Court Says ‘Religious Freedom’ Gives T-Shirt Company The Right To Discriminate Against LGBT Group

[cbayer]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/27/3651590/kentucky-religious-freedom-t-shirt-discrimination/
BY ZACK FORD POSTED ON APRIL 27, 2015 AT 2:45 PM




A Kentucky judge has validated a printing company’s discrimination against an LGBT group under the state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA).

The case in question dates back to 2012, when Hands On Originals and its owner, Blaine Adamson, refused to produce T-shirts for the the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO), which coordinates the Lexington Pride Festival. GLSO filed a complaint, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission ruled that Hands On Originals (HOO) violated the city’s nondiscrimination order, which protects sexual orientation.

But Kentucky Circuit Court Judge James Ishmael overturned the Commission’s ruling, arguing that it impeded HOO’s freedoms of speech and religion. In terms of speech, Ishmael reasoned that the decision not to print was not because of the sexual orientation of GLSO or its members, but because the Pride Festival advocates “sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman.” In other words, that message, though inherent to the identity of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, overrides the right of those people to be protected from discrimination.

Moreover, Ishmael ruled that the Commission’s ruling violates HOO’s protections under Kentucky’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA), passed in 2013. The law, a simpler version of the more controversial bills introduced recently in Indiana, Arkansas, and other states, states that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion” except under limited circumstances. As Ishmael noted, Kentucky’s definition of “person” includes corporate bodies and other companies, so HOO was entitled to assert a claim under RFRA. “The Commission’s Order substantially burdens HOO’s and its owners’ free exercise of religion,” he wrote, “wherein the government (Commission) punished HOO and its owners by its order for exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Because the shop would have been forced to “print shirts that convey messages contrary to their faith,” the Order “inflicts a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.”

more at link

[woodsprite]

1. Seems like we're quickly picking up speed as we head down the slippery slope

in that Hobby Lobby cheap plastic Radio Flyer knockoff.

[cbayer]

2. Agree. I think we need something at the federal level to stop this.

[nil desperandum]

3. My Company

gladly takes money from the Gay Film Festival in Albany to print their programs and promotional materials.

We discriminate on the basis of money only, if you don't have any we can't produce product for free.

But if you have the money to produce your project we are quite happy to provide you with whatever you envision for your print project. Sadly we are not a T-Shirt screen printer so we can't help these folks.

Nice to know we are codifying into law that a company is actually an individual, how does that work now when you sue them? Are those owners whose religious rights are protected now liable personally for the actions of their company since their personal religious beliefs allow the company to act outside of laws designed to regulate commerce?

I suspect not, I suspect when you sue these companies their owners are quite separate still under the law as Limited Liability Law indicates...so how can a company discriminate based on the views of the individual with the majority of the interest, yet the individual is not liable for those actions?

Quite interesting really and indicates the importance of the next president with respect to SCOTUS appointments.

[cbayer]

4. What would you do if someone came in and wanted you to print messages of hate?

What if the WBC wanted you to print "God Hates Fags" posters?

There is a very important point here, imo.

Denying service to people based on who they are is wrong.

OTOH, I am not sure someone should be forced to participate in producing a message that they object to.

As a business owner, where do you stand on this?

[nil desperandum]

5. Refuse

to print based on content I won't print slurs against gays anymore than I will print slurs against someone based on a racial identifier.

If the WBC asked us to print signs that said "God Hates Sin" I'd probably print that for them as that is not a slur directed at one specific group.
They can decide how to define sin. Even though I detest the WBC.

Printers have an easy way out though, because each job is custom at my shop each job requires a price quote before accepting the job. If I know my competition charges $1 for a poster I can charge $3 and lose the work that way as well.

That's harder to do with mass produced items that have a public price list. I do not have a public price list, each project as I said requires an estimate of work to be produced and a signed agreement to accept the pricing prior to printing. If I don't want the work I over price the estimate. Not all clients are worth the effort required to satisfy their requirements.

That said I wouldn't print posters for the Gay Film Festival that said "Gays Hate Christians of the WBC" but that's based again on content of the message.

I don't print porn either. There are others who don't mind printing that and I direct those folks in that direction.

[cbayer]

6. This article doesn't say what the t-shirts said, but what if they had messages

that the printers felt were slurs or went against their moral/ethical beliefs?

I'm not sure it's always that easy to distinguish what is a "slur" and what is not, nor am I convinced that that should be the standard, as it could be very subjective.

I'm also not sure you are on solid ground by charing those you don't like more. If I have a lunch counter, is it ok for me to charge black people $10 for a coke, while I charge white people $1? I think that's going to be cause for a discrimination action. I could easily snag you on that by sending in two potential clients asking for essentially the same thing, just with a different message.

Your porn example is good. If a porn actress comes in and wants cards printed that have no pornographic content, then I think you are obligated to serve her. OTOH, is she wants to include an image that you object to, then I'm not so sure you are.

So I think content is important. Discriminating against people because of who they are - not acceptable. Refusing to participate in the message they are sending - much less clear.

[nil desperandum]

7. Lunch counter

means you have a public price list.

You can't put up a sign that says coke for whites $1 coke for blacks $2 and I am quite certain you know that.

I don't have a public price list, when you come in and ask for a 10,000 posters (less than that and I would send you to my competition anyway as we are not small quantity printers) you have no idea what I charge for a poster nor do you know my work process to produce your posters. I ask some questions, I ask to see what you want me to price and I generate a quotation that's good for 30 days for you. You are now free to seek other prices and/or to determine if I am or am not suited for your project.

Commodities like soda pop are not my purview.

Custom work is, it's why I have several large national companies as clients. My quality is excellent and pricing reasonable, but I'm not selling $200 poster print jobs either. Most of my work is packaging and costs high five or low six figures to produce. We print commercial projects as well, but again we're not the printer for you unless you are spending thousands not hundreds.

[cbayer]

8. It doesn't necessarily mean you have a public price list, but I could give lots of examples where

there would be no list.

You can't charge people different prices for the same thing because of who they are. I don't care whether you have a public list or not. I could nail you really quickly on that, and I think you would find it extremely objectionable if glbt couples were being charged far more for their custom ordered cakes or invitations than straight couples.

You are suggesting a way to discriminate that you think is ok for the people you want to discriminate against. That's just wrong.

I am glad you are successful and I wish you continued good luck, but I hope you don't play games in order to discriminate.

[nil desperandum]

11. Except

I could nail you really quickly on that, and I think you would find it extremely objectionable if glbt couples were being charged far more for their custom ordered cakes or invitations than straight couples.

You can't, tell you what I don't know where you are or what you do but you could easily test my explanation and make a call to 3 or 4 commercial printers in your area.

You can tell them you want to print 5,000 posters 24x36 in four color ink with a gloss varnish coating. You want them printed on 100# Chorus Art Gloss Cover and you want them packaged in kraft wrapped packages of 100. I can guarantee you will get 3 or 4 different prices...all of them within 20-30% of each other...if you find someone at half or less or twice as much it's probably an error and most custom printers will have a disclaimer on their quotes explaining that they are not responsible for errors in the quote and thus are not obligated to honor a quote found to contain errors after receipt of the project.

So when you get your pricing back and it's all different how do you explain how 3-5 business all within 50 miles of each other have such different pricing? Is it because some want your work and some don't? Is it because some are discriminating, or is it simply because some think they can get you to part with more of your money?

What's actionable there? What's just an attempt by a business to get the most from a potential client? You have to prove I'm charging more because of some actionable reason and not because there was an error or an attempt to make more money off of your project. Not as easy as you think.

[cbayer]

14. Your continuing to justify this doesn't make it right, imo.

So, you don't think you could get nailed on it? Good for you.

I still think it's wrong and I think you would as well if it were being used to discriminate against people you support.

[nil desperandum]

17. Corrections

first I said printers or any custom manufacturer for that matter have a way out.

I think I stated I would not print content that contained known racial slurs, that is defensible and not actionable especially if the slurs are directed against a legally identified protected class which in my state does include the LGBT community.

We were discussing some hypotheticals, I offered some ways a custom manufacturer could hide what they were doing. I should have been clearer perhaps in that hypothetical chain, but I thought I made it clear I would print a WBC sign that didn't contain a direct slur, something along the lines of "God Hates Sin" would be acceptable as they can define sin how they like.

Nowhere did I intend to imply I was going to find a way personally to discriminate, again sorry if it wasn't quite clear.

I think it's obvious I didn't make my point as clearly as I thought I did but it was my impression you asked me how I thought as a business owner. I responded in why I wouldn't print certain items. Then I offered the concept that "some" not "me" owners could find a way out of doing business if they were competitive bid based companies like me.

I do appreciate your time and consideration.

[cbayer]

19. I appreciate the explanation and accept it.

I was sincerely interested in your take as a business owner, and I think you speak for many in terms of where one should be able to draw the line.

It is good to know that there are ways that people can and will manipulate the system in order to discriminate. It galls me that some states are giving them further cover by enacting laws that will protect them, even when they are clearly discriminating against people because of who they are.

Sounds like you have a very successful business. Kudos to you!

[nil desperandum]

20. Indeed

It is good to know that there are ways that people can and will manipulate the system in order to discriminate. It galls me that some states are giving them further cover by enacting laws that will protect them, even when they are clearly discriminating against people because of who they are.

Knowing where the potential for manipulation lies within the system allows for methods to address those weaknesses. We are in agreement that it's wrong to discriminate against Americans who are seeking access to services based on their sexuality, or their race, religion etc..

Discriminating against those who send a message of hate isn't a protected class situation and that was my larger point in explaining how I would avoid that project. Your example of the porn star and business cards was spot on.

I don't want to be forcing businesses into expressing messages that they find distasteful, but I do expect businesses that rely on the protections afforded them under the law to recognize that they have an obligation to treat each person seeking their services the same if they are a public accommodation based business. If adherence to public accommodation is uncomfortable there are many business opportunities that don't fit the public accommodation laws and consequently have a different client base and business model along with less public contact.

Thank you for the kind words.

We won't often agree on religion as I think we both know, but I do agree there is little value in turning away from common points of interest to create a better nation for those who believe and those who don't.

[cbayer]

21. Exactly - knowing how they can manipulate things provides the opportunity

to put mechanisms in place to prevent it.

This is a really complex and fascinating area. Issues like pharmacists that don't want to provide birth control or physicians that don't want to perform abortions can lead to fascinating discussions. It's always important to try and turn it around and propose the situation where you or I might be asked to do something that we find completely objectionable.

The dueling rights - not all that straight forward.

Thank you for being cordial and informative and very, very civil. I know there are things on which we disagree, but I can't' really tell you how much it means to me to have a disagreement that does not become personal or involve attacks.

I suspect we agree on much more than we disagree and I look forward to talking with you again in the future.

[nil desperandum]

25. Indeed

Thank you for being cordial and informative and very, very civil. I know there are things on which we disagree, but I can't' really tell you how much it means to me to have a disagreement that does not become personal or involve attacks.

We can all be snarky at times, but my uncle who was like a second dad to me told me once that it's important to listen and understand the other person before you respond to their position.

Because if you truly listen and understand you just might find they are actually right and you save yourself looking the fool by responding in haste from a position of error. He was from that greatest generation and fought the Nazis with the Patton's 3rd Army...he knew a lot of guys he didn't agree with but they fought and won together by finding that commonality of purpose. It's a lesson lost on our succeeding generations from time to time.

[nil desperandum]

9. I

think you are right about public price lists for commodity style product.

I can't turn down someone if I state I will print 1000 posters for $400 and deliver in three days just because I don't like them.

Where it gets different is that this is more custom oriented for my business model, there are no generic off the shelf projects. It's like asking for someone to build you countertops, you can easily find 5 different vendors all of whom will charge you a different price. There is nothing actionable there regardless of whether or not you send in a black couple or a white couple to test the pricing because each business has a different pricing structure. In order to be actionable one would have to show a significant increase for the black couple that can't be explained by geography for the cabinet company when they deliver and install.

I charge more for inside deliveries than I do for dock deliveries...I charge more for custom packaging of your product, I charge more for any changes you make along the way, I charge more if you don't supply me with the required type of artwork as dictated in the pricing estimate...custom work is very difficult to litigate because it's custom nature is open to interpretation.

[cbayer]

10. That's all fine and good, but what you suggested (if not outright stated) above

is that you could discourage people you didn't like by charging them more.

Sorry, but I think that's wrong, no matter how complex you try to make it and how hard it might be to prove that that is what you are doing.

And I think you would find it wrong if it were being used against people that you support.

[nil desperandum]

13. Indeed

you are right, I don't want to keep working with customers who take longer than 90 days to pay which is quite common these days. Printers are usually designers bankers as well as their printers because we produce and deliver product before we get paid.

If you are a habitual slow payer and I can replace you with business that pays quickly thus lowering my debt service I will do so by slowly raising your pricing until you no longer award me a project based on competitive bidding.

Perhaps I didn't make that clear, my business is not a public accommodation printing business like Staples, or the FedEx Copy Center. We tend to be bidding for your business against competition. If it's work we want I might cut the price to just a few points over cost and take less money just to win the work and get you as a client with an eye towards winning more work later. If it's work I don't want I can leave the pricing at full cost and if I win it at least I'm making the maximum amount to produce your project if I get it....and if I know you are a slow pay or deadbeat client I might go in at full price plus 25% to cover my risk in taking you on as a client.

It's quite a different business model than your public accommodation printers, bakers, diners, etc..

My apologies for not being more precise.

[cbayer]

16. Again, I think you are within your rights to make business decisions based

on those who don't pay in a timely manner.

But you suggested that you had the latitude to discourage people from using your business and that this gave you the opportunity to discriminate against those with whom you might ideologically disagree.

That is where I object.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Following links, it appears the awful message was "Lexington Pride Festival 5"

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/30/455594/kentucky-t-shirt-controversy-reveals-conservative-intent-to-discriminate-and-stigmatize/

Baker said the organization had gotten quotes from a number of Central Kentucky T-shirt companies, including Hands On Originals, and had selected it as the best local bid. The T-shirts for the fifth annual event were to include a stylized number 5 on the front along with "Lexington Pride Festival" and the event's sponsors on the back.

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/26/2127245_hands-on-originals-t-shirt-company.html?rh=1

I'm assuming the sponsors didn't have blasphemous names.

[cbayer]

15. Clearly that is not a message that could be assumed to be objectionable.

Other than the word "pride", it is not even clear what it might be for.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Frankly, I think the judge just plain lies in his decision

It's completely ridiculous:

In his decision, Ishmael said that there was no evidence that Hands On Originals or its owners "refused to print the T-shirts in question based upon the sexual orientation of GLSA or its members or representatives. ... Rather, it is clear beyond dispute that (Hands On Originals) and its owners declined to print the T-shirts in question because of the message advocating sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman."

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/04/27/3821949/fayette-circuit-court-judge-reverses.html

No, the judge earlier admits it was not about the message on the T-shirts; it was that other people might have signs at the festival saying sex outside marriage was OK:

Low gave Adamson a detailed description of the front of the T-shirt design. Adamson was thus made aware of the type of activities that typically occur at gay pride festivals including the display of signs and other communications promoting romantic relationships and sexual activity outside marriages between a man and a woman"

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HandsOnOriginalsDecision.pdf

Far from being "clear beyond dispute", I'd say it's clear that they refused to print it because there would be gay people at the festival. Hypocritically, HOO claims

Hands On Originals both employs and conducts business with people of all genders, races, religions, sexual preferences, and national origins. However, due to the promotional nature of our products, it is the perogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any order that would endorse positions that would conflict with the convictions of the ownership.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417540/freedom-conscience-wins-round-david-french

My arse. I don't believe for a moment a single person who works for them is openly gay. They would make that person's life complete hell.

[cbayer]

24. Agree. If the image that you have provided is it, then there is absolutely no message

about sex at all, let alone sex outside of marriage or between same sex partners.

How can he support a decision based on what might happen at an event where the t-shirts would be worn? It's ridiculous.

Sexual preference? That says it all right there.

[nil desperandum]

18. That's

a pretty innocuous looking piece of artwork and I don't see how it's objectionable upon religious grounds other than where it would be worn...

[TlalocW]

22. I've heard the argument used by liberals

That refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding should be illegal - if that's your business after all but if someone came to you and wanted you to make a cake with a message of, "Kill the <whatever>," on it, then you can refuse them. I think this might fall under the same umbrella.

TlalocW

[cbayer]

26. Yes, except what was to be printed on the t-shirt looks really innocuous.

[Lordquinton]

27. think about what you just said

That supporting gay marrige is equalivant to supporting genocide (assuming they mean kill all the whatever, not just some). That's your logic flaw.