T-Shirt Company Sued

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am rolling with the SC opinion since they are the superior court, and they said that perhaps someone was discriminated against.

You calling them liars?

BTW the Court of Appeals had a split decision.  One judge said that the shop owner was allowed to discriminate based on his religious beliefs.  One judge said the shop owner was wrong to discriminate, but ruled in his favor because the local ordinance was not the "least restrictive" way to deal with the discrimination (based on the Hobby Lobby case), and the third judge ruled against the shop owner finding that he did discriminate and should not have been allowed to.

Perhaps this is why the said it was possible:

Quote:At no point did any Hands On representative inquire

into the GLSO representatives’ sexual orientation, and the GLSO
representatives did not disclose such information.

and they followed with this:

Quote:Importantly, the record is clear that

no individual claimed Hands On had discriminated.

 

but they worded it in the one little phrase you are clinging to because of this:

Quote:If so, then

the determination would have to follow whether the reason for denial of
service constitutes discrimination under the ordinance, and then
whether the local government was attempting to compel expression, had
infringed on religious liberty, or had failed to carry its burden under KRS
446.350. But without an individual, as required by Section 2-32(2)(a),
this analysis cannot be conducted. Our decision, based on lack of
10
standing, is necessary because without a proper complainant, no
determination can be made as to whether the ordinance was violated.

We do not know the sexual orientation of the representative.

No matter how hard you try you cannot find where the courts determined someone was discriminated against aka.. no one was discriminated against this case.

Pretty sure everyone here knows how a split decision works. 

But feel free to cling tight to "perhaps" counselor.