Uh-oh... Are we about to have uncivil war?

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
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.

WSJ


In this, I pay tribute to the daily rantings and selective posting of KO.

Do we treat these people (sub-humans [sic as in Chipbutty]) as we do wedding photographers, caterers and bakers (and maybe even candlestick makers?)?
 
Hmmm, I wonder if it was a tastefully posed Pirate Jesus..
I wonder if theyre available.(fleabay-wishlist).
 
The real issue is involuntary servitude.

Liberals treat all commerce as vendors contracted with government to serve all citizens, say....a private ambulance company, or a Medicare taxi service. Cakes and tee shirts aren't government accomadations. Because citizens aren't compelled to accept the cake or shirt due to no competition due to feanchise reatrictions.
 
I don't do business with people i don't like.

Nobody is required to sell their goods or services against their will... are they?
 
No shirt for the women who are equal to men.


They're already not wearing a bra!


:D


image.php

You said it bro!
 
I can see it now...an armed thug points his gun at a cashier's head demanding all the money in the register. The cashier pulls out his own piece and fires a warning shot right between the perp's eyes. Loons will hold vigils because the perp had a bright future ahead of him. The courts will rule the cashier violated the thug's right to commit armed robbery.
 
I don't do business with people i don't like.

Nobody is required to sell their goods or services against their will... are they?

Only if you don't dislike them based on their gender, sexual orientation, race... that kind of stuff.

Granted there are clever ways to get around it.
 
I can see it now...an armed thug points his gun at a cashier's head demanding all the money in the register. The cashier pulls out his own piece and fires a warning shot right between the perp's eyes. Loons will hold vigils because the perp had a bright future ahead of him and the courts will rule the cashier violated the thug's right to redistribute unearned wealth.


FYP


di nanda
 
Only if you don't dislike them based on their gender, sexual orientation, race... that kind of stuff.

Granted there are clever ways to get around it.

Really?


Is that an arbitrary list with a terminal point?



Can a women's gym then not exclude men?

Can a gay bar not refuse service to the Klan?

Is a black fraternity required to make sure their membership is proportional to society at large?
 
I can see it now...an armed thug points his gun at a cashier's head demanding all the money in the register. The cashier pulls out his own piece and fires a warning shot right between the perp's eyes. Loons will hold vigils because the perp had a bright future ahead of him. The courts will rule the cashier violated the thug's right to commit armed robbery.

You just keep getting dumber. :confused:
 
Canada's largest auto service chain, Canadian Tire, has more shit said about it (on the numbers) simply because it's the biggest.

A couple of years ago, they posted little cards near the Cash Register that say something along the lines of they reserve the right to ask anyone who is rude or abusive to their staff to leave.

Everyone has rights, even the vendor.
 
Canada's largest auto service chain, Canadian Tire, has more shit said about it (on the numbers) simply because it's the biggest.

A couple of years ago, they posted little cards near the Cash Register that say something along the lines of they reserve the right to ask anyone who is rude or abusive to their staff to leave.

Everyone has rights, even the vendor.

Good thing they're not Delta™.
 
In Trumpmerica, companies will stand up for their rights.

Not the tech giants based in California.

They will fight tooth, nail and claw to strip them of their rights...


:eek:



After all, they've already made theirs, they want to now hold down the competition...
 
Herb Kelleher was asked, "Aren't the customers always right?"

“No, they are not,” Kelleher snaps. “And I think that’s one of the biggest betrayals of employees a boss can possibly commit. The customer is sometimes wrong. We don’t carry those sorts of customers. We write to them and say, ‘Fly somebody else. Don’t abuse our people.’”
 
I wonder if McDonald's discriminates against Asians because domestically-based franchises don't have Chinese food on the menu?

I'm lovin' it. :cool:

Will they be forced to provide veggie burgers to satisfy the rights of vegans?
 
Back
Top