T-Shirt Company Sued

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-04-2019, 09:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

LOL

"a gay"

How would the owner or you know this person was "a gay"?

The flames?

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 08:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Because it hasn't been proven that anyone was discriminated because of sexual orientation in this case. The court of appeals stated so and the SC threw it out. 

The best you have is the court could b not determine. What does that mean legally in your expertise counselor? 

The defendant was accused the courts could not find where anyone was discriminated against due to sexual orientation. Unsure what else I need to provide and a bunch of group-thinkers on a message board stating differently doesn't matter in reality.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 11:08 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: LOL

"a gay"

How would the owner or you know this person was "a gay"?

The flames?

Pretty sue you just unwittingly supported my position.

A gay guy and I walk into his business and both show him the same picture of the T-Shirt and ask him to make it.

He says "My religious beliefs view homosexuality as sexually immoral and a sin and because of my faith I cannot make a shirt that displays pride in sin." and turns both of us away.

Which one of us was discriminated against because of our sexual orientation?

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 08:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

What was the Appeals Court verdict and did the SC rule against it?

If folks would spend less time worrying about he. Calling me dishonest, homophobic, obtuse, troll, ect.. and looked at the case with their emotions checked at the door they may be able to understand why the Appeals Court ruled as it did and why the SC threw it out because "no one" brought suit saying they were discriminated against. I know earlier I called that a technicality looking for middle ground on the SC ruling; however, none was afforded. Sp let's call it a rule of law. 

But let's stop all of the arguing the position of posters and answer the simple question.

In your unbiased opinion was anyone discriminated against in this case because of sexual orientation?

[GMDino]

(11-05-2019, 11:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What was the Appeals Court verdict and did the SC rule against it?

If folks would spend less time worrying about he. Calling me dishonest, homophobic, obtuse, troll, ect.. and looked at the case with their emotions checked at the door they may be able to understand why the Appeals Court ruled as it did and why the SC threw it out because "no one" brought suit saying they were discriminated against. I know earlier I called that a technicality looking for middle ground on the SC ruling; however, none was afforded. Sp let's call it a rule of law. 

But let's stop all of the arguing the position of posters and answer the simple question.

In your unbiased opinion was anyone discriminated against in this case because of sexual orientation?

Yes.  Because the "gentleman" at the shirt shop refused service because it would have supported "pride" in a sin that he believe the customer is committing.  

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2019, 11:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What was the Appeals Court verdict and did the SC rule against it?

If folks would spend less time worrying about he. Calling me dishonest, homophobic, obtuse, troll, ect.. and looked at the case with their emotions checked at the door they may be able to understand why the Appeals Court ruled as it did and why the SC threw it out because "no one" brought suit saying they were discriminated against. I know earlier I called that a technicality looking for middle ground on the SC ruling; however, none was afforded. Sp let's call it a rule of law. 

But let's stop all of the arguing the position of posters and answer the simple question.

In your unbiased opinion was anyone discriminated against in this case because of sexual orientation?

There is really no such thing as an unbiased opinion. But my opinion is that yes, there was discrimination against the GSM community. I've already stated that in this thread with my first post. The SC ruled there was no statutory standing for the organization to bring the case, meaning the organization cannot claim discrimination under the law not that they were not discriminated against.

Believe me, this isn't provoking an emotional response for me. This is the law. I can't claim to be unbiased but I am quite literally reading the words of the ruling.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2019, 11:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sue you just unwittingly supported my position.

A gay guy and I walk into his business and both show him the same picture of the T-Shirt and ask him to make it.

He says "My religious beliefs view homosexuality as sexually immoral and a sin and because of my faith I cannot make a shirt that displays pride in sin." and turns both of us away.

Which one of us was discriminated against because of our sexual orientation?

Members of the Gay and Lesbian Services organization and their customers who are LGBTQ.

https://secure.acsevents.org/site/TR/MakingStridesAgainstBreastCancer/MSABCCY19NCR?pg=entry&fr_id=94367

A gay guy and you walk into his business and ask him to print some breast cancer awareness shirts for Making Strides Against Breast Cancer.

He says, "I don't support women's causes," and turns you away.

According to your logic, no one was discriminated against based upon gender because neither you or the gay guy are women.  So it's all good.

[GMDino]

(11-01-2019, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: With that said; I appreciate your civil responses in this back and forth. We just disagree on the outcome as do others.

Where the thread should have ended.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is really no such thing as an unbiased opinion. But my opinion is that yes, there was discrimination against the GSM community. I've already stated that in this thread with my first post. The SC ruled there was no statutory standing for the organization to bring the case, meaning the organization cannot claim discrimination under the law not that they were not discriminated against.

Believe me, this isn't provoking an emotional response for me. This is the law. I can't claim to be unbiased but I am quite literally reading the words of the ruling.

You give your opinion that a "community" was discriminated against and then point to the ruling that states a "community" cannot claim discrimination. 

As usual we'll just disagree and I'll disengage before I say something personal (that shit would get me suspended) So we have both the SC and the Appeals court ruling against the plaintiff, but we're still rolling with someone was discriminated against. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 12:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Where the thread should have ended.

Not necessarily and as the creator of the thread I feel an obligation to respond as folks provide their input. 

It just took it's unfortunate normal turn when someone started with "Whatever makes you feel better" and degraded further into name calling. I've tried to steer away from the personal attacks and bring it back to the case and its findings. 

I have no problem that AU was able to present his counter without insult (although I do think he moved the goalpost a little when presented with the facts), but what to expect: Folks do not like to be wrong. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2019, 12:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You give your opinion that a "community" was discriminated against and then point to the ruling that states a "community" cannot claim discrimination. 

As usual we'll just disagree and I'll disengage before I say something personal (that shit would get me suspended) So we have both the SC and the Appeals court ruling against the plaintiff, but we're still rolling with someone was discriminated against. 

LOL

Federal law prohibits discrimination against protected classes?

What’s a protected class?

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 12:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Members of the Gay and Lesbian Services organization and their customers who are LGBTQ.

https://secure.acsevents.org/site/TR/MakingStridesAgainstBreastCancer/MSABCCY19NCR?pg=entry&fr_id=94367

A gay guy and you walk into his business and ask him to print some breast cancer awareness shirts for Making Strides Against Breast Cancer.

He says, "I don't support women's causes," and turns you away.

According to your logic, no one was discriminated against based upon gender because neither you or the gay guy are women.  So it's all good.

No according to my logic neither of us can claim discrimination due to sexual orientation. He denied us both the same service; it just happened that one of us was gay. You provided me with another great example support my position. I do appreciate you supporting me in this discussion. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 12:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: LOL

Federal law prohibits discrimination against protected classes?

What’s a protected class?

We all know what a protected class is; hell the term individuals may even be used in describing it. 

And what was the court's (Appellate and Supreme) in this case?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2019, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No according to my logic neither of us can claim discrimination due to sexual orientation. He denied us both the same service; it just happened that one of us was gay. You provided me with another great example support my position. I do appreciate you supporting me in this discussion. 

You honestly believe there wasn’t any discrimination directed toward women in my second example?

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 12:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You honestly believe there wasn’t any discrimination directed toward women in my second example?

There was a sexist attitude exhibited, but neither of us were discriminated against. Now IF a woman went in there and the same scenario played out we'd have a different case and one that would require additional facts. What is his basis for not supporting women's causes. He'd have a hard time selling that based on religion unless he was Muslim. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2019, 12:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You give your opinion that a "community" was discriminated against and then point to the ruling that states a "community" cannot claim discrimination. 

As usual we'll just disagree and I'll disengage before I say something personal (that shit would get me suspended) So we have both the SC and the Appeals court ruling against the plaintiff, but we're still rolling with someone was discriminated against. 

Not being discriminated against and not being able to claim discrimination under the statute are two different things. I can be discriminated against for being fat but that doesn't make it illegal or allow me any financial recourse when a theater has tiny seats. I get told to lose some weight and shut up. Discrimination still occurred, but that doesn't mean there is a legal case. Not too difficult of a concept.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 02:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not being discriminated against and not being able to claim discrimination under the statute are two different things. I can be discriminated against for being fat but that doesn't make it illegal or allow me any financial recourse when a theater has tiny seats. I get told to lose some weight and shut up. Discrimination still occurred, but that doesn't mean there is a legal case. Not too difficult of a concept.

The concept is simple, but of course in this instance we are talking about a legal finding. Take a second and realize the example you just provided was against an individual. As you say: Not too difficult of a concept. 

If you come to me and say: I want a T-Shirt that says "Being obese is happiness" and I say I cannot in good conscious print that shirt using my resources and skills because I am aware of the health issues associated with obesity. I never say I won't print that shirt for you because you're fat. Were you discriminated against because of weight? 

Now that you answer that, consider the exact same scenario but now the customer is thin? Was he discriminated because he was thin?

[GMDino]

Are we gonna shift gears and say the shop owner wasn't claiming the "pride in a sin" defense and go to he thinks being gay is unhealthy?

Does his religion prevent him from supporting anything he sees as unhealthy?

This is getting so ridiculous.

What was a simple matter of a case being turned down because a group filed it rather than the individual who was denied services is now a feces twister to defend religious people discriminating against anyone they want of they can prove it is "against" their religion.

The basic concept of "treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself" is so lost on the "religious" it makes me glad people don't think I'm religious any more.

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2019, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The concept is simple, but of course in this instance we are talking about a legal finding. Take a second and realize the example you just provided was against an individual. As you say: Not too difficult of a concept. 

A legal finding that said the organization did not have standing under the law to bring the suit for discrimination, not that they weren't discriminated against. Same thing as discrimination for being fat.

(11-05-2019, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you come to me and say: I want a T-Shirt that says "Being obese is happiness" and I say I cannot in good conscious print that shirt using my resources and skills because I am aware of the health issues associated with obesity. I never say I won't print that shirt for you because you're fat. Were you discriminated against because of weight? 

Yes.

(11-05-2019, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now that you answer that, consider the exact same scenario but now the customer is thin? Was he discriminated because he was thin?

Same message with a thin person bringing it, or message replaced with "thin"? Fat community is being discriminated against with same message, even though individual is not.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 03:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Are we gonna shift gears and say the shop owner wasn't claiming the "pride in a sin" defense and go to he thinks being gay is unhealthy?

Does his religion prevent him from supporting anything he sees as unhealthy?

This is getting so ridiculous.

What was a simple matter of a case being turned down because a group filed it rather than the individual who was denied services is now a feces twister to defend religious people discriminating against anyone they want of they can prove it is "against" their religion.

The basic concept of "treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself" is so lost on the "religious" it makes me glad people don't think I'm religious any more.

No I was simply drawing relevance to Matt's example. My stance has remained unchanged since my original thoughts on the matter. The lower court ruled for the plaintiffs, the higher court ruled for the defendant, the highest court rejected it because the discrimination rules do not apply ro a group. 

But I do agree it has gotten ridiculous and has degraded into petty name-calling by some.