They are turning down business which will go to their competition. They are dumb as a box of rocks. If that is an insult to rocks I apologize.

not only religion, but freedom of speech.

It's different than a pizzeria owner--that's just pizza.

But words on t-shirts is literally speech.

The example I used below is:

if this were a gay couple running a t-shirt or sign business, would we want Westboro Baptist to be able to sue them for not printing their horrid signs and t-shirts?

I would say that gay couple shouldn't be forced to directly participate in the expression of hatred against themselves and their own community.

My sympathies are with the customers and not with the bigots in this case. But, the first amendment doesn't have sympathies.

But it sounds like this guy would refuse anything gay-themed.


therein lies the problem.

and discrimination against the people rather than the message.

It sounds like they would want to refuse anything gay-themed.

This print shop had refused more than a dozen other messages not pertaining to LBGT issues. The judge called this them not willing to publish a message, not refuse service due to sexual orientation.

Westboro was obscene. Big difference to me. A gay shop owner probably would gladly print for these bigots as long as the speech was civil.

Forcing people to do things is distasteful.

I'd rather let the markets just put them out of business.

I understand correct policy.

But I'm a lawyer who used to help write laws. It's more of an issue of "can you pass a law that demands this under the Constitution" question to me.

No one has ever really pressed the 13th Amendment issue on any kind of civil rights law in Court, and it is a looming concern.

You get the right court (e.g. 5th Circuit) and a sympathetic defendant (say a group of Monastic Brothers who run a B&B for charitable purposes) and a whole lot of very important laws could collapse.

No one's pressed the 13th amendment angle on discrimination laws because it's a frivolous argument.

Under that theory, the 13th amendment would have been read to invalidate the Civil Rights Acts prohibition of racial discrimination.

Actually, it would pretty much forbid any kind of government regulation at all.

Here:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

The argument (which again, is not my argument, it is my concern) would be that forcing a shop owner (or yes, an owner of a hotel or whatever) to provide services to a person against his or her will (even if he or she is a nasty bigot) would be "involuntary servitude."

And yes, your concerns regarding the Civil Rights Act are mine as well. That was my point. These arguments were never made and thus remain open to a hostile court who wishes to destroy such things.

I am not so concerned about the other kinds of government regulation, just those that force persons to provide services to others.

And again, I don't disagree with you regarding what is "right" or "wrong" here. Just talking about the legal framework.

Sadly, "right and wrong" have only passing familiarity with "law."

They're not being forced into involuntary servitude. They're being regulated as a business.

Non-discrimination is no different than child labor, workplace safety, environmental and health requirements, etc etc etc.

They were never made because they are garbage, and would be laughed out of court, if not drawing a sanction from the court for making a frivolous argument.

How frivolous is it?

The 13th Amendment has been accepted as a BASIS for the civil rights prohibitions against private sector discrimination.

See, e.g.., Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.

The 13th Amendment is not a Libertarian "Get out of regulation free" card.

And the right to Associate with others, include the right NOT to associate. In this case, the problem was the messages being asked to be printed, the print shop refused to print the message based on what the message said NOT the sexual orientation fo the people wanting the message to be printed. This print shop has refused similar print jobs involving straight sex AND extreme Violence. See the opinion of the judge I posted below for details.

The Courts have long held, that you can NOT force anyone into a contract. Any Contract MUST be voluntary on both sides. One side can NOT refuse to enter into a contract if the other side is a member of a protected class AND that is the reason for the refusal. In this case the Judge found they was NO dispute as to the facts, the only issue was can a print shop, upon seeing what is being asked to be printed, refuse the job if the job involves sexual orientation? The print shop did NOT refuse the job for it opposed homosexuals, but it oppose doing the print job asked of it. Furthermore they offered to arrange another print shop to do the job, but that offer was refused.

The concept that all contracts must be voluntary on both sides is an old concept in the law. The law is reluctant to force people into a contract that they do NOT want to enter. The law will force such a contract if the reason for the refusal is because the other side is a member of a protected class. On the other hand, if the reason for the discrimination is NOT do to membership in a protected class, the law will NOT force someone into a contract.

Thus the whole case revolved around the issue of WHY the print job was declined, and everyone agreed its was due to the message being asked to be printed NOT the sexual orientation of the people wanted it printed. Was that message a message protected under the Civil Rights Laws OR was the refusal protected under the first amendment and the right NOT to support something you oppose? The Judge decided it was the later.

Hands on originals refused to print the shirts because it would be for a gay pride celebration.
The folks that own hands on Originals are homophobic, christian? assholes that felt their god damn religious rights were being trampled.
The message on the t-shirts were not obscene in any sense of the word.
happyslug I live in Lexington, read the paper every day. What shit you are trying to sell, this Kentuckian ain't buying. You sound like an apologist for the company. You are full of shit.

And the Judge made the comment NO ONE IS DISPUTING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, thus I repeated what the JUDGE said were the facts of the case.

The judge pointed out the print shop had OFFERED TO HAVE ANOTHER PRINT SHOP TO DO THE JOB, but that offer was refused.

I then went to th bottom of the opinion and noticed Counsel of Record for both sides. I am a suspicious person but when I see NATIONAL organizations on both sides of a dispute I suspect a set up case for appeal. i.e. this is a "Test case" a case agreed to by both sides to keep the issue narrow so that it is a case the courts will make a decision as to the law. In many ways this is an "Easy Case" as oppose to the old saying "Hard Cases make bad law". That saying is based on the fact than when you have several different legal issues coming in one case, it get muddled.

Thus I suspect this is a case that both sides agreed to the facts before it even went to the Lexington Human Relations Commission. I suspect this is NOT the last we will hear of this case, for the issue is interesting, where does the right NOT to associate with a cause over rule the legal obligation not to discriminate? Can the courts FORCE someone to do something they oppose on the simple grounds the majority has decided that they should?

As I have said on other posts on this thread, this is not the last we have heard of this case. .

"They were never made because they are garbage, and would be laughed out of court, if not drawing a sanction from the court for making a frivolous argument. "

You and I agree it is frivolous.

But you are blissfully unaware how political the appellate courts are today and what lengths they will go to destroy what has been accomplished over my lifetime. I believe the term is "outcome based jurisprudence." All they need is something novel.

Ah, I wish I had the naivete of youth.

This is a County Court decision and the proper appeal is NOT to the Federal Courts but the State's appellate courts. Also this involves the City of Lexington's Civil Rights Law NOT the Federal Civil Rights law, so except for the First Amendment Argument you have NO federal issue in this case. Thus it is possible that this case will work itself through the State Court System. When the State Courts are finished with the case, who ever lost can then file in Federal Courts for review on the Federal Issue (First Amendment) OR file with the US Supreme Court on the First Amendment issue. In the later, you bypass the Fifth Circuit completely.

It is also possible that no one files in the Federal System after the State Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. Remember the only Federal Issue is the First Amendment claim, the Civil Rights Claim is a claim NOT covered by the Federal Civil Rights Laws (And, given this print shop has previous refused to print heterosexual
messages out side of marriage AND messages involving violence, the equal protection of the law of the 14th amendment does NOT come into play).

Thus this may NEVER be heard by the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

and the shop owners' freedom of speech and religion. It is not dicey at all. Except for the dicey fact it allows discrimination cloaked in religion. It is discrimination plain and simple. You fail to remember that Supreme Court decisions that upheld slavery and the mistreatment of African Americans were often worded with the terms that "God" (the white, Christian one) separated the races on different continents and that "His" will should be respected. Slavery and segregation were justified by the use of religion.

The shop owners decided to open a public business. A business that benefits from the public roads, the public sidewalks, the public schools. They have an obligation to serve the public without regard to any religion. They would not be lauded for denying service to divorcees, fornicators or adulterers. People would, rightly, condemn that as antiquated thought.

In no way does their having to print shirts infringe upon their 1st Amendment rights. Printing the shirts does not mean they are coming out in favor of any gay rights. It does not mean they have to stand up and agree with any message on the shirts. It means they are providing the service they said they would provide when they obtained a business license. Would I make the same argument if they denied Neo-Nazi's or Westboro Baptist's business. Absolutely I would. No matter how distasteful I find the opinions of those hate groups I believe in their right to hold those opinions.

In no way does providing a service interfere with their ability to practice their religion. No one is preventing them from praying. No one is preventing them from attending church. No one is preventing them from speaking in the public square. No one is making them post a Gay Pride flag or the t-shirts in their shop windows.

discrimination based on the substantive content of the work to be done.

there's a difference between pizza or ice cream on one hand and creative, expressive services on the other.

Web designers, PR firms, attorneys, etc etc have no obligation to take on every client who has the money.

Business owners are allowed to set parameters as to what kind of work they will do. A t-shirt shop has no more obligation to produce t-shirts its owners find repellent than a pizzeria owner does to serve anchovie pizzas. If they have certain kinds of services they won't provide, they have the right to not provide them.

Objection to the message is a First Amendment violation. Guess what? If you have a business, you are obligated to serve customers whether or not you approve of what they say.

whod say the first amendment only applies when it involves the government influencing speech ..

For example a jewish printer wouldn't be required to print a T-shirt with a pro Nazi slogan.

This religion BS is just a facade. Printing up rainbows is nothing like a Nazi slogan, they just choose to be bigots IMO.

would a gay couple who owned a t-shirt shop be forced to make the signs for Westboro Baptist, or should they have the right to decline to express such hatred against their own community?

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

participated in, someone slashed some of their tires. A lot of the local businesses refused to Fix their tire or sell them a new one. They eventually got one at Walmart. I didn't hear anyone complain about that one.

I mean, would you want to be known as the printshop that printed those colorful "GOD HATES F*GS" signs? Would you want to risk being sued and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for refusing to do that work?
If the public can boycott a business because of their policies and beliefs, why can't a business do the same?

I won't buy a Memories pizza. Why can't that disdain go the other way?

They, like the shop owners in question, would have opened a public business and should serve people regardless of their own biases.

I'm homosexual and I have no respect for Westboro Baptist and their point of view. However, I'm a US citizen and appreciate the ability of people to speak in the public square. No matter how distasteful I find their opinions.

Should ad agencies or pr firms be forced to work for anyone who has the money to hire them?

How about lawyers?

Political campaign consultants?

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

The Judge cites the US Supreme Court cases on the subject. This print shop had refused to print straight sex messages outside of marriage and has refused messages of violence.

Furthermore, except for "Inns" (which includes Taverns, Restaurants, Diners, Hotels and Motels) and "Common Carriers" (Buses, Trains, Ships, Trucks, Taxis etc), you do NOT have to deal with anyone you do NOT want to deal with, unless the reason is an illegal reason (Race, Sex, Jury Duty, etc).

Now, "Inns" and "Common Carriers" MUST take anyone who can pay whatever they charge, furthermore any charges must be "reasonable" and the same for everyone given the same set of facts (i.e. you can NOT charge someone extra for having a horse instead of a cow for the cost to transport both are the same, but you can charge more for a Horse or a Cow then for a Chicken, for the Chicken is that much smaller and easier to transport). You can charge more for a family then for an individual, but you can not charge more for four people who are traveling together and willing to use one room, then a family of four who are willing to use one room (But "Inns" can say no more then two people to a room AND forbid any action that will cause problems for the "Inn", traditionally this meant fights and alcohol, but today can include a ban on smoking).

A lot of people mistake the rules for Inns and Common Carriers as the rules for all businesses, but that has NEVER been the case. In fact during the days of segregation the states had to pass laws permitting Inns and Common Carriers to separate the races, for under the Common Law such Inns and Common Carriers could not. On the other hand, the states did not have to tell other businesses they were free to separate the races, for other businesses had the right to discriminate under the Common Law if they wanted to.

When the 1964 Civil Rights Acts was passes, the subsequent fights rarely involved retail stores, but Inns and Common Carriers. Most retailers just stop having two counters (one for Whites and one for "Colored", the term of choice for African Americans prior to about 1960, which is the time period of Segregation). The 1964 Civil Rights Acts required desegregation not only in Common Carriers and Inns, but anywhere involved in interstate commerce (Which included retail stores, housing etc) but the first big fights was in the "inns" mostly in restaurants and other similar establishments. After the "Inns" the fight turned to the Schools. Retailers mostly complied and rarely were an issue. Hospitals were a BIG problem, most Hospitals in the South refused to desegregate, under both the 1964 Civil Rights Act OR the 1965 Medicare Act (this resistance was resolved b the adoption by the Federal Government of "Semi Private" rooms, prior to Medicare all most all Hospital beds were in Wards, large rooms with 20 or more patients in bed in the ward. Southern Hospitals were willing to accept Medicare if they had Semi Private rooms for their Patients, thus they could avoid putting in people who objected to being in the same ward as an African American, thus Medicare paid for the Conversion to Semi Private rooms made in the late 1960s and 1970s).

Just a comment that the law does NOT require people to entered into any contract they do not want to, except in the case of Inns, Common Carriers and if the reason for refusal to enter the contract is an illegal reason. In the cases of Inns and Common Carriers it is easy to show discrimination for under the Common Law, Inns and Common Carriers had to show WHY they refused to contract with someone. In other cases, the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination for people can NOT be forced to enter into a contract and they can refuse just because they do not want to (and the right to refuse is absolute in such cases, thus the person alleging discrimination MUST prove the discrimination).

Now, the 1964 Act did set up a system that when a person can show a "prima facia" case of discrimination, the side accused of discrimination MUST show a legal reason for the discrimination, but the prima facia case must be something more then they did not hire me, they did not prove me a room, they did not provide me a seat. What must be shown that others, not of the protected class, did get a job, a room or a seat. Once such a prima facia case is shown then and only then does the defendant have to show WHY they refused to deal with the person of the protected class of people. Most cases of discrimination fail to meet the prima facia case stage mostly because no evidence that other people did get the job, room or seat. When other people did get a job, room or seat, then the defendant has to show why, and in most cases any reason is sufficient including "I like the other person better, do to their personality" i.e something other then NOT being a member of a protected class.

The reason for this is the Courts still want to maintain "Freedom of Contract" which includes the right NOT to enter into a contract. African American and Women complain of this all the time, but they can NOT prove that they are being discriminated do to race or sex. They may be, but they still have to prove it, and most people know enough NOT to openly say that they hired someone for he was of the right Race or Sex. Instead he had the personality they were looking for in a person in that position. Thus he was NOT hired because he was White or Male, but his over all personality.

AS to Rooms and food, most "inns" know they must serve everyone, so rarely a problem today. Most problems are in economic areas that are not "Inns" or "Common Carriers". In this case a print shop, it is NOT an Inn or a Common Carrier, thus it has the right to refuse to contract with anyone it does NOT want to contract with UNLESS the reason is an illegal reason. Thus the dispute, is refusing to do this print job illegal discrimination under the City of Lexington Civil Rights Law? Was this discrimination do to sexual orientation OR just the message being asked to be printed? This case will be appealed and we will hear of it again, for it is an area of the law where the Freedom of association come into conflict with a law to end illegal discrimination. Which concept is superior? How do these concept interact? The Judge made his decision, but lets see what happens on appeal.

We weren't interested in helping them market Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th Century, or the rest of their bilge.

Here's a little secret: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." ~ A.J. Liebling

in Colorado. Our owner has a policy that he does not want to print tshirts for marijuana businesses. Are you saying he doesn't have the right to make that decision?

Hotels have the right to remove people who may cause harm to others. Bars have been sued when they FAILED to remove such people and people ended up injured. No one wants to force costs on anyone, if that person does NOT want to bare those costs.

This includes the right NOT to deal with people you do not want to deal with. As long as the reason for the discrimination is NOT a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and similar state and local laws), it is perfectly legal. The 1964 Civil Rights Act does NOT include Sexual Orientation, but the City of Lexington Civil Rights Act does. It should be noted the printing company had no problem printing for homosexuals in the past and has a policy of no discrimination based on sexual orientation. They do have a policy of refusing to print anything they object to print, mostly sexual messages and messages of violence (both of which they have refused in the past).

What the local Civil Rights group was fighting for was to force this print shop to print messages that support homosexual sex, but permitting it to continue to REFUSE to print messages advocating hetrosexual sex and extreme violence. The judge said such a line violates the First Amendment for under the first you can NOT be forced to do something you oppose. You can NOT be forced to vote GOP when you are a Democrat.

It's disgusting.

I read the opinion of the Trial Judge, it is posted below. In that opinion the Judge noted that the Print Shop offered to have the printing done elsewhere at the price discussed when the print job was first brought into the shop. Somehow that was NOT good enough so this went to a judge, who noted that no one discussed sexual orientation, but the dispute was solely over the print job itself and as such to force the print shop to do what they refused to do would violate the first amendment.

Please also note, this shop has declined other print jobs, including jobs involving violence and straight sex outside of marriage. Thus the Judge noted no discrimination based on sexual orientation, but what was being asked to be printed.

I think this was viewpoint, not personal, discrimination. For example, if I owned a printing business I could legally have a policy in which I would refuse to print anything with political/religious endorsements.

Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HandsOnOriginalsDecision.pdf

Interesting case. The printing company refused to print what was requested on the ground they refused to be associated with anything that involved sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. The printing company had taken in the order, but made it clear that they had the right to refuse to print anything they objected to and the item being printed had to be approved by the owner of the company.

The owner of the company, upon seeing what was requested refused to print the item, but did offer to arrange printing by someone else at the same price that had been discussed when the contract was first purposed. This offer was refused and the Gay rights group filed a complaint with the City of Lexington Civil Rights Commission which found discrimination against homosexuals, which was against the local Civil Rights Law.

On appeal, the Judge notice there was no dispute as to facts of the case. No one asked about the sexual orientation of the people asking for the printing, the issue was the message being printed.

The court noted that the Printing Shop had also refused to print messages involving "Strip clubs, pens promoting a sexual explict video and shirts containing violence related message". Thus they seem to be no discrimination based on sexual orientation, the printing company had REFUSED any printing promoting sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

The court then ruled that they was NO discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the only discrimination was based on the MESSAGE being asked to print. The court noted that the US Supreme Court has been consistent is saying the courts can NOT force someone to print a message they opposed.

Now, this is the perfect case to take up on appeal, the facts are NOT in dispute, thus you have a clear issue of law. Does the US Bill of Rights permit people to refuse to print something they opposed when it comes to same sex issues when the law says it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation? The Court noted the Company did not bring up sexual orientation, just rejected the message being asked to be printed.

Thus the issue on appeal is narrow, which "right" is supreme? Which is supreme, the right to protection from discrimination (in this case sexual orientation) OR the right to refuse to do something you object to (i.e. printing something the promotes sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman).

I suspect no appeal will be taken, for on appeal the Gay Rights people have to get around the fact the print shop had refused items involving hetrosexual sex outside of marriage and message promoting violence. Most court of appeal will jump on that fact and uphold the trial judge. i.e this is a Freedom of Speech case NOT a Civil Rights Case.

If they want to be biggots, then go somewhere else.

What do you gain by suing them to force them to make the Tshirts. Wouldn't it be better to find another business to support.

I imagine a lot of people don't get the uproar in regards to bigotry.

I can see that decision going either way.

I can see people telling them "I don't want to do business with you because you are a shitstain on our planet."

I can also see doing the job because it isn't up to the printer to determine content for anyone--censorship is a violation of a fundamental right to free speech.

If it offends you, then it probably needs to be protected speech. I'm always gonna fall on the side of free speech. YMMV.



Laura

and the Westboro assholes want me to do work for them, I would always decline, no matter how much money they offer. I would consider doing business with them to be detrimental to my business. I wouldn't be censoring them. They may have the right to say their backwards, bigoted BS, but there is nothing that says that *I* have to be the one that provides them with the tools they need to spread their filth.
Its not censorship. I'm not violating their first amendment rights. If they wanted it printed, they can buy their own equipment.