Court Rules Kentucky Print Shop Has Right to Avoid Making Gay Pride T-shirts

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bluesguy, May 13, 2017.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well a shift in rulings as we have seen in the past this one favoring the rights of the private business. In a nut shell the owners moral and religious convictions by the work he was being asked to produce. Instead of repecting that the persons sued in an attempt to force him to violate those convictions. The court said no one can force another to do that. I happen to agree, the customer can go else.

    Engage.
    Court Rules Kentucky Print Shop Has Right to Avoid Making Gay Pride T-shirts
    The owner argued that producing the shirts promoting a gay pride festival conflicted with his beliefs

    A Kentucky appellate court on Friday ruled that the Christian owner of a printing shop in Lexington had the right to refuse to make T-shirts promoting a local gay pride festival.

    The dispute represents the latest court fight testing the limits of antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

    The cases have led to a number of state court rulings against Christian-owned businesses that refused to bake cakes, design floral arrangements or take portrait photographs for same-sex weddings.

    The ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals favored the business owner. A crucial difference in this case was the expressive nature of the service denied: literally words on a shirt.

    In a split vote, a three-judge panel concluded that the store, Hands on Originals, couldn’t be forced to print a message with which the owner disagreed.

    The dispute started in 2012 when Gay and Lesbian Services Organization in Kentucky asked Hands on Originals to make T-shirts with the name and logo of a pride festival.

    Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands on Originals, said he refused to print the shirts because it violated his business’s policy of not printing messages that endorse positions in conflict with his convictions.

    Mr. Adamson offered examples of other orders he refused, such as shirts featuring the word “bitches” or a depiction of Jesus dressed as a pirate.

    The gay-rights group filed a complaint with the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, which in 2014 ordered Mr. Adamson to make the shirts.

    Friday’s decision affirmed an earlier ruling from a lower court. The commission, which brought the appeal, said the store was in violation of a local “fairness” ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.

    The Kentucky Court of Appeals, one level below the state’s Supreme Court, disagreed, ruling that the conduct by the business wasn’t discrimination, rather a decision not to promote certain speech.

    One judge on the panel dissented, saying he thought Mr. Adamson’s shop had engaged in “deliberate and intentional discriminatory conduct.”

    In other lawsuits against religious business owners, courts have rejected First Amendment defenses.


    Free speech arguments failed to persuade New Mexico’s highest court, which ruled in 2013 that the owners of an Albuquerque wedding photography company couldn’t refuse to photograph a same-sex ceremony.

    Likewise, Washington state’s highest court this year ruled against a florist who wouldn’t prepare floral arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding.

    In 2015, a Colorado appeals court ruled against a Christian baker who refused to design a cake for a gay wedding. The owner, Masterpiece Cakeshop, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The high court hasn’t decided whether to hear it.

    Business owners in those cases had argued too that providing their services expressed a message.

    The courts are making a distinction “between material that is seen as fundamentally expressive, like a message-bearing T-shirt would be, and material not seen as expressive, such as a cake,” said law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.

    Attorneys for Mr. Adamson said the ruling was a victory for free speech.

    “Today’s decision is a victory for printers and other creative professionals who serve all people but cannot promote all messages,” said Jim Campbell, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement. The group represented Mr. Adamson in the litigation.

    Raymond Sexton, executive director of the county commission, said he disagreed with Friday’s decision and is reviewing legal options.

    “The sole reason the service was denied was based on the fact they are a group that advocates on behalf of the gay and lesbian community,” he said.

    Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-...x_picks&cx_tag=poptarget&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  2. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good for them. Rainbows require too many screens anyway.
     
  3. tharock220

    tharock220 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fight this all the way to the Supreme Court Libs. Neil Gorsuch will beat you down.
     
  4. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The key words that make this case different than the wedding cake cases, "expressive nature, literally words". Similar cases are unfolding the same way across Europe - you can deny something that would be denied to everyone, e.g. The printer would have denied a gay rights shirt to a heterosexual as well, but you cannot deny service to a person because of a protected characteristic.
     
    Cubed, HonestJoe and Burzmali like this.
  5. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Beat me to it. At least now we have a real life example to point to when the usual anti-LGBT folks try to support their "pro-business" position by asking silly hypotheticals about Jewish store owners and Nazis.
     
  6. PeppermintTwist

    PeppermintTwist Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Messages:
    16,704
    Likes Received:
    12,220
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They should be pay extra for the sidewalk, street signs, fire department, etc. near their place of business. If the customer is a taxpaying citizen, why should their tax dollars pay for infrastructure that these bigots utilize?
     
  7. In The Dark

    In The Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some states have liberty and some have abrogated your right to free association with public accommodation laws.

    Attack these laws and you can regain your rights.
     
    Grokmaster likes this.
  8. In The Dark

    In The Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Give us 200 words on "Why Mosques should be denied public services." The kinda hate the Jews.
     
  9. Steve N

    Steve N Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    70,220
    Likes Received:
    89,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right now you're being bigoted and discriminatory against the printers, but that's different, right?

    And just think, we have at least 4 years of getting like minded judges appointed by Trump, judges who will be on the bench long after he's gone.
     
  10. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Outstanding. Judges that can actually read the Constitution for what it actually says not what some wish it to say.
     
  11. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's our question to you and the bigots you support.
     
    Spim, Bravo Duck, vman12 and 2 others like this.
  12. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what does the Constitution say about discriminating against gay people.
     
    Grokmaster likes this.
  13. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Homosexuality is never mentioned or referenced anywhere in the Constitution or in any existing Amendment. That's what new amendments are for.

    Thanks for making my point.
     
    Le Chef, Grokmaster and headhawg7 like this.
  14. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It also says nothing about discrimination against Christians in public business but that hasn't stopped the host of public accommodation laws created for them. No one has a problem with that though.
     
  15. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Murky, mucky issue, but I think the business owner is within his rights. People have the right to be *******s, except when it comes to discriminating against others in a personal way. But refusing to print certain words? OK. As was said earlier, if it's an equal policy for all and not one that discriminates against certain people, then I think that's where the line is and that's fair enough, even if we would not want to be at the receiving end.

    As an example, should a business be forced to print something obscene? Or should they have the freedom to refuse? I think they should have the freedom to refuse, again based on the content of the job, and not on the personal characteristics of the would-be customer.
     
    Grokmaster likes this.
  16. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Religion does get special treatment in a lot of ways.
     
  17. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it was me, I'd print the shirts.

    But I support the business owner's right to decline.
     
  18. Steve N

    Steve N Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    70,220
    Likes Received:
    89,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is it bigoted for Seattle to have a white privilege tax? Look it up.
     
    IMMensaMind and TrackerSam like this.
  19. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Justice Scalia's influence will be felt for generations.
     
    Grokmaster likes this.
  20. tharock220

    tharock220 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because those "bigots" aren't subsidized. They pay taxes as well.
     
  21. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such cases are simply intended as harassment against certain businesses. There is a multitude of places that will eagerly provide the requested goods or services. The plaintiffs specifically target the known bigots in an attempt to damage them economically. They are just looking for a big payday in the form of a court award for hurt feelings.
     
    Polydectes, Grokmaster and TrackerSam like this.
  22. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One thing I don't like about this situation is that it allows for a kind of Jim Crow treatment of gays.
     
  23. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Using that illogic, why should a wage earner pay for some else's health insurance or food stamps? gmc13824320160121075900.jpg
     
    Grokmaster and guavaball like this.
  24. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's actually a good business opportunity for someone who wants to serve that market.
     
  25. tharock220

    tharock220 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jim Crow laws were institutional segregation and violations of black people's rights. This is not.
     

Share This Page