Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) Interesting view from a T shirt maker who was sued because he refused to violate his conscience. It's a real-world example of the sort of thing we've been talking about. Notice that on one occasion, he refused to print a T shrit to say "Homosexuality is sin." He didn't feel right about it. Edited September 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2017 Author Posted September 25, 2017 Double topic posted in error. Please post on the other one. Moderators please close this one.
JulieM Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: It matters not, it is all about the money. True. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Did this T-shirt maker lose in court? (I'll read more about it too.) I think he should not be forced to write a message he find offensive on a t-shirt. Edited September 26, 2017 by JulieM
CV75 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Interesting view from a T shirt maker who was sued because he refused to violate his conscience. It's a real-world example of the sort of thing we've been talking about. Notice that on one occasion, he refused to print a T shrit to say "Homsexuality is sin." He didn't feel right about it. Clearly we need to distinguish between free speech and compelling someone to do another's speaking, especially when matters of conscience and religion are involved.
Jeanne Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) It does make a big difference that his business is his..and his business is selling Christian T-shirts..he should never had been sued IMO. Edited September 26, 2017 by Jeanne
Gray Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-05-12/ruling-refusal-to-print-gay-pride-shirts-not-discrimination 2
SmileyMcGee Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Interesting view from a T shirt maker who was sued because he refused to violate his conscience. It's a real-world example of the sort of thing we've been talking about. Notice that on one occasion, he refused to print a T shrit to say "Homsexuality is sin." He didn't feel right about it. I'd also refuse to print a t-shirt with such a glaring typo 2
Guest Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 1 hour ago, JulieM said: True. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Did this T-shirt maker lose in court? (I'll read more about it too.) I think he should not be forced to write a message he find offensive on a t-shirt. It is important to note, that is not always about receiving money, but forcing the business owner to hire lawyers and bankrupt them. So when I say all about money, it is correctly stated that it "is all about revenge". 2
Popular Post california boy Posted September 26, 2017 Popular Post Posted September 26, 2017 Thank you Scott for posting this case. It proves exactly what many have been talking about. The courts have upheld the right for any business to refuse to write or print anything that is against their beliefs. Some have falsely suggested that it would be illegal for a Jewish baker to refuse to decorate a case with a swatika on it or a black baker to refuse to bake a cake supporting the KKK>. That right to refuse such requests is protected by the free speech clause and has been upheld in every court ruling. Some people have been getting this legal right confused with those that want to discriminate against a gay couple for refusing to sell them something that is generic and did not have a political or offensive message on it, such as baking a generic wedding cake. This case has been repeatedly used as an example of the difference between the two cases. I think everyone on this board has supported the legal rights of the t-shirt company or any other business to refuse to print a message that they found offensive. Yet there are still those on this board that want to distort the differences between the two cases. If the baker's case was based on being forced to decorate the cake in a way that promoted gay marriage, then they would have won their case as well. I sure hope you didn't post this as some kind of support for your false belief that the baker has a right to discriminate against the gay couple. Obviously it does not and some kind of gotcha thread would be based on a FALSE comparison. 7
Darren10 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: Thank you Scott for posting this case. It proves exactly what many have been talking about. The courts have upheld the right for any business to refuse to write or print anything that is against their beliefs. Some have falsely suggested that it would be illegal for a Jewish baker to refuse to decorate a case with a swatika on it or a black baker to refuse to bake a cake supporting the KKK>. That right to refuse such requests is protected by the free speech clause and has been upheld in every court ruling. Some people have been getting this legal right confused with those that want to discriminate against a gay couple for refusing to sell them something that is generic and did not have a political or offensive message on it, such as baking a generic wedding cake. This case has been repeatedly used as an example of the difference between the two cases. I think everyone on this board has supported the legal rights of the t-shirt company or any other business to refuse to print a message that they found offensive. Yet there are still those on this board that want to distort the differences between the two cases. If the baker's case was based on being forced to decorate the cake in a way that promoted gay marriage, then they would have won their case as well. I sure hope you didn't post this as some kind of support for your false belief that the baker has a right to discriminate against the gay couple. Obviously it does not and some kind of gotcha thread would be based on a FALSE comparison. Courts have always ruled in the manner you described but they have also ruled in a manner contrary to what you've described. Quote Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, refused to bake the cake on the basis of it going against his religion.[2] While another bakery readily provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[3][2] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states, primarily liberal "blue" states, that have such anti-discrimination laws specifically against sexual orientation, which is otherwise not required under federal law.[4] Craig and Mullin's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[5] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."[6] Masterpiece appealed the decision with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom, and refused to comply with the State's orders, instead opting to remove themselves from the wedding cake business.[3] Alongside the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals.[2] The State's decision was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court on appeal. In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court asserted that despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of Phillips' business, and not an expression of free speech nor free exercise of religion.[3][7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission Not only did the courts uphold the plaintiff's case but ordered Master Piece Bakery to conform to explicit manners of how they do business includong changing its policies and retraining its employees to conform to the court's orders of promoting gay weddings using their products. The case is pending before the US Supreme Court. Edited September 26, 2017 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 4 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said: I'd also refuse to print a t-shirt with such a glaring typo
Darren10 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 4 hours ago, Gray said: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-05-12/ruling-refusal-to-print-gay-pride-shirts-not-discrimination The article in question already said thay the t-shirt company won twice in court but the government is filing another appeals to the Kentucky State Supreme Court.
The Nehor Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, Darren10 said: The article in question already said thay the t-shirt company won twice in court but the government is filing another appeals to the Kentucky State Supreme Court. And I am guessing the government will lose. This is not really worthwhile as a cautionary tale. So far it proves the system is working. If they win precedent is established in Kentucky. Why is this being lamented on Fox instead of cheered? Slow news day? 3
thesometimesaint Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Would you feel comfortable making a T-Shirt saying "Being male is a sin"? It isn't about money or how you feel. It is about obeying the law.
CV75 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 10 hours ago, california boy said: Thank you Scott for posting this case. It proves exactly what many have been talking about. The courts have upheld the right for any business to refuse to write or print anything that is against their beliefs. Some have falsely suggested that it would be illegal for a Jewish baker to refuse to decorate a case with a swatika on it or a black baker to refuse to bake a cake supporting the KKK>. That right to refuse such requests is protected by the free speech clause and has been upheld in every court ruling. Some people have been getting this legal right confused with those that want to discriminate against a gay couple for refusing to sell them something that is generic and did not have a political or offensive message on it, such as baking a generic wedding cake. This case has been repeatedly used as an example of the difference between the two cases. I think everyone on this board has supported the legal rights of the t-shirt company or any other business to refuse to print a message that they found offensive. Yet there are still those on this board that want to distort the differences between the two cases. If the baker's case was based on being forced to decorate the cake in a way that promoted gay marriage, then they would have won their case as well. I sure hope you didn't post this as some kind of support for your false belief that the baker has a right to discriminate against the gay couple. Obviously it does not and some kind of gotcha thread would be based on a FALSE comparison. I understood the issue the OP is addressing to be that religion and freedom of speech are under attack, and this news piece just provides an example of an attack . 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 8 hours ago, Darren10 said: Courts have always ruled in the manner you described but they have also ruled in a manner contrary to what you've described. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission Not only did the courts uphold the plaintiff's case but ordered Master Piece Bakery to conform to explicit manners of how they do business includong changing its policies and retraining its employees to conform to the court's orders of promoting gay weddings using their products. The case is pending before the US Supreme Court. We will only know the supreme law of the land on this issue when the Supreme Court rules. 1
ALarson Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 8 hours ago, Darren10 said: Courts have always ruled in the manner you described but they have also ruled in a manner contrary to what you've described. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission Not only did the courts uphold the plaintiff's case but ordered Master Piece Bakery to conform to explicit manners of how they do business includong changing its policies and retraining its employees to conform to the court's orders of promoting gay weddings using their products. The case is pending before the US Supreme Court. This was not a part of the court's orders ("orders of promoting gay weddings"). Or am I misunderstanding you? From what I read, this bakery no longer offers wedding cakes to any of their customers which was his option. Here is what he was actually ordered to do: Quote ...the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."
LittleNipper Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 "Right is right and wrong is wrong." Quote from 1955 movie based on 3 episodes printed in the Ladies Home Journal in 1954. GOOD MORNING MISS DOVE
Popular Post Gray Posted September 26, 2017 Popular Post Posted September 26, 2017 9 hours ago, Darren10 said: Courts have always ruled in the manner you described but they have also ruled in a manner contrary to what you've described. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission Not only did the courts uphold the plaintiff's case but ordered Master Piece Bakery to conform to explicit manners of how they do business includong changing its policies and retraining its employees to conform to the court's orders of promoting gay weddings using their products. The case is pending before the US Supreme Court. You don't seem to be getting the distinction between offering a product offered to other customers vs being asked to create some kind of custom message. 5
Popular Post Daniel2 Posted September 26, 2017 Popular Post Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) On 9/25/2017 at 8:44 PM, california boy said: Thank you Scott for posting this case. It proves exactly what many have been talking about. The courts have upheld the right for any business to refuse to write or print anything that is against their beliefs. Some have falsely suggested that it would be illegal for a Jewish baker to refuse to decorate a case with a swatika on it or a black baker to refuse to bake a cake supporting the KKK>. That right to refuse such requests is protected by the free speech clause and has been upheld in every court ruling. Some people have been getting this legal right confused with those that want to discriminate against a gay couple for refusing to sell them something that is generic and did not have a political or offensive message on it, such as baking a generic wedding cake. This case has been repeatedly used as an example of the difference between the two cases. I think everyone on this board has supported the legal rights of the t-shirt company or any other business to refuse to print a message that they found offensive. Yet there are still those on this board that want to distort the differences between the two cases. If the baker's case was based on being forced to decorate the cake in a way that promoted gay marriage, then they would have won their case as well. I sure hope you didn't post this as some kind of support for your false belief that the baker has a right to discriminate against the gay couple. Obviously it does not and some kind of gotcha thread would be based on a FALSE comparison. Excellent post. It's clear from some of the responses in the thread that there is still confusion surrounding the differences between this case and the case involving Masterpiece Cakes. That's why it's so important to keep educating about why this was decided correctly as a matter of expressive speech, whereas refusing to provide the SAME product to customers, regardless of their gender, race, religion, etc. is NOT an acceptable form of discrimination while simultaneously not being a matter of freedom of religion or speech. Edited September 27, 2017 by Daniel2 5
Daniel2 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) In response to the OP and the subsequent comments, this case was decided just as it should have been, and I fully support the T-Shirt maker's right to refuse to print any messages (words or symbols) they find offensive, profane, indecent, etc., just as I would support a cake decorator's right to decline to print any messages (words or symbols) they find offensive, profane, indecent, etc. Masterpiece Cakes IS different, because the owner refused to provide the very same cake he provides to straight couples (he doesn't carry same-sex wedding toppers or decorations, so he couldn't have been forced to create a cake that was discernably gay vs discernably straight). For those suggesting that these instances demonstrate an "assault on" religious freedom.... I guess I don't see it that way. In the United States of America, all citizens are entitled to seek redress through our court system if they feel they've been wronged. Preserving that ability is an important aspect of our judicial system and the means by which private individuals seek justice through the government, instead of pursuing it on their own (potentially violent) terms. It's inherent in each individuals "right to due process" and "equal protection" of the law. It IS true that lawsuits cost time and money for any side... and that is why individuals or businesses are also free to seek out attorney's fees and compensation for lost time/productivity, etc. for frivolous lawsuits. Business owners or individuals who seek justice through compensation aren't "attacking" anyone's sexual orientation, and it would be wrong for any pro-LGBT advocates to suggest that in such instances, "sexual orientation" is "under attack"------they'd be seeking justice according to the laws of our government. I would hope that none of us mistake or distort all citizens' ability to exercise their "right to due process" by seeking redress of their grievances as "an attack" on religious liberty or speech. In the examples provided here and in other threads, each of those individual rights---that of due process, speech, and religion--are working their way through the courts in tandem, just as they've been designed to do by those that drafted our government. Edited September 27, 2017 by Daniel2 3
cinepro Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 28 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Excellent post. It's clear from some of the responses in the thread that there is still confusion surrounding the differences between this case and the case involving Masterpiece Cakes. That's why it's so important to keep educating about why this was decided correctly as a matter of expressive speech, whereas providing the SAME product to customers, regardless of their gender, race, religion, etc. is NOT an acceptable form of discrimination while simultaneously not being a matter of freedom of religion or speech. Just to be clear, the "cake" case would be like if a tuxedo store refused to sell a tuxedo to a person just because they were getting gay-married, but they sold lots of other tuxedos to people that were getting regular-married. I think the argument would be that the mere act of selling the tuxedo (or cake) is itself an act of support. Is this what the bakery is arguing? 3
ALarson Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 1 minute ago, cinepro said: Just to be clear, the "cake" case would be like if a tuxedo store refused to sell a tuxedo to a person just because they were getting gay-married, but they sold lots of other tuxedos to people that were getting regular-married. I think the argument would be that the mere act of selling the tuxedo (or cake) is itself an act of support. Is this what the bakery is arguing? "gay-married" and "regular-married"?
cinepro Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: "gay-married" and "regular-married"? If you didn't understand what I meant, "gay-married' is referring to a marriage between two people of the same identified gender. "Regular-married" is a marriage that, like 99.999% of marriages in the world today, is between a man and a woman. If you did understand what I meant, then I'm not sure what the quotes are for. The terms are easily understood and mean exactly what they say. If we're already supposed to be pretending that there are enough gay-marriages for them to somehow not be considered unusual or irregular, I didn't get the memo.
Recommended Posts