• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christian Business & Gay Rights Group Clash

The company has a right to decide what it does or does not print on to shirts. I support their right to choose what they do or do not print just as much as I would support another printer refusing to print up "God Hates Fags" T-shirts for the Westboro assholes.
That's a grossly dishonest comparison. It implies that the organisation in this case is as distasteful as Westboro or that the t-shirt they wanted printing was insulting to Christians. It seems neither could be further from the truth.

What I find odd, though, is why anyone would want to force them to do this. Why would you want them to make money from printing something after they let you know they are the "opposition"?
Maybe they don't want to be considered opposition. Maybe they just want to be treated like human beings with the same rights as anyone else.

I'm not convinced a legal case (especially under the US system) is the best approach but I don't think sitting back and ignoring discrimination is either.
 
I will be very interested to see what this business owner does if there is a finding against him in this case.... Does he pay the damages/print the shirts or does he simply close the business? I know what I would do; and then the employees could go and see if they can get jobs from the local GLBT organization to pay their bills.

So you'd rather take a stand in favor of bigotry than risk inadvertently providing mundane services and goods to gay people?!?
 
Fayette county has a law that says that the city can not do business with any company that discriminates. Also UK did all of it's printing with this company.
 
I will be very interested to see what this business owner does if there is a finding against him in this case.... Does he pay the damages/print the shirts or does he simply close the business? I know what I would do; and then the employees could go and see if they can get jobs from the local GLBT organization to pay their bills.

Maybe some non-bigoted person would then start a new t-shirt company. Everyone wins except bigoted folks. I doubt I'd shed any tears.
 
Maybe some non-bigoted person would then start a new t-shirt company. Everyone wins except bigoted folks. I doubt I'd shed any tears.

I like how you keep calling Hands on Originals a bigoted business, when it's not they who are trying to impose their views on others through legal action.

Hands on Originals just passed on an order. Do you have any evidence that Hands on Originals is trying to stop the gay pride parade?

Is the casual reader free to insert any material they find offensive, and you would still argue that Hands on Originals must produce it?

Also, let's say the courts order Hands on Originals to produce the shirts; Hands on Originals then has the right to require a minimum bulk order, right? Say, 6-million of each shirt design minimum, at full price, right?
 
Last edited:
Fayette county has a law that says that the city can not do business with any company that discriminates. Also UK did all of it's printing with this company.

The UK did all it's priniting from this company? Seems an unlikely thing. Do you have anything to quantify this with?
 
The UK did all it's priniting from this company? Seems an unlikely thing. Do you have anything to quantify this with?

This info comes from my step son, who attends UK, and works in the merchandising dept. Over $200,000.00 since 2011 went to Hands on for tees, sweats, and other printed clothing.
 
The Ordinance applies to all places of public accommodation including, but not limited to:

Motels, hotels

Stores, restaurants

Public parks

Barbers and hairdressers

Theaters

Social services

Taxis, buses

Other establishments that supplies goods or services to the general public


To What Discriminatory Practices Does the Ordinance Apply

Found the ordinance that Hands on Originals is in violation of. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government passed Local Ordinance 201-99
 
This info comes from my step son, who attends UK, and works in the merchandising dept. Over $200,000.00 since 2011 went to Hands on for tees, sweats, and other printed clothing.

Ahhh....UK as in University of Kentucky? Not United Kingdom. Makes more sense.
 
That's a grossly dishonest comparison. It implies that the organisation in this case is as distasteful as Westboro or that the t-shirt they wanted printing was insulting to Christians. It seems neither could be further from the truth.

It's dishonest of you to pretend that I implied that this organization is as distasteful or as insulting as Westboro. Quite the opposite. In order to support someone's rights to refuse service to a distasteful and insulting group (westboro), I believe I have to have the balls to support someone's right to refuse something that I agree with (this group) that the printer might find distasteful or insulting.

Anything else would make me a blatant hypocrite with no moral ground to stand on.

In other words if I don't support this printer's rights to refuse service based soley on the fact that I don't like their political views, but support such behaviors when I do like the printer's political views, I'd be a hypocrite.



Maybe they don't want to be considered opposition.

Well tough titty. They are actively supporting a political position that has opposition to it. Trying to pretend otherwise is counterproductive to their goals and totally delusional.

Maybe they just want to be treated like human beings with the same rights as anyone else.

I'm not convinced a legal case (especially under the US system) is the best approach but I don't think sitting back and ignoring discrimination is either.

I didn't say to ignore discrimination. I said not to force them to make profits doing something they don't want to do. I fully support the boycott efforts. That's not a stupid approach. Trying to force them to make it is a stupid approach though.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh....UK as in University of Kentucky? Not United Kingdom. Makes more sense.

Sorry for the confusion, I didn't even think of that.:3oops:
 
So you'd rather take a stand in favor of bigotry than risk inadvertently providing mundane services and goods to gay people?!?

I would rather take a stand in favor of PRINCIPLES, most notably the ideal of freedom of association and non-association than to provide ANY services, goods, employment, etc.... to people whose lifestyle I do not agree with.


Maybe some non-bigoted person would then start a new t-shirt company. Everyone wins except bigoted folks. I doubt I'd shed any tears.

That's fine. They can sell their soul for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver, but that's not something I'm interested in doing, thank you very much.
 
No, they don't have that right. A privately-owned company that opens its doors to the public cannot refuse to serve someone just because they disagree with their values. This is exactly the problem the Civil Rights Act was passed to resolve.

The one exception is for religious institutions. But this is not a religious institution, it is a T-shirt shop that happens to be owned by very religious people. If they have a problem printing T-shirts they disagree with, they shouldn't be in the T-shirt business, or they should have a business where they design and sell their own, Christian T-shirts.

Conservatives are typically all about the slippery slope, but somehow they don't see a slippery slope here? If it becomes okay not to print T-shirts for gay causes, why is it not ok to refuse to serve food to ex-criminals, or to create grocery stores, malls, private hospitals only for liberals or registered Democrats? Allowing private companies a "right" to discriminate is horrible policy. The existence of this right in the 20th century directly resulted in the racial strife and inequality we see in this country today. The minor psychological benefit that business owners get from not having to be put in situations in which they feel uncomfortable is not worth it.
 
Last edited:
I would rather take a stand in favor of PRINCIPLES, most notably the ideal of freedom of association and non-association than to provide ANY services, goods, employment, etc.... to people whose lifestyle I do not agree with.
So I take it that you would agree that my mother and father getting arrested staging a peacefull civil rights sit-in protest in a whites only section of Woolworths in Bogalusa Louisiana 1957 was a morally acceptable action on their (my parents) part?




That's fine. They can sell their soul for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver, but that's not something I'm interested in doing, thank you very much.


I don't quite understand this statement. I own resturants,and while I despise bigots,I'm not going to deny them a high quality meal and their payment for it just because they are bigots.
Exactly how is that " selling my soul for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver"?

What I won't tolerate is those costumers making bigoted remarks directed toward my wait staff (quite a number of them are gay) . This past Labor Day I literally had to have the cops escort a church group from one of my resturants for telling me they "didn't want to be served by any faggots".I politely asked them to leave my establishment(and no they hadn't ordered yet) and when they refused,I called the cops.The look on their faces when they were told that I was well within my legal rights and that they had to go was priceless.I more than made up for that loss of revenue from gay groups that came in whne they heard what happened.

Nor will I tolerate any of my waitstaff refusing servvice to a customer just because of their own ideological beliefs.If one of my waitstaff refuses to serve a customer just because those customers are gay,white,black,Christian,Muslem,etc. they can go find themselves another job.
 
So I take it that you would agree that my mother and father getting arrested staging a peacefull civil rights sit-in protest in a whites only section of Woolworths in Bogalusa Louisiana 1957 was a morally acceptable action on their (my parents) part?

I have no issue with that whatsoever.

I don't quite understand this statement. I own resturants,and while I despise bigots, I'm not going to deny them a high quality meal and their payment for it just because they are bigots. Exactly how is that " selling my soul for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver"?

You may despise them, but is it a principle of your life to avoid them in your life? I am going to assume that it is not. For some of us there is a principle in our life to avoid doing business with or having contact with people whose lifestyles do not agree with our own. In fact we believe that knowingly doing so causes injury to the Soul. Even if it means that we lose out on certain experiences or financial gain in life.

What I won't tolerate is those costumers making bigoted remarks directed toward my wait staff (quite a number of them are gay) . This past Labor Day I literally had to have the cops escort a church group from one of my resturants for telling me they "didn't want to be served by any faggots".I politely asked them to leave my establishment(and no they hadn't ordered yet) and when they refused,I called the cops.The look on their faces when they were told that I was well within my legal rights and that they had to go was priceless.I more than made up for that loss of revenue from gay groups that came in whne they heard what happened.

That's fine. You're living by your own principles and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course knowing that about your establishments I would be much less likely to eat there myself; but that's just me living by my own principles.

Nor will I tolerate any of my waitstaff refusing service to a customer just because of their own ideological beliefs.If one of my waitstaff refuses to serve a customer just because those customers are gay,white,black,Christian,Muslem,etc. they can go find themselves another job.

That's fine as well. Of course is does limit the number of people you may be able to hire.
 
If this company had an issue with doing business with any group, they should have not opened a business in a town with a fairness ordinance on the books. If they were already in business when it was established they had every right to move out of the city. They do not have a right to discriminate against any protected class.
 
Sorry for the confusion, I didn't even think of that.:3oops:

It should have been obvious from context, I just somehow got stuck into thinking it was England. Too much Dr. Who lately.
 
You may despise them, but is it a principle of your life to avoid them in your life? I am going to assume that it is not. For some of us there is a principle in our life to avoid doing business with or having contact with people whose lifestyles do not agree with our own. In fact we believe that knowingly doing so causes injury to the Soul. Even if it means that we lose out on certain experiences or financial gain in life.

My personal life and my business life I try to keep seperate.While I refuse to deal with people who I consider bigots in my personal life,I have no problem feeding these people if they keep their ideologies outside the doors of my establishment and their currency is legit.I have a family to support.
My wife is an orthopedic surgeon,and she feels her Hippocratric oath supersedes her personal ideologies when treating a patient.
Which I totally support.

That's fine. You're living by your own principles and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course knowing that about your establishments I would be much less likely to eat there myself; but that's just me living by my own principles.

That's fine by me also.If you (or anyone else ) refuses to enter one of my fine dining establishments simply because I happen not to discriminate on race,creed,color,gender,religion,political ideology,or sexual orientation when making my hiring choices (my main criteria in hiring is exoerience,and professionaism) or discriminate any of my customers then I consider it to be your loss,not mine.

That's fine as well. Of course is does limit the number of people you may be able to hire.

Actually it doesn't.
While I do prefer quality over quantity in my waitstaff,cooks,dishwashers,bartenders,and catering crews,there has never been a shortage of qualifying applicants who are willing to work for me.
I let every aspiring applicant know that racist,homophobic,or sexist remarks or overt discrimination made to my customers or any of my staff are grounds for suspension and possible termination from employment (which I am well within legal grounds to do so) and anyone who had a problem with that has always been easily replaced with someone equally qualified for the job who didn't have such qualms.
 
I would rather take a stand in favor of PRINCIPLES, most notably the ideal of freedom of association and non-association than to provide ANY services, goods, employment, etc.... to people whose lifestyle I do not agree with.

Facepalm. So you've fallen for the tired Big Lie that homosexuality is a lifestyle?
 
Facepalm. So you've fallen for the tired Big Lie that homosexuality is a lifestyle?

The reply that Tigger gave to one of my quotes says a lot about Tiggers "principles".

My Quote said:
I don't quite understand this statement. I own resturants,and while I despise bigots,I'm not going to deny them a high quality meal and their payment for it just because they are bigots.
Exactly how is that " selling my soul for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver"?

What I won't tolerate is those costumers making bigoted remarks directed toward my wait staff (quite a number of them are gay) . This past Labor Day I literally had to have the cops escort a church group from one of my resturants for telling me they "didn't want to be served by any faggots".I politely asked them to leave my establishment(and no they hadn't ordered yet) and when they refused,I called the cops.The look on their faces when they were told that I was well within my legal rights and that they had to go was priceless.I more than made up for that loss of revenue from gay groups that came in whne they heard what happened.



Tiggers Reply said:
That's fine. You're living by your own principles and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course knowing that about your establishments I would be much less likely to eat there myself; but that's just me living by my own principles.
Since I never mentioned the names or locations of my resturants,I can only assume that he would be less likely to eat at my establishments not because of the ambiance,the quality of food or the quality of service (since Tigger has no way of knowing) but simply because I refuse to discriminate or tolerate anyone doing so in my establishments.
 
Last edited:
Facepalm. So you've fallen for the tired Big Lie that homosexuality is a lifestyle?

Yes. Everything in life is a choice. Regardless of whether or not the urges are natural or self-determined, the CHOICE to engage in such actions makes it a lifestyle. On a similar note, I quite often get the urge to end someone's life, for one reason or another. Regardless of where that urge comes from: biology, free will, etc.... I CHOOSE not to engage in a murderous lifestyle. I really, really want to on quite a few of those occasions, but I knowingly CHOOSE to do what I know is Right rather than what I know is Wrong. The same correlation can be drawn for any sort of improper act: stealing, cheating, lying, etc....
 
My personal life and my business life I try to keep seperate. While I refuse to deal with people who I consider bigots in my personal life, I have no problem feeding these people if they keep their ideologies outside the doors of my establishment and their currency is legit. I have a family to support. My wife is an orthopedic surgeon, and she feels her Hippocratric oath supersedes her personal ideologies when treating a patient. Which I totally support.

I can't do that. There is no way for me to separate my life into compartments like that. There never has been and never will be. I would rather starve and go homeless than to violate my principles. My reward isn't in this life, it's in the next one. The Hippocratic Oath is one reason that I could never have gone into the medical field. The ideology behind it is the main reason why I didn't look at becoming an EMT when I had the opportunity about six years ago. I simply could not have done the job properly in certain situations.

That's fine by me also.If you (or anyone else ) refuses to enter one of my fine dining establishments simply because I happen not to discriminate on race, creed, color, gender, religion, political ideology, or sexual orientation when making my hiring choices (my main criteria in hiring is exoerience,and professionaism) or discriminate any of my customers then I consider it to be your loss,not mine.

Not just your hiring criteria, but those who you choose to serve as well. It's a large part of why I could never run a business of my own. Any restaurant I ran would have to be a "Members Only" facility with a pretty rigorous background check done before anyone was allowed membership.

Remember one thing though.... my entertainment/restaurant dollars will end up going somewhere. Someone is going to get them from me and from people like me. In today's rough economic climate I'd think that most restaurant and bar owners would not want to be alienating any part of the population; but if it works for you, more power to you.

Actually it doesn't. While I do prefer quality over quantity in my waitstaff, cooks, dishwashers, bartenders, and catering crews, there has never been a shortage of qualifying applicants who are willing to work for me. I let every aspiring applicant know that racist, homophobic, or sexist remarks or overt discrimination made to my customers or any of my staff are grounds for suspension and possible termination from employment (which I am well within legal grounds to do so) and anyone who had a problem with that has always been easily replaced with someone equally qualified for the job who didn't have such qualms.

Which is why you'd get two sentences into that conversation and I'd tell you that I had to withdraw my application. My principles do not get violated for anyone or anything.

I work in the engineering department of a major utility company. In 2007 I was assigned the design for a new service for a Planned Parenthood facility in the largest city in our operations area. I went to my boss and told him that I could not do it on moral grounds and asked him to reassign it to the other Designer. He told me that he'd see if that was an option, and if not that I would have to do it. I replied that if that was the case, I would be tendering my resignation, effective immediately. He was able to get the job reassigned to the other Designer, and I took some of that individual's work instead.


Since I never mentioned the names or locations of my resturants,I can only assume that he would be less likely to eat at my establishments not because of the ambiance, the quality of food or the quality of service (since Tigger has no way of knowing) but simply because I refuse to discriminate or tolerate anyone doing so in my establishments.

You would be absolutely and totally correct in that assumption. Just as I go out of my way to avoid any business that does not respect my 2nd amendment rights. Principles First. It's really that simple with me.
 
Yes. Everything in life is a choice. Regardless of whether or not the urges are natural or self-determined, the CHOICE to engage in such actions makes it a lifestyle. On a similar note, I quite often get the urge to end someone's life, for one reason or another. Regardless of where that urge comes from: biology, free will, etc.... I CHOOSE not to engage in a murderous lifestyle. I really, really want to on quite a few of those occasions, but I knowingly CHOOSE to do what I know is Right rather than what I know is Wrong. The same correlation can be drawn for any sort of improper act: stealing, cheating, lying, etc....

Your implied premise here -- the notion that homosexuality is an act DONE BY a person rather than a characteristic OF the person -- is both mistaken and bigoted.

Furthermore, your attempted parallel between homosexuality (or in your false frame, acting upon one's sexual and romantic urges towards members of the same sex) and murder (acting on the urge to intentionally kill someone) further demonstrates your bigotry and logical failures. The normal result of attempted murder is harmful. The normal result of acting upon sexual and romantic urges...isn't.

It would appear your particular ethical compass can't tell the difference in motivation or in consequence between a kiss and a shooting. If that's actually your view, then seek professional help.
 
No, they don't have that right. A privately-owned company that opens its doors to the public cannot refuse to serve someone just because they disagree with their values. This is exactly the problem the Civil Rights Act was passed to resolve.

The one exception is for religious institutions. But this is not a religious institution, it is a T-shirt shop that happens to be owned by very religious people. If they have a problem printing T-shirts they disagree with, they shouldn't be in the T-shirt business, or they should have a business where they design and sell their own, Christian T-shirts.

Conservatives are typically all about the slippery slope, but somehow they don't see a slippery slope here? If it becomes okay not to print T-shirts for gay causes, why is it not ok to refuse to serve food to ex-criminals, or to create grocery stores, malls, private hospitals only for liberals or registered Democrats? Allowing private companies a "right" to discriminate is horrible policy. The existence of this right in the 20th century directly resulted in the racial strife and inequality we see in this country today. The minor psychological benefit that business owners get from not having to be put in situations in which they feel uncomfortable is not worth it.

So imagine a t-shirt printing factory. It's materials are all natural, and its owners are vegans and PETA people. Should they be forced to print up pro-hunting t-shirts, or do they have the right to refuse service and to create t-shirts emblazoned with slogans that oppose their beliefs?
 
I can't do that. There is no way for me to separate my life into compartments like that. There never has been and never will be. I would rather starve and go homeless than to violate my principles. My reward isn't in this life, it's in the next one. The Hippocratic Oath is one reason that I could never have gone into the medical field. The ideology behind it is the main reason why I didn't look at becoming an EMT when I had the opportunity about six years ago. I simply could not have done the job properly in certain situations.

Normally I'd respect such dedication to principle,but not this time.
Your ideology prevents you from seeking a career in the medical field because you might have to give medical aid to a gay person?
You'd rather starve to death then send the plate of Duck L'Orange to the lesbians over at table 12?
Really?
Really?
And by adhering to these principle you expect to achieve some type of reward in the afterlife?
Me personally,I'd rather be good to people and not need to be rewarded for it.
But hey,different strokes for different folks.right?

Willing to go homeless or starve to death rather than violate their principles is an admirable trait,for some one who's single.
It really isn't all that admirable with someone who has a family to support.
Or someone who employs over 150 people.
I can't be that selfish.
Especially over something that I consider to be extremely trivial to me,and that's whether or not my sous chef or maitre d is gay.

Not just your hiring criteria, but those who you choose to serve as well.

I assure you that my hiring criteria is of a very high standard.
I only hire people with lots of experiance.good aaperiace,a courteous and proffesional atitude, and a good work ethic.
I don't see what being gay has anything to do with making shrimp ettouffe or scheeping it to the Mayor's table.

Now as for who I choose to serve,that would be human beings with lots of cash,or any major credit card,suit and tie required.


Does the major utility company you work for have an official policy against hiring homosexuals.
What about your department?Are gays not allowed to work there also?

It's a large part of why I could never run a business of my own. Any restaurant I ran would have to be a "Members Only" facility with a pretty rigorous background check done before anyone was allowed membership.
[/quote]

If you ever do run your own resturant are you going to call it " Schutzstaffel"?
I heard that was a members only club with very strict requirements and background checks to join.

Remember one thing though.... my entertainment/restaurant dollars will end up going somewhere. Someone is going to get them from me and from people like me. In today's rough economic climate I'd think that most restaurant and bar owners would not want to be alienating any part of the population; but if it works for you, more power to you.
It isn't very good business sense to chase after hundreds and lose thousands.
If losing your money means I don't have to put up with you making homophobic or racists remarks in the middle of dining area and upsetting all my other customers,then I can live with that loss.I run a very classy establishment.

Which is why you'd get two sentences into that conversation and I'd tell you that I had to withdraw my application. My principles do not get violated for anyone or anything.

I work in the engineering department of a major utility company. In 2007 I was assigned the design for a new service for a Planned Parenthood facility in the largest city in our operations area. I went to my boss and told him that I could not do it on moral grounds and asked him to reassign it to the other Designer. He told me that he'd see if that was an option, and if not that I would have to do it. I replied that if that was the case, I would be tendering my resignation, effective immediately. He was able to get the job reassigned to the other Designer, and I took some of that individual's work instead.

Umm,o.k.?
If this thread was about abortion,that might have been relevant.
Am I supposed to be impressed?
Especially since you put me,(a chef who owns his own resturant) on equally footing with an abortion provider.
Not only do I find that very insulting,but I find it kind of disturbing of you.
Just because I don't discriminate against gays?
Wow!!!
A.A.M Milne must be spinning in his grave at how you twisted one of his most beloved creations.


You would be absolutely and totally correct in that assumption. Just as I go out of my way to avoid any business that does not respect my 2nd amendment rights. Principles First. It's really that simple with me.
Aaaaaaand you're a gun owner.Wonderful!
It's to protect myself, my family,and my coworkers from people like you that I have a c&c license and hit the range once or twice a week..
That and the fact that I have to carry some rather large sums of cash at times.

I have a rule "The only ones allowed to enter my establishments with a gun are me,law enforcement, and the off duty cops I hire as security".
Customers shooting up the joint is bad for business.
Besides,you don't need to bring a gun to one of my fine dining establishments,the steer is already dead and we drop the lobster you picked in a boiling pot for you (unless of course you're one of those sick freak customers who'd want to drop the lobster in the pots themselves.Then that's a seperate fee).

No offense Tigger,but some of the things you post really don't portray you to be a rather pleasent person to be around.
 
Back
Top Bottom