We have the technology, we have the mathematics, we have the understanding!
+ =
Posted on 10/13/2014 8:12:25 AM PDT by lowbridge
A civil rights commissioner has found that a Kentucky T-shirt company that refused to print shirts for a gay pride parade is guilty of discrimination, calling for its employees to attend diversity training — but the company likely won’t be backing down.
Greg Munson of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission announced last Tuesday that Hands on Originals, a T-shirt company based in Lexington, Kentucky, discriminated against the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington when it refused to print the shirts.
As TheBlaze previously reported, the gay rights group filed a complaint against Hands on Originals back in March 2012, alleging that it had been discriminated against due to sexual orientation.
Company owner Blaine Adamson has since argued that Hands on Originals is a Christian business and that the views espoused by the T-shirt — which advertised a gay pride festival — violated his religious beliefs.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, has defended Adamson throughout the two-year legal process, with senior counsel Jim Campbell telling TheBlaze that the commission’s preliminary ruling isn’t definitively clear.
It reads, in part: “The Respondent’s refusal to provide goods and services of public accommodation to the Charging Party constitutes unlawful discrimination against the members of the [Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington] on the basis of sexual orientation and sexual identity in violation of Local Ordinance 201-99.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Soon it will be illegal to turn down a homosexual when he wants a date.
Now let’s see how many of the Freepers “It was the Bakers own fault because it’s the law” shills are posting their same garbage on this thread.
Too often men arguing with women is like women arm wrestling men: it's playing to their strong suit. For those exceptions when the man is actually winning the argument, there's the "abuse" tactic.
If it ain't physical, it ain't abuse.
When my wife was going to the early days of the class to be one of those “lay teachers” (Never mentioned that, did I?) she would come home talking about all these forms of spousal abuse she was learning about. After a few weeks of this I finally said that they’ve broadened the term to the point that the only non-abusive male to ever live was nailed on a cross. I added that their definition was so broad that the word no longer had meaning without a qualifier, e.g. “verbal abuse”, “silent treatment abuse”, etc.
She got VERY angry (which speaks to the dirty little secret here). I realize now that she was hoping I would discover that I was “abusive”.
Most interesting part:
When I was going to the class the book we used was very, VERY hard on men. I thought that was a good thing because, as men, we needed to know where we needed to improve and hopefully our eyes would be opened as to how we were mistreating our wives without even knowing it. It was very easy on the woman and always mader her out to be the hapless victim of our many forms of abuse. Again, I saw that as good. It helped us see how they could perceive our actions as abuse, even if we didn’t mean it that way.
Then one day, after class, I dropped by the wives class and while there, thought I’d look at their book to see how it was helping them cope with being in a marriage relationship. Yes, there was a wives class as well. I wondered how their book was hard on them.
They were using the exact same book. If it wasn’t so serious it would be funny.
It is of hypocrit concern to have us punished for exercising our conscience while Bill Gates and the government do trades with definite violators of said rights. The whole concept is a foreign influence barring the US from business altogether.
Funny he does not mention that melting ice would open sea lanes for Russia’s military... so this is all a bunch of BS.
I agree but hypocrisy is not the point to these people. Obedience is the one and only point.
I’m going to have to locate a “homosexual” operated t-shirt place. Then I will order some “Straight Pride” shirts and see if they refuse to print them.
The dirty little secret is we've cultivated at least three generations of women who define "abuse" as anything that doesn't give them what they want.
You will please note that while it is perfectly socially acceptable to attribute negatives inherent to the male gender it is never acceptable to speculate on any possible negatives inherent to the female gender.
Personally, I've never found a coin with only one side.
My wife says women are far worse than men, just much more covert about it.
I’ve been on the planet long enough to heartily agree with her. A man may just land you in a hospital or morgue. A woman will ruin your life.
To hell with this government. It needs to abolished by any means necessary. All we need is the right leadership.
Could an owner prevent you from walking into his store armed with a gun? If yes, despite being a Constitutional right, how much more can he discriminate against any client for any reason given the clearly delineated Constitutional right to free association?
I should have known better than to expect a serious answer.
I am serious. We have a mismashcl of laws that conflict and don’t make sense because of PC/liberalism/progressivism and the Cult of Fairness claque.
What we had up until the ICC was very clear private property rights and a better, though imperfect, understanding of Constitutional boundaries for government.
To me there isn’t a conflict between a property owner telling you to keep your gun out and a property owner telling you that she won’t make your cake, serve your food, or do business with you. It’s the same thinking behind not forcing you to join a union or buy Democratcare or any product.
I don’t believe that because a business works with the “public” that it is a public entity akin to government. Rosa Parks took the bus for years without problems when the bus company was private. Money is money after all. When the municipality took over bus service is when she was discriminated against. We need to return to the Lochner Era of freedom and I’d like to get back to pre-ICC years.
Maybe "White And Proud"?
Homofascists suck.
Ranting about how things oughtta be is not a serious answer to my question.
OK, you seem very reasonable. Serious answer: you’re completely safe from all lawsuits if it’s only your employees who are discriminating. If it’s you on the other hand, look out.
You can accept my serious answer or you could look it up or...
I think you are right; not only that society as-a-whole seems to devalue "manly" attributes -- look at how logical thought is disregarded in the legal profession in favor of more (A) politically correct agenda, (B) more feminine 'feelings', and/or (C) justifying officialdom's actions... and that's just one small, speciffic instance.
We have the technology, we have the mathematics, we have the understanding!
+ =
“there is no diversity training in the other direction. We are supposed to be liberal, and accept that the gay commuity is liberal and tolerant and all that already. Whereas it is bible thumping gun clinging religious types who don’t accept diversity.”
“Diversity” is a word that sodomites WANT to mean something different than what it actually means. Using a ‘negative edge’ on the word, they use it with the intent to create guilt in you for being contrary. It mimics adolescent peer pressure, and nothing more. Such a class could very well turn against them, and into a “shame fest”.
I say, couple another barge onto the Jane Fonda barge.
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.