Posted on 04/29/2015 7:51:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Christian print shop owner who refused to print pro-LGBT T-shirts in 2012 has the constitutional right not to print messages that conflict with his Christian beliefs, a Kentucky court ruled on Monday.
After Blaine Adamson, the managing owner of a Lexington print shop called Hands on Originals, refused to print T-shirts for Lexington's 2012 gay pride festival, he was found to be guilty of discrimination by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission last year, even though doing so would have violated his religious conviction. Additionally, the print shop was ordered to serve future requests from LGBT activists.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group that defends the right of Christian expression, came to HOO's aid and filed an appeal of the decision. Fayette Circuit Court Judge James D. Ishmael Jr. reversed the Human Rights Commission's decision on Monday and stated the commission went above its statutory authority in siding with the LGBT legal group, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington.
"The order from the Human Rights Commission violates the recognized constitutional rights of HOO and its owners to be free from compelled expression," Ishmael's written opinion asserts. "Hoo and its owners have a constitutional right of freedom of expression from government coercion."
"The commission's order substantially burdens HOO's and its owners' free exercise of religion, wherein the government punished HOO and its owners by its order for their sincerely held religious beliefs," the opinion added. "This is contrary to established constitutional law."
The opinion goes on to explain that the HOO website clearly states that "due to the promotional nature of our products, it is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership."
Additionally, HOO has declined at least 13 orders in the last few years because they included messages that the owners disagreed with.
"[Adamson] and his co-owners are Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and that they should strive to live consistently with its teachings," the opinion continues. "HOO's owners, through Blaine Adamson, as managing owner, operate HOO consistently with the teachings of the Bible."
Ishmael also debunked the notion that HOO discriminated based on the customers' homosexuality.
"In short, HOO's declination to print the shirts was based upon the message of GLSO and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members," the decision stated. "In point of fact, there is nothing in the record before the commission that the sexual orientation of any individual that had contact with HOO was ever divulged or played any part in this case."
Jim Campbell, the ADF senior counsel representing HOO in the case, commended the judge's decision as a confirmation that governments cannot force business owners to give up their freedom of expression.
"The government can't force citizens to surrender free-speech rights or religious freedom in order to run a small business, and this decision affirms that," Campbell said in a statement shared with The Christian Post. "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."
Martin Cothran, spokesman for statewide social conservative group The Family Foundation of Kentucky, also praised the ruling as a victory for religious liberty.
"We are pleased to see some courts are still acknowledging the First Amendment's right to religious freedom," Cothran issued in a statement. "And that the 'PC police' are not quite powerful enough to convince courts that it doesn't exist."
Ray Sexton, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, told the Lexington Herald Leader that he expects to file an appeal of the circuit court's ruling.
Although LGBT activists are decrying the circuit court's ruling, the decision is similar to a ruling made in Colorado in early April which stated that a pro-LGBT Denver bakery did not discriminate when it refused to make two Bible shaped cakes with biblical verses and phrases displayed on them like "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7."
Guess florists and bakers, not so much. How’s that for “=”?
Common sense from the bench!
Good news.
Based on these rulings, it would seem it would seem they could be forced to bake a cake, but not have to write a particular message on it.
There will, of course, be an appeal to a higher court.
It is the grace of God that makes the good news possible to prevail in the world. Thank and praise Him for it if you want it to keep up or increase.
Any kind of expressive content that affirms what the vendor does not want, from religious principles, to affirm.
Again this all depends on good prevailing over evil in these times (even though it will do so in the end). That is by the grace of God. Let’s treat God accordingly....
LOL! So I’m just guessing that free speech is also covered with free shuttin’ up. :>}
Well it is about time a court used something other than their backside to think with.
Interesting-this is the first I’ve heard about the Colorado case and ruling. But in nearby states, Christian business owners have been destroyed for refusing to violate their beliefs in making cakes which explicitly are to celebrate sodomite unions.
A Judge Ishmael, which is a common Islamic name. Maybe he understood that freedom of both Christian and Muslim practice is menaced by forced contrary expression (although Muslims have another “out” in that they are explicitly allowed to pretend, an option that is not extended in the bible to Christians).
Good deal.
This is important. Churches will soon be under assault. Homosexuals will try to force them to marry homosexuals. The tax status of the churches will be challenged and threatened.
Churches shouldn’t be required to compromise their beliefs. Should a church be forced to marry a satanic couple and perform satanic rituals? Legally, there would be no difference between that and requiring them to marry homosexuals.
Some of the so called LGBT crowd are still vocal for tolerance, but their influence is drowned out by those who are fascist about it.
A battle royal is shaping up, and it isn’t Christians who asked for it but they are going to be drafted into fighting in it.
Good for the business owner. Now let’s see if the gaystapo in KY escalates this, and take it to federal court.
Seems this “right” if granted is going to be “more equal” than other “rights.” E.g. a Catholic church was never expected to marry two evangelicals even though they respected one another’s rights to worship within their own domains.
Everybody saw this coming on. Nobody should be surprised.
The deciding factor in cases like this is that the shop was being hired to actually print words and symbols that convey a message against their own religious convictions. Same with the homosexual bakery and the “god hates sin” message.
You can’t FORCE people to print words and symbols that convey a clear message in a country with our particular first amendment.
Now, if the cake or shirt were FOR a particular event, but they, on their own, did not support any particular belief, it gets stickier.
But this case is a no brainer.
Looks like they are, in the guise of (or taking as a pawn) the city’s oh so progressive “Human Rights Commission” (some human rights are more equal than others it seems).
This is a battle royal coming on. Christians didn’t incite it. God never urged it. But they are going to be forced into a position to finish what others started, at least to the point of being faithful unto death. This one would be relatively easy to dodge, just get out of any business that involves custom expressive content for hire. Others may not be so easy to dodge.
Aids, it doesn’t work fast enough.
Everybody saw this coming on. Nobody should be surprised.
That’s exactly right.
Liberals are going to try to force churches to treat all equally. They will threaten them with their tax status.
If a church is required to marry homosexuals, why should they not be required to marry atheists, satan worshipers, etc.? Not many homosexual agenda folks are mentioning this.
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.