T-Shirt Company Sued

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And no where in your quotes did it say that no one was discriminated against.  It just said that a group can't file as an individual.

I can repost the quote where they said "perhaps someone was discriminated against" again if you want to deny they said ti.

And "perhaps someone was" is completely different from "No one was"  and you know that.

OK, how about this:

Perhaps is not a definitive, but we can roll with perhaps someone was, but the courts did not find where anyone was. Is that fair? Perhaps someone also said something about someone's mama. 

Getting your unbiased opinion on a court finding is enlightening. 

I found this from what appears to be an earlier SC ruling on the matter
https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Hands-On-Originals-Brief.pdf:

Quote:Appellee Hands On Originals (Hands On) is a small, closely-held printing business. The owner

of Hands On willingly hires and serves LGBT individuals, and he has never declined to hire or
serve anyone because of that person’s race, sex, or sexual orientation. But, in accordance with
standard industry practice, the owner of Hands On will not print messages that contradict his core
beliefs. So, for example, just as pro-choice printers have declined to print pro-life messages, and
LGBT printers have declined to print anti-gay messages, the owner of Hands On has declined to
print shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting sexually explicit videos, and shirts endorsing
violence.

So by your logic they not only discriminate against gays, the also discriminate against folks who like to go to strip clubs.