Thomas More Center? It wants to establish a theocratic government. With those words, they bear false witness.

Then again, they lost big time in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

If the message was on a cake, should the baker refuse?

printing things is part of the job description of the workers at Office Depot. It's not their job to approve of the message.

That said, perhaps the wording of the flyer ran afoul of OD policies. I'd have to see what was on the flyer. If it called for the death of the flyers' distributors' opponents, I can see where they would be a problem. If it merely advocated a position without calling for violence, then why shouldn't they print them?

ETA: "without," not "with." Big difference.

I read it. I don't see anything on it that "that advocates any form of racial or religious discrimination or the persecution of certain groups of people."

You might dispute some of their figures, but that's about it.

The flyer is at a link here:

Office Depot Discriminates against Schaumburg, IL Woman by Refusing to Print Religious Flyers

In spite of my disagreement I might have printed it. But if it had any hateful discriminatory language, I would have said no.

And your question, re cakes, is a good one. But no, I would not bake a cake with a KKK symbol on it, for instance. Or "God hates fags" either. Etc. I am not sure where the line is, but there is a line between a cake that I'd bake and one that I wouldn't. Call it the cake line. I tend to be tolerant of others beliefs, but when they attempt to extend those beliefs into politics, etc. that is where I have to draw a hard line.

My best to you.

It bears false witness (so to speak) so I would not have done it either.

And I would tell them that in precisely those terms.

discrimination you approve of.

And that flyer has outright lies on it. That is the only discrimination that matters.

If you would refuse to make a cake, sign, poster, whatever the service you provide because it says 'god hates fags' or has a klan symbol on it because you disagree with the message or intent but you would provide the service for a gay couples marriage then you have selectively discriminated because of your own opinion or bias. You don't get to pick and chose which part of the public you serve it's all or none.

This is not about cakes. This is about fucking lying for political gain.

Now this organization was free to use the you do it yourself copy machine, so there was no denial of service. Only I am not going to plunge my business into a vat of necrotizing fasciitis by printing that evil screed for them. If they want it printed, they can do it themselves. I would even provide the toner.

Nobody's rights are harmed here.

And not a very good try, my friend.

I will stand by my posts.

I would not print that hateful flyer.

Home Depot made a reasonable accommodation, unlike the extremist cake bakers. But you knew that.


Contrary to popular belief, ignorance is not bliss.

The South in the Jim Crow era made reasonable accommodations too according to your standards .

These cases have no relation at all, she broke federal law working for the government, Office Depot has the right to refuse service, and they felt the fliers were offensive, but they still offered to let her use the printers.

You're attacking because you see an opportunity, just like this lady. In reality it's just a big lie, persecution complexes run amok.

Reasonable accommodation, separate but equal same hate, different song.

You're exactly like people I grew up around same smugness and same blindness.

Are you intentionally defending Davis?

the same as those who supported Jim Crow laws in the South.

Maybe take your manufactured outrage to the thread about catholic hospitals denying abortions and the staunch defender there in their right to discriminate.

Or are you just using your time to yell at atheists?

We'll find out soon, I'm sure.

You are the same as those who would deny service to someone because they were black or gay.

Sounds like a "reasonable accommodation" to me.

They didn't tell her the flyer couldn't be printed there, just that one of their employees couldn't do it and she was welcome to do it herself. It isn't as if copy machines are that difficult to use.

just like saying we don't serve blacks in the dinning area but you can come to the kitchen back door and get your food and eat in the alley. They got their food didn't they.

Anyone that doesn't know what wisdom and discernment actually are certainly needs it.


Funny thing. Only theocrats seems to be the one sharing your POV.

The language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act is clear: you cannot refuse service to a member of a protected class by virtue of that person's membership in a protected class.

OfficeDepot did not refuse to make the copies because of the customer's faith, and the rule that led them to this decision could just as easily apply to any anti-choice asshole of any faith, or lack thereof.

Unless "people who advocate the persecution of pro-choicers" became a protected class while I was busy staring, mouth agape, at the nonsense I'm seeing here, this is not a clear cut case of discrimination, and this plaintiff is hardly comparable to those who suffered under segregation.

This is their new line of attack.

I think that they're actively looking for such cases so that they can attack anti-discrimination laws and policies. They may even be intentionally setting up confrontations just so they can try to get rulings in their favor.

It's disgusting.

Isn't that obvious?

It is a disgusting attempt to make it look like PP is taking huge amounts of money primarily for the purpose of abortions. It throws a bunch of scary looking numbers at you, says "they only have 700 clinics!" then brings up the already debunked videos to emphasize abortion. Classic Fox News style misleading with select facts assuming all those numbers are correct. Considering they were willing to throw in the debunked videos their ethics in regards to providing facts is also in question.

The flyer is obviously an attempt to disguise hate to look respectful.

Whose religious rights win that battle?

Sooner or later we're going to see that kind of confrontation. There's an inherent contradiction in exempting people from laws or rules simply because they have religious objections to them.

Unless she was Catholic, then it would have been icons.

... stands.

Although their policy, as stated in the OP, makes business sense too. I guess it's all in the implementation.

You're right, business sense was the deciding factor.

Should they have printed this clear lieing, hate speech for her instead of just offering her the self serve machines?

How very interesting...

How very interesting.

Good luck finding a printer.

For the record, she was free to print them, this is all much ado about nothing.

I like how you're shoving anti-abortion into the protected class argument, any reason for that?

So, what other speech would to like to suppress?

Are you surprised?

would you believe me?

Much prefers innuendo and third party asides.

Let's try a thought experiment here.

Dear Rug, what is your stance on abortion?

Here's one for you: Do you think the RCC is an international criminal organization?

That's the closest you've come to a straight answer to anything in years! Gold star, well done!

And answer one of mine.

because I don't think that anyone thinks that abortion is "good" and we all wish that it was never necessary. So "legal access" it is.

Religious teachings can not be a basis for civil law.

Pro-choice and pro-life are not mutually exclusive concepts.

A religion that relies on a state to enforce its doctrine has ceased being a religion.

I don't often engage in arguments on abortion but when I do I point out that the first choice made by a human being was in the Garden of Eden. No God that I acknowledge to be God has ever required blind obedience. We have choices in everything, including in matters of terminating - or not terminating - pregnancies.

and for agreeing that is should be legal. I think that you are correct about a religion that needs the state to help it enforce doctrine. That would make it a weak religion.

You know that I cannot agree with the reference to the Garden of Eden, but if you are speaking to people who do believe that the Bible is fact, that argument is a good one. But arguing that we all have choices that we can make is not lost on me.

It was not offered for agreement,

Have fun in the A&A thread. It took her scarcely an hour to post a distortion. Tell her to post it here, unless of course it's there solely for comforting reinforcement.

as claimed by say, evangelicals that camp outside Planned Parenthood, that making that choice in choosing not carry to term is a sin, and something god would avenge? Is that also your god? Different god, or misinterpretation of your god, etc?

What about people who proselytize to women that it is a sin that god would avenge?


I know of at least one study that was published in the British Medical Journal that tries to show that married women who have an abortion are more likely to experience depression, etc. I consider the study suspect, especially since it came from a 'pro life' group, but my personal working theory is that there MAY be a correlation, and that digging deeper may find those negative feelings, guilt, etc, may be caused by same-said pro-life groups and their guilt tripping and fear mongering activities about abortion.

Pro-lifers would probably make the case, in response to your reply, that murder penalties are enforced by secular law, and 'choice' doesn't enter into that. One may choose to murder a human adult, but there are penalties to that. So too, would the pro-lifers claim, that one can choose to murder a fetus (their term, not mine, I am actually pro-abortion, not just pro-choice) but their god would impose penalties for it.

Not my monkey, not my circus, but I would point out (having argued quite a bit with pro-life critters) that addressing freedom of choice would be something they would call a 'dodge'.

It too is a religious argument which, while it may be an interesting discussion, is irrelevant and not dispositive to enacting or repealing a civil law.

Proselytizing of a religious - or political - viewpoint is the price of an allegedly free society. It does, however, cease being proselytizing when it becomes harassment, obstruction and interference.

The "murder" argument is probably the strongest ethical argument to one who believes the zygote through a fetus is a human being. However, I think that analogy is seriously flawed.

Society condones murder daily, be it a police shooting, using the state's monopoly on violence; or the daily drone launchings on dozens of human beings, innocent or not; or the dozens of executions of confined human beings in gurneys in the shadow of bars; or, to my mind, the worst, the slow death of millions of human beings from poverty, malnutrition, unsafe working conditions and uninhabitable housing promoted by a capitalistic economy, government and ideology in which humanity itself becomes at a certain point another fungible commodity.

These are all legal "murders" condoned by society's acceptance of the circumstances of those homicides. Make no mistake, they are the very definition of homicide.

Compared to those circumstances, the decision of a woman, and those loved ones standing with her in her circumstances, shouldn't even be a thought in a legislator's mind.

Besides, a legal answer is never an answer to an ethical question.

had or will have an abortion. Abortion is a form of birth control, and the reasons for using abortion can vary from 'ignorance' to 'I was drunk' to 'I was raped' to 'my other form of contraception failed' to 'this fetus has a devastating incurable defect and would have an awful life' to 'having this baby would kill me'. Abortion is a medical procedure and is neither bad nor good and can frequently be the best ethical and medical choice.

It's a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026565158

So...


this is merely shit stirring, since it didn't impede her ability to distribute lies and hyperbole at all. She got everything she wanted. With a topping a holier than thou outrage.


Poor poor put upon Christians.


I wonder what would happen if a bill board company refused to put up lies and distortions.... because of the corporation's rules.

She could have printed them there. Important detail here.