T-Shirt Company Sued

[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.