11-01-2019, 01:48 PM
(11-01-2019, 01:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Unfortunately, there's no federal anti-discrimination legislation to explicitly protect the LGBT community as a class in situations like this, but I think it's reasonable to interpret the law as doing so because of sex based discrimination.
The printer should be required to print the shirts. Religion is a bad excuse for being a bigot.
My take on it is pretty much the same. Were there a case like this against an explicitly protected class then there would be near unanimous condemnation. If he had the same response to a group coming in looking to print African-American heritage festival shirts or Latin American, then he would be denounced as racist. However, because it's bigotry towards the GSM community he is defended because (a) it isn't explicitly protected federally and (b) it's still one the acceptable prejudices in many circles around the country.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
