T-Shirt Company Sued

[*Nately120*]

(11-04-2019, 08:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Any bible verse that states marrying someone a different color than you is a sin? 

There is a part in the Bible where Jesus pretty much tells people to stop taking all that old testament stuff, particularly Leviticus, so seriously, though isn't there?

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 08:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

Your comment is not "simple" it is "simple minded".

The Supreme Court never said nobody was discriminated against.  Here is what they said,


“Because an ‘individual’ did not file the claim, but rather an organization did, we would have to determine whether the organization is a member of the protected class, which we find impossible to ascertain,” the 11-page ruling stated.

The ruling means that the court didn’t ultimately determine whether Hands On Originals violated Lexington’s fairness ordinance.


But keep making up stuff to defend the discrimination against the LGBTQ community.  Eventually the US Supreme Court will rule on it or the legislation will be changed to define the LGBTQ as part of a protected class.  Discrimination in the name of religion always loses in the long run.  See: womens' voting rights, interracial marriage, and same sex marriage.

You can keep your right to worship and believe what you want, but your desire to discriminate and deny fellow citizens equal protection under the law based on your religion will not stand.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 08:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Actually YOU are the one who is making up stuff about the ruling because you don't see why it is NOT okay to discriminate against people based on religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion is freedom to worship how you see fit.  That has nothing to do with running a business to serve the public. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 08:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your comment is not "simple" it is "simple minded".

The Supreme Court never said nobody was discriminated against.  Here is what they said,


“Because an ‘individual’ did not file the claim, but rather an organization did, we would have to determine whether the organization is a member of the protected class, which we find impossible to ascertain,” the 11-page ruling stated.

The ruling means that the court didn’t ultimately determine whether Hands On Originals violated Lexington’s fairness ordinance.


But keep making up stuff to defend the discrimination against the LGBTQ community.  Eventually the US Supreme Court will rule on it or the legislation will be changed to define the LGBTQ as part of a protected class.  Discrimination in the name of religion always loses in the long run.  See: womens' voting rights, interracial marriage, and same sex marriage.

You can keep your right to worship and believe what you want, but your desire to discriminate and deny fellow citizens equal protection under the law based on your religion will not stand.

Maybe, just maybe the Supreme Court held that view because an organization is not an individual. The court of Appeals got it, the SC got it, but folks that rule with their heart instead of ruling blindly to such influences will not. 

Tell me who was discriminated in this case. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 08:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually YOU are the one who is making up stuff about the ruling because you don't see why it is NOT okay to discriminate against people based on religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion is freedom to worship how you see fit.  That has nothing to do with running a business to serve the public. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs.  

What
person
was 
discriminated
against
? 

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 08:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: There is a part in the Bible where Jesus pretty much tells people to stop taking all that old testament stuff, particularly Leviticus, so seriously, though isn't there?

There is, but not everyone that believes in the God of Abraham and his rules believe in the New Testament. I disagree with them, but I'm not sure I can make it illegal. 

[GMDino]

(11-04-2019, 08:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

None pop to mind however it was a general use of the Bible and "religion" as a justification to keep the races "pure" that was used in this country for generations.

Now it is used to deny services and rights to anyone they can....while complaining that they are discriminated against. 

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 08:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Any bible verse that states marrying someone a different color than you is a sin? 

religion fueled legal opposition to interracial marriage – in some cases until quite recently.

In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other. In the 1960s, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

After the Supreme Court invalidated bans on interracial marriage, Bob Jones University still argued that the freedom of religion provisions of the First Amendment allowed it to ban interracial dating and keep its tax-exempt status while doing so, because its “rule against interracial dating is a matter of religious belief and practice.” And after the Supreme Court rejected this argument, in 1983, the university continued to ban interracial dating until the year 2000.

Even the more subtle legal defenses of same-sex marriage bans mirror the arguments used to defend bans on interracial marriage. There are arguments based on tradition: In 1967, Virginia officials told the Supreme Court that “The Virginia [bans on interracial marriage] reflect a policy which has obtained in this Commonwealth for over two centuries in which still obtains in seventeen states.” Now, in 2015, Michigan tells the Supreme Court that it “has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman since before statehood.” Kentucky says that same-sex marriage “is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history.”




Any Bible verse that says you are not allowed to print a t-shirt if you disagree with the message on it?

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What
person
was 
discriminated
against
? 

Every
single
person
who
was 
denied
one
of
these
tshirts.


Where
did
Kentucky
Supreme
Court
say
nobody
was 
discriminated
against
?

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 08:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: religion fueled legal opposition to interracial marriage – in some cases until quite recently.

In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other. In the 1960s, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

After the Supreme Court invalidated bans on interracial marriage, Bob Jones University still argued that the freedom of religion provisions of the First Amendment allowed it to ban interracial dating and keep its tax-exempt status while doing so, because its “rule against interracial dating is a matter of religious belief and practice.” And after the Supreme Court rejected this argument, in 1983, the university continued to ban interracial dating until the year 2000.

Even the more subtle legal defenses of same-sex marriage bans mirror the arguments used to defend bans on interracial marriage. There are arguments based on tradition: In 1967, Virginia officials told the Supreme Court that “The Virginia [bans on interracial marriage] reflect a policy which has obtained in this Commonwealth for over two centuries in which still obtains in seventeen states.” Now, in 2015, Michigan tells the Supreme Court that it “has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman since before statehood.” Kentucky says that same-sex marriage “is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history.”




Any Bible verse that says you are not allowed to print a t-shirt if you disagree with the message on it?

I asked for a bible verse, you give me a secular court ruling. But to answer your question:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the LORD Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 08:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every
single
person
who
was 
denied
one
of
these
tshirts.


Where
did
Kentucky
Supreme
Court
say
nobody
was 
discriminated
against
?

So you've got no one? They ruled as they did because a person didn't claim discrimination.

Now you might begin to understand the SC's ruling counselor. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-04-2019, 08:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

Wait, we can only cite the bible to support our religious views?

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 08:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wait, we can only cite the bible to support our religious views?

Nope folks can believe whatever they want, I simply asked for a verse that mentions marrying someone of a different color is a sin. Do you have anything? 

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 08:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you've got no one? They ruled as they did because a person didn't claim discrimination.

Now you might begin to understand the SC's ruling counselor. 

Here is a direct quote from page ten of their ruling

 "No end user may have been denied the service who is a member of the protected class, or perhaps one was." 

Your claim that they said "nobody was discriminated against" is 100% bullshit.  You just made that up to justify discrimination based on religious beliefs.

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a direct quote from page ten of their ruling

 "No end user may have been denied the service who is a member of the protected class, or perhaps one was." 

Your claim that they said "nobody was discriminated against" is 100% bullshit.  You just made that up to justify discrimination based on religious beliefs.

So they didn't find anyone was discriminated against? Not sure how many times we can keep doing this, but I'm just wasting time until kickoff. So feel free to quote me something else that doesn't show anyone was discriminated against. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-04-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope folks can believe whatever they want, I simply asked for a verse that mentions marrying someone of a different color is a sin. Do you have anything? 

My post made reference to your illogical claim that discriminating against gay marriage isn't actually discrimination against gay people. What exactly is the relevance of the bible or the appellate court ruling to that?

I get that your thing is to refuse to acknowledge your own words and to just throw out random questions, but I'm not interested in playing childish games.

You made a dumb comment in an attempt to defend the homophobia that you support. It was terrible.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope folks can believe whatever they want, I simply asked for a verse that mentions marrying someone of a different color is a sin. Do you have anything? 

There are different places where he forbids his children to marry other races specifically the 7th Chapter of Deuteronomy.

Now where is the bible verse that says that a T-shirt vendor should not print something he disagrees with.

[BmorePat87]

(11-04-2019, 08:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

This is patently false. The court dismissed it because the organization lacked statutory standing. The relevant statue forbids individual discrimination but the organization is not an individual, so they cannot file suit claiming individual discrimination.

They did not throw it out "because NOBODY was discriminated against". 

This was mentioned 3 days ago and you responded to it acknowledging that you knew it was true, which means you're lying in this post.

LOL, how pathetic. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 09:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: My post made reference to your illogical claim that discriminating against gay marriage isn't actually discrimination against gay people. What exactly is the relevance of the bible or the appellate court ruling to that?

I get that your thing is to refuse to acknowledge your own words and to just throw out random questions, but I'm not interested in playing childish games.

You made a dumb comment in an attempt to defend the homophobia that you support. It was terrible.

WTF did I say that? 

I simply said dude's stance is he cannot use his products/talents to promoter taking pride in what he considers sin. If a gay came into his shop (married or otherwise) and asked to have a Where's Waldo shirt made and dude said, NO! You're gay. Then you'd have a point and dude should be held accountable. Sorta like the feeble false-equivalency example Fred tried to make about selling speakers.I fa gay would have come in there and said "I want to buy a blank T-Shirt and dude would have said "No! You'll right gay stuff on it. The you may have a point. The rest is just you insulting others because you don't agree.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So feel free to quote me something else that doesn't show anyone was discriminated against. 

I don't have to do that.  that is not the issue we are discussing.  Here is what you said

(11-04-2019, 08:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  the SC threw it out because NOBODY was discriminated against.

They never said that.  In fact they said "perhaps someone was".

Are you really going to go to stick with the argument that "nobody was discriminated against" is the same as "perhaps someone was"?