I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

In 2012, my promotional printing company, Hands on Originals, was approached by a customer to print a message that conflicted with my conscience. When I said no, they sued me.

I got into the T-shirt printing business because I wanted to create Christian shirts that people would want to wear. Christian T-shirts at the time were so cheesy, they were so bad.

For all the years that I’ve been running my business, Hands on Originals, I’ve happily served and employed people of all backgrounds, of all walks of life.

That’s why it was hard in 2012 when a customer sued us after I politely declined to make T-shirts promoting the local pride festival. I was surprised because I work with and serve gay people. But I can’t print any message that goes against my faith, no matter who asks me to print it. And whenever I can’t print something, I always offer them to another local print shop.

As is the custom for T-shirt makers of all kinds, I’ve declined plenty of orders in the past. For example, I was once asked to make a shirt with Jesus on a bucket of chicken, with chicken coming out of the bucket. I didn’t feel right making that one. I’ve been asked to make a shirt promoting an adult film, one that promoted a strip club, and one or two that promoted violence. I couldn’t in good conscience print any of those shirts.

Another shirt we declined was a simple black shirt with white text that read, “Homosexuality is a sin.” I didn’t feel right making that one either. I don’t think that’s how Jesus would have handled the issue; Jesus would have balanced grace and truth.

I have gay customers and employ gay people. For example, we have printed materials for a local band called Mother Jane whose lead singer is a lesbian. That was never a problem for us because, as I said, we’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages.

Shortly after our case started, two lesbian printers in New Jersey voiced their support for us because they didn’t want to be forced to print messages that would violate their consciences.

That’s why I was glad when a judge ruled that I had the freedom to decide which messages I wanted to promote. An appeals court also agreed. Unfortunately, though, the government has appealed again, this time asking the Kentucky Supreme Court to hear the case.

The bottom line, for me? I love designing T-shirts, and I’d be pretty crushed if I had to close down Hands On, especially after all the years of building the business, serving the community, and doing what I love.

All we are asking for is that the government not force us to promote messages against our convictions. Everyone should have that freedom.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The so-called birthright citizenship clause:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There are two tests here.

Lets look at test one.

Here's how Leftists read it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Does this grant citizenship to all persons born in the United States?

On the face of it no. It doesn't even come close to saying that.

The inclusion of an additional stipulation in addition to simply being born on our soil, renders this a false premise. All persons are not granted citizenship for having been born here, without being judged to be under the jurisdiction thereof.

For this reason, it is a false premise to state every person born in the United States is a citizen.

Now lets look at test two.

...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

Leftists love to claim that illegal aliens must abide by the laws of the United States (all except immigrating legally, I presume). This they use as primafacia evidence that illegals aliens "...are subject to the jurisdiction thereof,...".

Is that true? NO, and it's a very easy thing to test.

The very inclusion of this verbage in the amendment deligitimizes this claim.

If being on U.S. soil made illegal aliens "...subject of the jurisdiction thereof..." all by itself, this further stipulation would not have been provided.

If all illegal aliens were subject to the jurisdication thereof, the Citizenship claus would read, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ~~and subject to the jurisdiction thereof~~, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Jurisdiction language would not be necessary, and it would not have been included.

The jurisdiction language had to be addressing something different than merely being present in the United States, when being born.

Conclusion:

The 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.

I had two workups in my editing program.

Before posting these, I went back and copied a post that was in HTML. It was the wrong one.

I caught it, but not until I’d posted it about ten times.

I contacted the Moderator and asked to have them all deleted.

Sorry. Folks reading this, I apologize.

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.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

The Business that was sued