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.