The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Right to refuse service and religious conviction.

Spoiler:

Quote:

By Todd Starnes
A Lexington, KY t-shirt company is under investigation by the city’s Human Rights Commission after they refused to print t-shirts for a local gay rights organization.
The owner of “Hands On Originals,” a well-known t-shirt company in the region, declined to print the shirts for the city’s Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) because it would conflict with their Christian convictions.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS
The privately owned company is now accused of violating Lexington’s Fairness Act – which protects people and organizations from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The attacks are out of line, said Jim Campbell, an attorney with Alliance Defense Fund, the organization representing “Hands On Originals.”

Lexington Gay Pride logo
“No business owner should be forced to violate his conscience simply because someone demands it,” he said. “The Constitution absolutely supports the rights of business owners to decline a request to support a message that conflicts with their deeply held convictions.”
Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News that “Hands On Originals” will be “required by law to participate in the investigation.”
“We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law,” he said. “We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.”
Should the company be found guilty of discriminating against the homosexuals Sexton said they could be subjected to fines.
“Hands On Originals” has faced a barrage of attacks since the accusations were made public. More than 2,000 people have joined a boycott movement on Facebook. Another group is trying to buy the company’s mortgage so they can be evicted.
The Fayette County public school system placed a temporary hold on buying t-shirts from the company until the issue is resolved. The University of Kentucky is also reviewing its future business with the t-shirt maker.
Even Lexington’s openly gay mayor has condemned the privately-owned t-shirt company, telling the Lexington Herald-Leader “People don’t have patience for this sort of attitude today.”
“I’m against discrimination, period,” Gray said in a statement released to television station WKYT. “It’s bad for business and bad for the city. I support the Human Rights Commission in a full and thorough investigation.”
GLSO wanted “Hands On Original” to print shirts for the city’s fifth annual Lexington Pride Festival. The store offered to find another company that would honor its price – but that wasn’t good enough for the GLSO.
“Our feeling on that is, separate but equal wasn’t okay during the civil rights movement and it’s not okay now,” Aaron Baker told the television station. Baker is board president of GLSO.
Blaine Adamson is the managing owner of “Hands on Originals.” He defended his company in an op-ed that appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader and unequivocally denied that he is guilty of discrimination.
“I decided to pass on the opportunity because, as a Christian owner, I cannot in good conscience endorse groups or events that run counter to my convictions,” Adamson wrote in the op-ed.
Adamson, who has been in business for more than 20 years, wrote that he “does not expect, or even ask, people to agree with my view.”
“All I ask for people is to respect my right as an owner to not produce a product that is contrary to my principles,” he wrote.
Adamson called on people to stand up for the rights of small business owners not “to be forced into producing a product with a message that conflicts with their beliefs and consciences.”
“Over the past 20 years, we have declined to produce several other products with different messages than the one at issue here because we disapproved of whatever message it was, and it never had anything to do with discrimination,” he wrote. “People reading this may disagree with my view on the current issue, but I hope they will join us in supporting our right to decline an order that promotes a view so contrary to our personal beliefs.”
As a result of Adamson’s stand, he’s started to lose business from public organizations.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, condemned the attacks on the t-shirt company and said Adamson has as much freedom to reject homosexuality as his customers do to endorse it.
“The Left still insists that personal morality take a backseat to its radical agenda,” Perkins said. “Whether it’s a t-shirt company, wedding photographer, or the church, homosexuals will not be satisfied until they compel us to either spread their perversion or promote it.”
Sexton told Fox News it could take up to six months to investigate the charges.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Linky Spoiler: Quote: By Todd Starnes A Lexington, KY t-shirt company is under investigation by the city’s Human Rights Commission after they refused to print t-shirts for a local gay rights organization. The owner of “Hands On Originals,” a well-known t-shirt company in the region, declined to print the shirts for the city’s Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) because it would conflict with their Christian convictions. FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS The privately owned company is now accused of violating Lexington’s Fairness Act – which protects people and organizations from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The attacks are out of line, said Jim Campbell, an attorney with Alliance Defense Fund, the organization representing “Hands On Originals.” Lexington Gay Pride logo “No business owner should be forced to violate his conscience simply because someone demands it,” he said. “The Constitution absolutely supports the rights of business owners to decline a request to support a message that conflicts with their deeply held convictions.” Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News that “Hands On Originals” will be “required by law to participate in the investigation.” “We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law,” he said. “We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.” Should the company be found guilty of discriminating against the homosexuals Sexton said they could be subjected to fines. “Hands On Originals” has faced a barrage of attacks since the accusations were made public. More than 2,000 people have joined a boycott movement on Facebook. Another group is trying to buy the company’s mortgage so they can be evicted. The Fayette County public school system placed a temporary hold on buying t-shirts from the company until the issue is resolved. The University of Kentucky is also reviewing its future business with the t-shirt maker. Even Lexington’s openly gay mayor has condemned the privately-owned t-shirt company, telling the Lexington Herald-Leader “People don’t have patience for this sort of attitude today.” “I’m against discrimination, period,” Gray said in a statement released to television station WKYT. “It’s bad for business and bad for the city. I support the Human Rights Commission in a full and thorough investigation.” GLSO wanted “Hands On Original” to print shirts for the city’s fifth annual Lexington Pride Festival. The store offered to find another company that would honor its price – but that wasn’t good enough for the GLSO. “Our feeling on that is, separate but equal wasn’t okay during the civil rights movement and it’s not okay now,” Aaron Baker told the television station. Baker is board president of GLSO. Blaine Adamson is the managing owner of “Hands on Originals.” He defended his company in an op-ed that appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader and unequivocally denied that he is guilty of discrimination. “I decided to pass on the opportunity because, as a Christian owner, I cannot in good conscience endorse groups or events that run counter to my convictions,” Adamson wrote in the op-ed. Adamson, who has been in business for more than 20 years, wrote that he “does not expect, or even ask, people to agree with my view.” “All I ask for people is to respect my right as an owner to not produce a product that is contrary to my principles,” he wrote. Adamson called on people to stand up for the rights of small business owners not “to be forced into producing a product with a message that conflicts with their beliefs and consciences.” “Over the past 20 years, we have declined to produce several other products with different messages than the one at issue here because we disapproved of whatever message it was, and it never had anything to do with discrimination,” he wrote. “People reading this may disagree with my view on the current issue, but I hope they will join us in supporting our right to decline an order that promotes a view so contrary to our personal beliefs.” As a result of Adamson’s stand, he’s started to lose business from public organizations. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, condemned the attacks on the t-shirt company and said Adamson has as much freedom to reject homosexuality as his customers do to endorse it. “The Left still insists that personal morality take a backseat to its radical agenda,” Perkins said. “Whether it’s a t-shirt company, wedding photographer, or the church, homosexuals will not be satisfied until they compel us to either spread their perversion or promote it.” Sexton told Fox News it could take up to six months to investigate the charges. TLDR version: Christian T Shirt guy refuses to make gay pride T-shirts, offers to find someone else to make shirts, yet lawsuits ensue. iirc, We talked a while back on the disallowing of dogs in Muslim cabs, and I felt that they should be allowed to refuse those fares, so I'm hoping we can go out side the "gays vs. Chrisitians" debate to get to the heart of the issue: Can businesses refuse to provide products/services that are in violation of their religious beliefs? The businesses man has argued that it is the product he was asked to provide, not the own man's sexual orientation that was the problem. He would apparently and rightly so sell a t shirt of a non gay-pride nature to a gay man, but he's not going to use his business to promote what he feels is wrong. It seems like a rational enough stance to me. Where am I wrong here? I know this article is a little old, but issues like this keep seem to racking up. A photographer here, a baker there. Yet I'm not supposed to be worried about the gay marriage debate infringing on my religious rights.

Author:	FarSky [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
I agree that a private business owner shouldn't be able to be compelled to provide service for any reason, religious or otherwise.

Author:	Micheal [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:
Did they have the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" poster up in their office? Really? Over t-shirts? T-Shirts which you can order made from dozens if not hundreds of places on the net? That sounds more like a knee-jerk response that makes this comic even funnier.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't know Mike, but he does declare himself "A Christian Outfitter" and by his own admission has a long history of refusing orders for material he feels violates his convictions.

Author:	Micheal [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Yep, might be a set-up like the folks in wheelchairs who go around suing people for not having sufficient access to the premises as per the Americans with Disabilities Act. For the most part the people they sue are little mom and pop type establishments that have been around for a long time, since well before the ADA. This is not some big corporation saving a few bucks, but a pre-existing building where there isn't room to install the ramp et al. and where it would cost so much the little shop would go bankrupt doing it. In this case, you want to bet the customer was steered to the shop as a set-up to see if he could get some bucks out of it?

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Right to refuse service and religious conviction. https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9538	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Rorinthas [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:
It is possible he just does good work and the organization had no idea he was an off the wall homophobic. However one would think the proper and right response would be "well then screw you, I'll just have to take my money elsewhere."

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:12 am ]
Post subject:
So it appears that it's a poorly written law there that's at the root of the issue. But let's take a look at this another way. If the company said that we don't want to do business with you because you're Black would it still be ok? There's a lot of fuzzy area in there it seems and I think we're still figuring it out as a country.

Author:	Midgen [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:33 am ]
Post subject:
"Ok" is rather vague...

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:46 am ]
Post subject:
It would still be the right of the business owner to contract - or not contract as the case would be, that right would be oppressed because current law would force them to provide service for the black person.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Azile, 1. it was the message, not the man he refused. If he was hanging up signs saying "no ***** allowed" I'd be condemning him. By the same token a gay publisher shouldn't have to print material that says homosexuality is a sin. I said all that in my first post though. 2.Homosexuality is a behavior. Black is a skin color. I dislike the movement to turn this into the 60s. Gay people are not an ethnic group; they're just a people united by a common behavior like gamers or something else. 3. I have mixed feelings about Elmo's view and the ultimate answer to your question. I believe that "God made out of one blood all nations of the earth" (too lazy to look up the reference this morning). I think EEOC is a good thing also, but maybe the govt went too far in limiting the rights of private business to refuse service. Maybe it something that needed to get done to get past the dark specter of slavery. I dunno. Ultimately it's a bad idea. I'm not "ok" with it. Like the Muslim cabbies and the ADA service animal access, they probably should be left to make that decision themselves.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Also did our overlords trample on Berry's first amendment rights when they banned him?

Author:	TheRiov [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:28 am ]
Post subject:
Berylin asked to be banned iirc.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:55 am ]
Post subject:
several times, but I don't think that is what he was banned for. Point is, just as the Glade doesn't have to provide for Bery's rights, neither does Hands On Originals.

Author:	Corolinth [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Can a restaurant refuse service to blacks because they're black? For example, suppose as a restaurant owner, I believe that God cursed the children of Cain with black skin. Can I refuse to allow blacks into my establishment on the grounds of my deeply held religious belief? According to the Bible, being black is just as immoral as being gay. In fact, you are black because you are immoral. So, can I refuse service to blacks?

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:46 am ]
Post subject:
I disagree with your assessment, (see my quote above Also all the children of Cain died in the flood), but I support your right? but again he's not refusing the man he's refusing the message. He'd sell him a t-shirt for his bank's baseball team, but not one promoting a behavior he disagrees with.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:05 am ]
Post subject:
We know you do Rori, because you're a decent human being. But the point that both Coro and I are going for is where do you draw the line. If my religion says that I need to sacrifice young virgins, should I be allowed to do it? If my religion says that I should be able to have sex with kids in a communal "love fest" should I be allowed to do it? The fact is that religion needs to fit within societies boundaries, not the other way around. We have lots of examples of how horrible a situation it is when those tables are turned. And today, society is of the opinion that being gay is ok and that gay people deserve to be treated equally. So we're starting to see legislation that is enforcing that.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Corolinth wrote: According to the Bible, being black is just as immoral as being gay. In fact, you are black because you are immoral. So, can I refuse service to blacks? No, it is not. Some people might extrapolate that, but the Bible doesn't actually say anything of the sort.

Author:	TheRiov [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:15 am ]
Post subject:
I may be misremembering but I thought Restaurants, hotels and 'travel accommodations' are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race but others are not.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Diamondeye wrote: Corolinth wrote: According to the Bible, being black is just as immoral as being gay. In fact, you are black because you are immoral. So, can I refuse service to blacks? No, it is not. Some people might extrapolate that, but the Bible doesn't actually say anything of the sort. But they are prophets of God, who are you to question their divine interpretation? Heretic!

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Aizle wrote: The fact is that religion needs to fit within societies boundaries, not the other way around. We have lots of examples of how horrible a situation it is when those tables are turned. And today, society is of the opinion that being gay is ok and that gay people deserve to be treated equally. So we're starting to see legislation that is enforcing that. We also have lots of examples of horrible things when religion is forced to fit within the boundaires of society. It is not one way or the other. Religion is part of what makes the society what it is, and neither one can have absolute priority over the other. That's why we have the establishment and free exercise clauses. They are not there to keep religion, religious people, or churches in check; they're there to keep interference with those things from either other people or from the state down to a minimum. The restaurant example is not the same as this case. Being black or gay has nothing to do with eating, and actually has nothing to do with T-shirts, and in fact, had a black or gay person tried to order a T-shirt from this business saying "Eat at Joe's Restaurant" and he'd decided not to print the shirts because they were black or gay, that would be a problem. However, a message of "gay pride" has nothing to do with the person ordering it; a straight person can just as easily order "gay pride" T-shirts for some event because they support it. Similarly, a black person trying to order "Jesse Jackson for President" T-shirts who was turned away would not be able to claim that this was some sort of anti-black discrimination. In both cases, the business owner is refusing to do business based on the nature of the business, not based on who is asking him to do it. Or, to go back to the restaurant example, if the business owner had a brother that ran Sam's Restaurant and did not want to print the "Eat at Joe's" shirts for his brother's competitor, that would be no different. He doesn't want to conduct the business. Why is really irrelevant; he's the one not getting paid. It doesn't matter if the message is about restaurants, presidential candidates, or gay pride, yes, it's ok in all cases for him to say "no." While he should have had a "Right to Refuse Service" sign up, that also is not an excuse to try to force him to do the business. Most likely, this T-shirt printer was chosen on the assumption he'd refuse in order to create a court case to try to establish some legal obligation businesses have to endorse gay pride even if they don't agree with it. Also, cities should not be having "human rights commissions." That's the business of the state and Federal government.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Aizle wrote: But they are prophets of God, who are you to question their divine interpretation? Heretic! I wasn't intimidated by Bery's attempt to appoint himself Pope, and I'm not too worried about anyone else's, either.

Author:	Uncle Fester [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Isn't Hollywood/entertainment legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of race and gender? "sorry we are looking X & Y for this part."

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Aizle wrote: If my religion says that I need to sacrifice young virgins, should I be allowed to do it? If my religion says that I should be able to have sex with kids in a communal "love fest" should I be allowed to do it? Those issues obviously have to do with consent and infringing on the rights of others, Azile. I can't take from your rights/rights resources to practice my religion just like homosexuals can't take from my rights/resources to support their gay lifestyle. People have a right to not be molested or murdered they don't have a right to shop at my store. That's where the line goes. It's pretty simple and the one we've been more or less using.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
What if this were a gay publisher being sued by WBC for refusing to print fliers about how god hates a four letter explicative I'm not even gonna use in a quote?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Right to refuse service and religious conviction.
Uncle Fester wrote: Isn't Hollywood/entertainment legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of race and gender? "sorry we are looking X & Y for this part." Any place is when race and gender actually pertain to the job. For example, Hooters does not have to hire male servers.