not discriminate against anyone. He chose not to promote a message he viewed as sinful. It is why I stated he didn't discriminate against anyone, he discriminated against the message. It's most likely why the Supreme Court threw it out, because no person was discriminated against.    

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He runs a business.  He can't refuse to serve someone (either gay or straight) because of his religious beliefs.  That is discrimination.  That is as simple as I can explain it.  If he can't run his business without discriminating then he needs to find a new business.

Everyone in this country is allowed to worship and believe what they want.  But if you run a business that serves the public you can't discriminate based on religious beliefs.

The court of appeals disagreed with your assertion and the SC threw it out because NOBODY was discriminated against. That's as simple as I can make it. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 05:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't see how they don't get this. It's like interracial marriage. I'm not racist, I just think it's a sin. It doesn't matter what race you are or if it was the bridesmaid who is married to someone of her own race getting the shirts made for the interracial couple.

It's not racist!!!


Oh wait, it is and this is a terrible defense of homophobia. 

Any bible verse that states marrying someone a different color than you is a sin? 

His views very well may be homophobic, but as I understand it; that's not illegal. He chose not to promote a message he disagreed with. 

I must say I'm not surprised; folks cannot see this ruling based on the merits of the facts because of their views on homosexuality and religion. AU tried at the beginning and then when shown the facts that supported exactly what he suggested he would lead him to side with the proprietor he changed his stance. You guys just fall right back into the same bumper stickers.