11-04-2019, 01:01 PM
(11-04-2019, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see you are back to changing my words instaed of addressing what I really said, but I will extend you the courtesy of addressing exactly what you said.There is no semantics (on my part). He refused to use his property and talents to promote a message he views as taking pride in sin. Why didn't the customer just print the message on there himself if the owners talents were not required to do so?
I did not say the customer brought him an "idea". I asked about when the customer brought him the "design". From what I understand they brought him this
and told him to print it on t-shirts.
So I don't see where he "designed" anything. It seems this is just someone using semantics to support discrimination.
The majority in the appeals court understood it.