• 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 Baron

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,530
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So a gay-rights group tried to purchase t-shirts for an upcoming gay-pride parade from a Christian t-Shirt shop and the owners declined the order. So as predictably as night-follows-the-day the gay-rights group files a complaint.

The owner insists that the order was not declined because the group was gay as the shop employs and does business with “people of all stripes”. Instead the owner states that the order was declined as it promoted values contrary to the company’s.

Does the t-shirt shop have a right to decline orders contradictory to its Christian faith?

Link!
 
Yes they have the right to deny service to anyone.
 
The Baron said:
So a gay-rights group tried to purchase t-shirts for an upcoming gay-pride parade from a Christian t-Shirt shop and the owners declined the order. So as predictably as night-follows-the-day the gay-rights group files a complaint.

The owner insists that the order was not declined because the group was gay as the shop employs and does business with “people of all stripes”. Instead the owner states that the order was declined as it promoted values contrary to the company’s.

Does the t-shirt shop have a right to decline orders contradictory to its Christian faith?

Link!
Click to expand...

The T-Shirt company has the right to refuse service just as I have a right not to use that company to print up t-shirts for my resturant chain,my catering business,and the little baseball team I sponser,and I have the right to ask many of my good friends who are fellow resturant owners not to use that company also.
 
Last edited:
A private firm has the right to refuse to provide a service that is contrary to the values of the company. The same would be true if a LGTB company refused to print promotional materials for a church-sponsored anti-LGTB event. Just because you are a member of a minority group does not mean you can trample over others' rights. Just because you are religious organization does not mean you can trample over others' rights either.
 
Yup. The company has every right in the world.

I don't get why GLSO is challenging this. Even if it weren't for the fact that they deserve to lose, why would they want to patron a company that is opposed to their organization anyway? I don't buy from companies that do things I don't think are right. It's their loss - vote with your dollar.
 
Last edited:
The Baron said:
So a gay-rights group tried to purchase t-shirts for an upcoming gay-pride parade from a Christian t-Shirt shop and the owners declined the order. So as predictably as night-follows-the-day the gay-rights group files a complaint.

The owner insists that the order was not declined because the group was gay as the shop employs and does business with “people of all stripes”. Instead the owner states that the order was declined as it promoted values contrary to the company’s.

Does the t-shirt shop have a right to decline orders contradictory to its Christian faith?

Link!
Click to expand...

Yes, they do.
 
Everyone so far has hit the nail on the head. It is the companies right.

But is also the right of anyone that disagree's with them to not do business with them, and consider them idiots.
 
Discrimination is still discrimination. If their only grounds for refusal of service is bigotry, then they probably shouldn't be able to. However, I don't think discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered under current civil rights legislation. But the fact remains that these people are doing something wrong by acting this way.
 
Paschendale said:
Discrimination is still discrimination. If their only grounds for refusal of service is bigotry, then they probably shouldn't be able to. However, I don't think discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered under current civil rights legislation. But the fact remains that these people are doing something wrong by acting this way.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. However, I don't think the GLSO really has a legal case here.
 
Paschendale said:
Discrimination is still discrimination. If their only grounds for refusal of service is bigotry, then they probably shouldn't be able to. However, I don't think discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered under current civil rights legislation. But the fact remains that these people are doing something wrong by acting this way.
Click to expand...

I agree what they are doing is wrong but they are within their rights.
 
Paschendale said:
Discrimination is still discrimination. If their only grounds for refusal of service is bigotry, then they probably shouldn't be able to. However, I don't think discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered under current civil rights legislation. But the fact remains that these people are doing something wrong by acting this way.
Click to expand...

So, as others have pointed out, would it be wrong for a LGBT run company to deny a Christian group service if they wanted T-shirts printed for a traditional marriage event or something not along the lines of that company's beliefs?
 
I am ambivalent about businesses and discrimination. On the one hand, I do agree, businesses would seem to have a right to be bigoted idiots.

However, history reveals that widespread discrimination of any identifiable group results in systematic marginalization with detrimental consequences. I would not be willing to see this come to pass.

So. In my book, the freedom to operate businesses like assholes depends upon how many folks the jerks happen to have sharing their 'values' within the business community. I use the term values very loosely, in case the reader didn't notice.

As long as the power to discriminate doesn't hold within it the power to harm ... by all means, exercise the freedom. But, when it actually does lead to harm, then no, I don't think people hold that freedom.
 
Legally, yes. (The answer would be no if the business was in certainly narrowly identified areas and in certain states...for example essential businesses like the only motel in town, or an emergency medical clinic, etc....but getting some custom t-shirts is not an essential).

Of course, the relevant town / county / state also has legal grounds to revoke the relevant business license or corporate charter (depending on the type of business) if the conduct of the business is contrary to the values of that town / county / state yet still constitutional. Incorporation is a privilege, not an entitlement, so in the presence of well-organized public political will, legally speaking there's nothing preventing folks from having a corporation's charter revoked if and when it is shown that the corporation in question is not fulfilling its legal obligation to be of demonstrated benefit to the communities in which it operates.


ETHICALLY speaking, it's tactically idiotic for an LGBT rights/equality group to patronize a business owned or operated by homophobic bigots, just as it is incredibly dick-ish of the business operators to openly discriminate against gay and lesbian people.
 
The Baron said:
So a gay-rights group tried to purchase t-shirts for an upcoming gay-pride parade from a Christian t-Shirt shop and the owners declined the order. So as predictably as night-follows-the-day the gay-rights group files a complaint.

The owner insists that the order was not declined because the group was gay as the shop employs and does business with “people of all stripes”. Instead the owner states that the order was declined as it promoted values contrary to the company’s.

Does the t-shirt shop have a right to decline orders contradictory to its Christian faith?
Click to expand...


A primary aspect of the First Amendment is to affirm that everyone has a right to express what one believes.

I think that along with that is an implied right not to be forced to express or participate in the expression of something that one does not believe.

It's one thing to prohibit discrimination, to the degree of saying that the shopowner cannot refuse a particular customer's business because of that customer's race,religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.

It is very much another thing to say that the shopowner must accept business that consists of him helping to promote a message with which he disagrees. I do not see how that would not be a violation of his First Amendment rights.
 
Arbo said:
Everyone so far has hit the nail on the head. It is the companies right.

But is also the right of anyone that disagree's with them to not do business with them, and consider them idiots.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, totally, 100% spot on, Arbo. We always have the right to act in accordance with our values in the business world. However, we must also realize that there may be times when those actions or non-actions may have unpleasant consequences. I could have potentially lost my job about 5 or 6 years ago because I refused to work on a project for a particular customer on moral grounds. Thankfully the other Designer in the office was willing to take that project on and in return I took on one of his projects. If he hadn't been willing to make the exchange, I would likely have been terminated.
 
Paschendale said:
Discrimination is still discrimination. If their only grounds for refusal of service is bigotry, then they probably shouldn't be able to. However, I don't think discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered under current civil rights legislation. But the fact remains that these people are doing something wrong by acting this way.
Click to expand...



Depends.


If it is:


1. Ewww, we won't do biz with you 'cuz you're GAY..... that's discrimination.

But if it is:

2. We find the content you wish printed on your T-shirts to be unacceptible to our standards, and decline to produce your order on that basis.... is perfectly legal and acceptible and in all ways fine.
 
Goahin,

My issue is that your first reasoning listed is NOT considered acceptable like your second one is. Every single day I go out of my way not to interact with certain businesses and individuals due to who they are. Why should a business be any different?
 
The Baron said:
Does the t-shirt shop have a right to decline orders contradictory to its Christian faith?
Click to expand...
The discussion of the local regulations suggest that they don't have a specific right to refuse a customer because of their own religious faith.

They have the same general rights to refuse a customer as any other business but those general rights are restricted on grounds such as the customers sexuality, race or faith. The basis of the companies objection being Christian is irrelevant - if they were secular but simply didn't agree with homosexuality, the situation would (legally) be exactly the same.

The key question is whether the objection was actually on the grounds of the customers sexual orientation or something more specific regarding the nature of the printing asked for or the event it was to promote. I think that's a very difficult call for the people who have to make it and an impossible one for us (since we don't have all the relevant information, just second/third hand reporting).
 
Yes, it's the company's right.

Although you can bet they lost some customers.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, it's the company's right. Although you can bet they lost some customers.
Click to expand...

Somehow I'm not sure that they really mind losing those customers. I'm sure that there are a number of others who will go there to have work done in the future because of this as well. It generally evens out in the end.
 
The Baron said:
So a gay-rights group tried to purchase t-shirts for an upcoming gay-pride parade from a Christian t-Shirt shop
Click to expand...



I saw no evidence in the article that it was a Christian tee shirt shop, only that the owners were Christians. If it were a Christian tee shirt ship -- I/E selling Christian themed tee shirts -- my sympathies would have been with the shop owners, since the gay group selecting them would have been a politicized, in your face gesture. As it is, however, my sympathies are with the gay group.

That being said, the shop was within their rights to deny service. Hopefully, their practices will be widely publicized in such a way that any who so wish can deny them their patronage for the same reason.
 
Gardener said:
That being said, the shop was within their rights to deny service.
Click to expand...
Why is everyone making such definitive statements to this effect when the article makes it perfectly clear that it isn't anything like as simple.

If they refused to serve a customer because that customer is gay, they would be in breach of the local ordinance quoted in the article and possible other state or federal laws. The correct question isn't whether they have the right to refuse service but whether they have the right to deny service for the reasons they did.
 
HonestJoe said:
......The correct question isn't whether they have the right to refuse service but whether they have the right to deny service for the reasons they did.
Click to expand...

I thought the first amendment said something about freedom of association; am I wrong? Every day of my life I choose who I do business with, who I will associate with, etc.... Yet somehow we want to suggest that a business doing the same thing SHOULD be told they will not be allowed to do so. Seems pretty stupid to me.
 
Tigger said:
I thought the first amendment said something about freedom of association; am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I think you are actually. You might mean the bit about peaceable assembly but I'm not sure how that fits the situation. Regardless, it does say "Congress shall make no law...", so I'm not sure it's relevant at all to a discussion on local regulations. The Constitution is far from being the be-all and end-all of your legal system.

The simple fact is that the regulation exists and nobody seems to be suggesting that it should. The question still remains whether the company in question broke that regulation or not.

Tigger said:
Yet somehow we want to suggest that a business doing the same thing SHOULD be told they will not be allowed to do so. Seems pretty stupid to me.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're not in one of the groups of people who would be disadvantaged as a result of such a free-for-all. There are all sorts of perfectly legitimate rules and regulations which apply to businesses but not private individuals. This is just one of them but your argument would do away with them all.
 
HonestJoe said:
Maybe you're not in one of the groups of people who would be disadvantaged as a result of such a free-for-all. There are all sorts of perfectly legitimate rules and regulations which apply to businesses but not private individuals. This is just one of them but your argument would do away with them all.
Click to expand...

I am a member of a group that could possibly be disadvantaged by such a free-for-all in that I have a very prominent birth defect. I do understand the potentials that such a policy could bring about; but they are less problematic in my mind than what this law does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom