T-Shirt Company Sued

[BmorePat87]

(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.

He already stated that he knew the Kentucky supreme court didn't declare that no one was discriminated against and threw it out because the organization lacked statutory standing


I have no idea why he's claiming it not to be true now. It's really sad that an adult would try to lie like this. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 09:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT ANYONE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. Are the keys even working on my CPU?

[BmorePat87]

(11-04-2019, 09:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT ANYONE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. Are the keys even working on my CPU?

This is even more pathetic. You were exposed. We know you're lying. You know you're lying. 

[BmorePat87]

/thread

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 09:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't have to do that.  that is not the issue we are discussing.  Here is what you said



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"?

And all you've got to do is show who the SC said was discriminated against. 

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 09:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT ANYONE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. Are the keys even working on my CPU?

So now you are changing your position because we proved you wrong.

How pathetic.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And all you've got to do is show who the SC said was discriminated against. 

No.  I don't have to do that at all.

You were the one who made the claim that they said no one was discriminated against.  You are the one who is going to have to provide that quote.

But you won't be able to because they never said it.  You can type it over and over again and claim they said it as many times as you want to but you will never be able to quote them because they never said that.  They clearly said it was possible that someone was discriminated against.

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 09:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I don't have to do that at all.

You were the one who made the claim that they said no one was discriminated against.  You are the one who is going to have to provide that quote.

But you won't be able to because they never said it.  You can type it over and over again and claim they said it as many times as you want to but you will never be able to quote them because they never said that.  They clearly said it was possible that someone was discriminated against.

And you still haven't shown me where they said someone was discriminated against. But now it's on me to prove something that wasn't said. They found no one was discriminated against. Prove it otherwise of just stop banging on your keyboard.   

[BmorePat87]

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

(11-04-2019, 09:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My point is unchanged. The SC threw out the case because it could not find anyone was discriminated against. 

Those are two different points.

It's also different from what you acknowledged 3 days ago, the fact that the SC threw it out because the organization lacked statutory standing.

[*Nately120*]

(11-04-2019, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

I was just weighing in on that part.  Im a bit torn on the whole t shirt cake stuff. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 10:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was just weighing in on that part.  Im a bit torn on the whole t shirt cake stuff. 

And as I said: this case can lead me to extend a little more merit to the baker discriminating as he refused the exact same product that he provides to heterosexuals simply because they were homosexual.

In this case the owner would have refused to provide the product to a customer regardless of sexual orientation.  I posted a link showing a lesbian vendor in the same business who supports his right to not be required to print messages he views as adverse to his beliefs. Of course her opinion doesn't make it "case closed" but it does align with mine. 

[Benton]

(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.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics to justify discriminating against someone. Unless the guy is running a "Bible verses only" business, I don't think it holds any water.

[*bfine32*]

(11-04-2019, 11:30 PM)Benton Wrote: That's a lot of mental gymnastics to justify discriminating against someone. Unless the guy is running a "Bible verses only" business, I don't think it holds any water.

All I've asked is: WHO DID HE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST??? Unsure of the mental gymnastics involved and I damn sure don't know the relevance of running a "Bible versus only" business; although I see nothing wrong with doing so. 

[Benton]

(11-04-2019, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All I've asked is: WHO DID HE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST??? Unsure of the mental gymnastics involved and I damn sure don't know the relevance of running a "Bible versus only" business; although I see nothing wrong with doing so. 

Anything can be interpreted as against a religion.

According to the church is free up in, I could refuse to sell shirts to people who cut hair or get haircuts, wear makeup, are women, celebrate Halloween. I think business owners need to have rights of refusal, but some common sense needs to be applied, too. Blanket "it's against my religion" gives a lot of leeway to skirting discrimination laws. Probly too much.

[Belsnickel]

(11-04-2019, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All I've asked is: WHO DID HE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST??? Unsure of the mental gymnastics involved and I damn sure don't know the relevance of running a "Bible versus only" business; although I see nothing wrong with doing so. 

Your question has been answered several times in this thread and you have chosen to ignore it. Your response has been the court's position, which was that the organization did not have the statutory authority to claim discrimination and bring the case and was not that no one was discriminated against as you claim. This has also been explained several times.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 09:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They found no one was discriminated against. Prove it otherwise of just stop banging on your keyboard.   

If YOU make a statement the YOU have to prove it.

You can't do that and you know it.  That is why you refuse topost a quote from the decisionto back your position.

I have already posted a direct quote where they said perhaps someone was discrim inated agaianst.  You will never be able to post a quote where they said no one was discriminated against because they never said it.

[fredtoast]

(11-04-2019, 10:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Those are two different points.

It's also different from what you acknowledged 3 days ago, the fact that the SC threw it out because the organization lacked statutory standing.

He knows all of this.

It just shows how desperate he is to support discrimination.

[Belsnickel]

(11-04-2019, 10:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Those are two different points.

It's also different from what you acknowledged 3 days ago, the fact that the SC threw it out because the organization lacked statutory standing.

It all seems to me to be rather intellectually dishonest.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-04-2019, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The message is Being prideful in what the owner considers a sin.

“Lexington Pride Festival 5” announces an event, not pride in sin. No different than “Cincinnati Kool Jazz Festival.”

Quote:I thought that was already crystal clear.

I don’t doubt you think it is crystal clear. But, I find you think you make a lot of crystal clear points that are as clear as mud. Like your statement and explanation that discrimination is a term that has lost its impact. I still don’t understand your point. But, I’m sure you think it is crystal clear.

Quote: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.

He thinks homosexuality is a sin. He is refusing service based upon his religious belief. However, there is a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Which means what? (Question mark intentionally used to trigger you.) It means sexual orientation is a protected class same as race or gender.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-04-2019, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

I did look.  The owner thinks homosexuality is a sin.  He refused service to a gay and lesbian organization because they are homosexuals and homosexuals are sinners and he wasn't going to support their sinning ways.

Quote:Who is this "them" that you refer to?

The Gay and Lesbian Services organization, their members, and their potential customers.

Quote:He did not discriminate against anyone.

LOL

Quote:He chose not to promote a message he viewed as sinful.

"Lexington Pride Festival 5"

That's an event like Coachella. Would he refuse to print t-shirts for Coachella because there would be lust and gluttony or the eating of shellfish or the mixing of linen and wool?  (Question mark for your enjoyment.)

Quote: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.

Look here . . .

(11-01-2019, 04:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.

(11-01-2019, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've already mentioned the High Court ruled on a technicality; however, the appeals Court ruled in favor of the defendant.

You acknowledge the case was dismissed because it was filed on behalf of an organization, not an individual, four days ago. Or as you wrote a "technicality." You know that is not the same as "no person was discriminated against" so stop the bullshit already.