Skip to comments.Commission Opposes T-Shirt Company’s Refusal To Print Gay Pride Message
Posted on 12/03/2012 8:22:47 PM PST by massmike
A Kentucky commission has announced its support of a gay and lesbian group suing a T-shirt company owned by a Christian man who declined to print the groups shirts because the message, he said, violates his faith.
Blaine Adamson, who owns Hands On Originals (HOO) in Lexington, Ky., refused to print T-shirts for the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) in early March, because he disagreed with the gay pride message the group wanted printed on the shirts.
I want the truth to come out its not that we have a sign on the front door that says, No Gays Allowed, Adamson said in a video posted on ADFs website. Well work with anybody. But if theres a specific message that conflicts with my convictions, then I cant promote that.
The text on the shirts would have read: Lexington Gay Pride, and would include a list of sponsors of the event on the back of the shirt.
Adamson offered to direct GLSO to another business that could produce the shirts for the same price.
Instead, GLSO filed a complaint on March 28 against HOO with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission claiming that HOO violated a local ordinance based on sexual orientation.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys filed a response to GLSOs complaint in April stating its claim of discrimination is unfounded, and that the complaint should be dismissed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nomblog.com ...
And there are are no other silk-screening tee-shirt places to print these people message.
Targeted attacks by the 3% (at most) population against any one who oppose their twisted agenda are never pretty.
Their tactic is to drive everyone into submission and compliance with their ideas.
No tolerance for you!!!
You mean they LIED when they said all they wanted was to be left alone?????
If we are not allowed discrimination in our own businesses, much less our individual lives, we are not free.
This anti-discrimination crud has been part of “the rules” for a long time.
From the ‘love that dare not speak its name’” to the “love that won’t shut the hell up”
I am a libertarian, what two consenting adults want to do to in the private is none of my business.
But the flip side is, I don’t have to jump for joy or approve of what they do. And if I don’t want to sell them a tee-shirt, I don’t have to!!
Because it never was about t-shirts, but about targeting this man for his unacceptable beliefs. Convert or die (embrace the perversion or have his livelihood destroyed).
This is ridiculous.
He should be able to refuse business.
I’ve always said that KY is more liberal than people think. The especially choose liberals there at the municipal level.
Somewhere in the FR archives is a story about the persecution of a Christian photographer that refused to service a homosexual event.
isn’t there a first amendment concerning freedom of the press?????
You may be right about Kentucky, but if the GOP did control the state government then they could and should prevent these type of local ordinances.
Business owners should, frankly, be able to service anyone they so choose. It’s none of the government’s business who a man does business with so long as it’s legal business, and the refusal to do business shouldn’t matter in the slightest.
Silly conservatives, the first amendment is for progressives and perverts— when cows fly.
Are there any groups of Christians seeking GLBTA businesses to print church group T-shirts and Biblical messages? Then put the GLBTA business owners up in front of the commission for refusing to do business with Christians.
Sooo....it occurs to me that to avoid these Gestapo rulings and tons of legal and financial hassle, conservative business owners may be better served citing SCHEDULE, when encountering a business order they’d rather not fill.
“Yaa.....we can have those shirts for you....about August 2014. If that meets your needs, we require a 50% deposit.”
Or, cake, or, flowers, or rental accommodations, etc...
Gay pride, i.e., homosexual arrogance.
You are correct.
It was a NM case.
The photographer ultimately lost after a very lengthy and expensive legal battle.
These businesses should come to Texas.
We are as free as you can be in the USSA.
Hopefully we will just be trading partners one day.
Well, it’s more complicated than that. KY is more DEMOCRAT than people think because it has a lot of ignorant antebellum rednecks who will vote for whoever has the D after their name, all the time, no matter what, which gives the actual Democrat politicians that they vote for free reign to be as liberal as they want. The politicians are socially way more liberal than the people who vote for them, but you’re talking about the white equivalent of the black vote: solid Democrat no matter what the issues are or what they actually believe.
I know genuine racist Kentuckians who think gay marriage is evil, who disowned their relative for becoming an atheists, who nevertheless adore Obama. Because he is a Democrat who gives out food stamps. These attitudes go back to FDR and beyond, all the way back to Lincoln.
And I was born and raised in KY, so no complaining about my use of the term “ignorant rednecks.” I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em.
Ew, she’s not pretty, she looks like her dad after a shave.
I’m only saying this cuz the article called her a “beauty.”
Another targeted setup
Bingo! That's the way to deal with them! And to grin broadly while doing it!
I wonder if this so-called “commission” would have ruled the same way had a neo-nazi group wanted a “White Pride” t-shirt printed, and they had refused...
More to the point, I wonder why the attorneys didn’t argue it.
I have always said exactly that. Don’t say no, just say yes in terms that are impossible, re timing and cost.
Go to a liberal company with Conservative Pride and see if they turn the customer away. I think that would be a great test.
In the 1980s there were plenty of book, record, and poster publishers who rejected printing works they found offensive.
Even now commercial networks will reject some political ads they deem offensive.
The Lavender Mafia is a hysterical bunch of lady men.
Should have just quoted a price they couldn’t meet
does this commission have any regulatory authority? if not then why do they even exist and who is paying for it?
its about foodstamps, ebt cards, and farm subsidies.
free stuff voters.
I think it is time to serious put an effort into disbanding these "human rights commission" things. They are like extra-judicial government entities that make up the rules as they go.
I mean, its sad to say so because there is still real discrimination in the world, and a tightly focused entity for that purpose wouldn't be a bad thing, but clearly there isn't nearly enough anymore, so they have plenty of time to go after businesses for not wanting to participate in the free speech rights of others.
We are very close to re-implementing slavery. Doctors will be forced to treat patients, bakers to make confections for events they oppose, wedding planners to plan weddings they think are immoral, and printers forced to help propagate messages they find offensive.
Meanwhile, if you make a different message shirt, the same government will refuse to let your child wear it to school; and in some cities, they will either prevent you from wearing the shirt, or turn a blind eye when people who dislike it attack you.
Not to disagree with you, but if you substituted “black” for “lesbian”, you’d get very little support for the same statement.
Even people who might actually agree with you would say they didn’t, so ingrained is the culture of non-discrimination when it comes to race. We all “know” that it was wrong to have whites-only seats, to not allow black and white people to date, to have separate water fountains, and make blacks sit on the back of the bus.
So we passed laws making it illegal for a business to discriminate against people based on their race. And ever since then, more and more “classes” of people have fought to expand those laws to cover their “class”.
BTW, the Americans with Disabilities Act is a form of the same mentality — that disabled people shouldn’t be “refused service” by physical barriers to their entry. And again, a solid majority of the country would defend those laws, although not on the margins yet, because people are practical when laws are not.
In this case though, I should think the shirt maker has a very strong case. He isn’t refusing to provide service to the lesbians. He is refusing to put a message on his shirts to sell to them that he disagrees with.
I should think he would also be allowed not to put swear words or offensively suggestive comments on t-shirts as well.
Two sins at once.
‘BTW, the Americans with Disabilities Act is a form of the same mentality that disabled people shouldnt be refused service by physical barriers to their entry.’
I’m just waiting for some ACLU type lawyer to sue for the “right” of blind people to drive cars. After all, it’s discrimination not to allow them to do so, right?
Sadly, most folks(even many who say they are libertarian) do not get that principle. As this story shows, the homosexualist movement is totally in league with the socialist/statist/Rousseau idea of using the government to enforce its worldview upon everyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.