Christian Printer Who Was Punished By the Gov’t for Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shi

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Apr 27, 2015.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    A Christian printer who was previously found guilty of discrimination for refusing to print T-shirts for a gay pride parade won big on Monday after a court ruled that he can decline to print messages that run in opposition to his religious views.

    The Fayette County Circuit Court’s ruling overturned a previous decision by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, finding that Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands On Originals, a printing company in Lexington, Kentucky, was within his rights when he declined to make shirts for the Lexington Pride Parade, according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm.

    The court found that Adamson did not violate the law in citing his religious convictions as the reason for the refusal, and that his decision was based on his personal freedom not to be forced or coerced to print messages that contradict his views.

    “The court rightly recognized that the law protects Blaine’s decision not to print shirts with messages that conflict with his beliefs, and that no sufficient reason exists for the government to coerce Blaine to act against his conscience in this way,” Jim Campbell, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement.

    He added, “In short, [Hands On Originals'] declination to print the shirts was based upon the message of [Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington] and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members.”


    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...y-pride-t-shirts-just-scored-a-major-victory/
     
    #1 Revmitchell, Apr 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2015
  2. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,138
    Likes Received:
    364
    I'll bet it will go to a higher court and be overturned, unfortunately. I think this court made the right call though.
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    It the current decision is legal, why would a higher court overturn it? Are you really "betting"?
     
  4. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,138
    Likes Received:
    364
    Because it happens all the time. They appeal, a higher court overturns.

    Well, I'm not actually putting up money but yep, I'm betting it will be changed, especially now with the SCOTUS dealing with SSM.
     
  5. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Courts shouldn't be deciding what a businessman does with his business.
     
  6. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    207
    You might want to re-think that. The whole reason courts got involved was because ungodly businessmen, if given the leeway, will do ungodly things.
     
  7. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    No look at the context in which I made my remark. They should be able to decide with whom they do business.
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,068
    Likes Received:
    214
    But that's not what you said.

    Now what you said in post # 6 (quoted above) - you are saying a businessman should be able to discriminate based on race, color, ethnic, ect.
     
  9. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they should be able to do so.
     
  10. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    207
    So you think it's okay to not sell someone a can of Pepsi because of their skin color?
     
  11. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is my can or Pepsi. I can sell it or not sell it based upon any reason I can think up.
     
  12. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    207
    And how does scripture back that up?
     
  13. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Support that as a decision or support laws controlling what I can do with my property?
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    I guess that you have persuaded me and I agree with you. Anything goes.
     
  15. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    If any business printed stuff on t-shirts for the old Democrat organization of the KKK, the liberals would be saying that Clinton passed a law to allow the business an out for repulsive stuff.
     
  16. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    207
    Support that as a decision.
     

Share This Page

Loading...