11-01-2019, 04:00 PM
(11-01-2019, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: https://wfpl.org/ky-supreme-court-dismisses-gay-pride-t-shirt-case/
The courts in this case dismissed it on a technicality and never answered the question, so I thought I'd pose it here. Should this company be forced to make shirts that display a message of which they do not agree?
My view is exactly that of the well publicized baker case. If they would have refused to sell them shirts then there's a case. But just like the Wedding Cake, they shouldn't be forced to provide the message.
According to the article, Lexington has a city ordnance prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation regarding public accommodations. I don’t know if Lexington includes public retail stores in their definition of public accommodations, but public retail stores are usually included in public accommodations. If so, then the store owner can’t refuse service based upon sexual orientation any more than he could refuse service based upon sex. The store, Hands On Originals offers custom t-shirts so refusing to customize t-shirts is refusing service regardless of the offer to sell non-customized t-shirts.
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.
Finally, the owner claimed customizing these t-shirts violated his religious freedom. Jesus said, “love they neighbor as yourself.” How did those shirts violate that?
