Court: Christian printer doesn't have to print gay pride shirts

I'm not saying it's illegal.... I'm just saying if any of the businesses we have read about weren't just refusing to service an event... and instead were refusing to serve gays by saying "they're icky"....they simply wouldn't get away with it.

 

Very well. I concede that harassment often happens after these kinds of cases. Now you need to prove that the gay community as a whole approves of such actions, which is impossible to prove. Learn to stop painting an entire group of people with such broad strokes. That's as ridiculous as saying that the Christian community agrees with Westboro Baptist's actions. It's way to broad a group to categorize in a statement like that.

 

Of course it does.
At this point it's expected.

I don't need to prove a thing.
Even if I actually did what you falsely accuse me of.


.

 

I would. The fact is that I used to work in printing. My company specifically stopped printing porn magazines because they wanted to attract a different clientelle. Its one thing to bake a cake, its entirely a different thing to essentially sponsor an event they are opposed to. Baking a cake with Steve and Dave on it doesn't equate to showing support anymore than a Green Bay bakery making a Vikings cake for a customer. Making the shirts and thus having your company tied into a major part of an organized event does equate to showing support. If that same Green Bay bakery decided to take a contract to start making all the Vikings cakes at their events people would rightfully assume that that baker had become senile and needed to put in an asylum for blasphemy.

 

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was responding to what Batlle3 did, not you. He stated that these actions were condoned by the LGBT community. I'm asking him to provide proof. I've got no argument with you.

 

Well, the cases from states with laws regarding sexual orientation discrimination they certainly wouldn't. In the other 33 they could get away with it under the law. The Indiana pizza place could post on the front door, "No gays allowed because ya'll are icky". But they probably couldn't get away with it in regards to the LGBT (*)(*)(*)(*) storm that would bring. Theyd probably find them, dead on their back with a nasty letter pinned with a dagger through their heart, on their chest in the ways of the Islamist with Van gogh

This is now 25 yrs old, but the hatred and anger persists.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/queernation.html

 

I don't see a difference.

"Nice cake, where did you get it?"

"Nice shirt, where did you get it?"

 

One cake is not the same as printing all the shirts for an event. As I said a bakery should bake a cake for everyone but they are not obligated to cater everyone's events.

 

Ok, I get what you're saying.

But if it were 3 t-shirts... or 10... or 100... there must be a point at which it crosses over from selling some shirts... to supporting an event.

 

the progressives will tell you the right number. currently, they have it set at 1

 

I would say the difference isn't so much the number but who the customer is. If one gay person wanted a bunch of shirts printed for his family I can't think of any compelling reason for the printer to say no so long as the message isn't obscene. If an organization like the parade comes in though and wants a bunch of shirts then I can think of a compelling reason why he shouldn't have to make them......namely that by making a bunch of shirts for an organization that implies that he is endorsing it. I would expect a black person to serve a KKK member who wanted a cake but I wouldn't expect that same black baker to cater a KKK event.

I guess the distinction would be personal use ie individual wedding or a group or organizational event such as a parade or festival.

 

Ok.
I happen to agree with all that.

Although... if a KKK member came in wearing a hood, or messaged t-shirt, or any giveaway.... I think the black baker should be allowed to kick him out.

 

Once again I will repeat a previous post -

I don't have a problem with boycotts.

But the gay activists are not boycotting. A boycott is a voluntary personal decision to withhold services or patronage, a person can boycott or not as it suits their attitude.

The gay activists are not boycotting, they are blockading. They intimidate everyone associated with the person under attack in an attempt to isolate the victim, the gays threaten and harass the victims coworkers, his family and friends, his employer. They work to get the victim fired from his job. If the victim owns or runs a business, then the gays harass and threaten the employees, customers and suppliers. If people speak out in support of the victim or question the excess harassment, then they are harassed and threatened. Gays go after prominent people to force them to publicly oppose the victim.

The gay activists are not engaged in a public discourse. There is nothing voluntary about the gay "boycott". Its nothing more than a rabid mob which will turn on anyone that doesn't obey the mob rule. ​

Westboro has committed murder, robberies, and "other" crimes? Maybe you can enlighten as with some sources and facts about these murders and such?

I think you confuse hatred with lack of acceptance and fighting for their rights and beliefs. Because a person believes homosexuality is a sin and does not support gay marriage and does not want close contact with gays, does not mean they hate gay people. Christians have the same attitude about people who are openly adulterous, they don't support adultery and don't want the adulterer to be an example for their children, they make it clear the adulterer is sinning, but they also work to help the sinner. And when the adulterer stops the adultery he/she is fully accepted.

Gays have had the civil union option open for a long time, but have refused it. That's been discussed at great length in this forum. Even I in this forum supported gay unions until last year when it became clear gays did not want equality but acceptance, and they want revenge against people who have openly rejected the gay lifestyle.

Your post reflects that attitude in which you would sacrifice the freedom to practice religion. The very first sentence in the First Amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It was so important that freedom of religion was the first of the first.

 

In the examples I cited earlier, where were the gays who supported those victims rights or who opposed the scorched earth type tactics of the mob enraged by gay rhetoric?

Where are the gays who see the conflict between religious freedom and equal treatment under the law and are seeking a compromise?

In fact, where are the gays who - even though they personally disagree with the Christian doctrine that homosexuality is a sin - just respect a persons right to believe and exercise their own religion?

Its not up to me to seek out the apparently rare gay who is not part of the rabid mob. It might be unfair, but its reality that the rabid gay mob has tarnished all gays including the silent rational gay minority.

 

Thank you for conceding that your vast and ignorant judgment is "unfair".

 

Its an informed decision based upon the actions of the gay community. When no gays speak out against the obvious injustice of the gaystapo, its safe to conclude there is no real opposition within the gay community.

And as the famous question asks, if a person sits by and idly watches evil, is that idle person innocent? Assuming there are gays that oppose the gaystapo tactics and agenda, by their silence they are giving tacit consent to the gaystapo and share in their guilt.

 

You realize the arrogance of this statement, right? You are determining that, since you haven't heard of neutral gay people, they must not exist. That's laughable. If you wish to continue to paint an entire community of people with such broad brushes, I have no wish to continue this discussion.

 

OK, I'm open to the suggestion that there are gays who are reasonable, rational, oppose the terror tactics of the gay "rights" movement, and understand the conflict with religious rights.

So where are they? Where are their protests against the gaystapo, their boycotts of gay people who engage in these tactics of intimidation and harassment, their "friend of the court" briefs supporting religious freedom?

Now is your chance to show they exist.

 

So basically what you ae saying is that a establishment that shows a sign that says, "whites only" is not being racist or discriminatory because it has repeat black customers who get the product in the back where all the trash is dumped. Got it.

If one is not concerned about potential liability on any decision they make, then that person should not be in business to begin with.

No, to most people. Again, who in the hell would say that upfront. No one including all the examples you cited about bakers and florists.

No that is not their right. If a baker establishes a verbal contract to make a wedding cake without first understanding what the wedding cale is for whom, then the contract is violated by the terms of service once the baker fails t odeliver its product. Selling a wedding cake to a straight couple and not selling one to a guay couple is discrimination based on a violation of civil due process under the law. It does not matter how many gay coules the store actually has or does not have. That is not the point when it comes to selling a service to customers equally under the law.

But they do react to reason for the service being requirested while trying to use relgion as a cover. Christianity says that one should render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God. That not only means taxes, but also be subject to the laws within that system.

that was said after all the hoopla.

you are not understanding what business principles actually mean. It is sometimes called corporate governance. Personal and religious beliefs should be used on facts and circustances. There is no hard, se rule for that and one must be willing to pay or forgo certain things to achieve that personal or religious belief.

Take for instance quakers. Most do not believe in war. But they also intentionally not earn enough money t ofile and pay taxes. They do not want to live in fancy manioons or houses to support their belief nor do they impose thir belifs onto others. But when a business owner deciedes t otake a political stand based on religious beleifts that is contrary to law, then that person is not only imposing his beliefs onto others, but also violating the very same law that he should uphold. That is not taking responsibility.

Furthermore, when one is in the retail business, there are certain obligations one must understand when going into the retail business. Ond one of those obligations is not to discriminate based on your relgion or purported relgion.

 

Except he would not be a very good practicing Jew if he served bacon and ham in a kosher deli shop. He wuld have been criticized as a hypocrite right?

 

YOu would not have to worry about the KKK asking for your services as a teacher. the yhave their own teachers for that sort of thing.

However, if one caters to weddings, then the must cater all wedding within reason. Within reason may include cost, time, and place of wedding. I do not expect a person to hire a baker in New Jersey to cater a wedding in Hawaii. Would you?

 

I'm refering to the general sense of providing a service as a business... not me, as a teacher, refusing/providing service.


as in any case I discuss concerning right to deny services.... I don't think that rule applies to (but not limited to)

1. Public school Teachers - I'm compelled to teach any child that walks through my door.

2. Emergency personnel... ER doctors, nurses and staff, police, fire, rescue

Public services in general, to me, are universal, no matter who you bang..... However, when you start adding "private" to the definition, and you don't receive public funds of any kind.... you start being able to say "you know what.... I'm not a big fan of what you do, even if that belief isn't politically correct to believe. I think you would get better service somewhere else."

Please notice, there were no threats, no value judgements, just a statement of "I don't agree"

and here is all you're going to cause to happen when you start demanding a Christian serve.

"sorry, I'm booked"

"I just realized, that wedding is not cost effective for me"


The problem is, the Christians in question thus far.... have clearly said their reasons..... If I'm a baker, and someone asks me to cater a gay wedding, all I have to say is "no" YOu are not entitled to a reason. My reasons can be private.


Too many people feel the need to justify their behavior..... and that goes both ways. They will have support and non-supporters, no matter what the decision.

 

Interesting. I wonder if this will go to appeal (although it does seem like trolling from the LGBT people).
I wonder if the fact that a "message" is being printed is the issue.

 

Unfortunately, by the government offering 100s of 1000s in damages if they refuse, it seems to have become a popular passtime.

 

Who spoke out against the laws making discrimination on the grounds of religion?