You Be the Judge: The Case of the Glass Eye
A man is on trial for puncturing another man’s eye with a key during a fight outside a Philadelphia bar. The victim is on the stand, testifying, when his prosthetic eye suddenly pops out and falls into his hand. (What the judge decided) For links to CJA posts as soon … Continue reading →
How Many Gun-Related Deaths Has the United States Seen in the Eight Weeks Following the Newtown, Connecticut Shootings?
The answer For links to CJA posts as soon as they go online, as well as Facebook-only content, please “like” us (using the button on the upper right-hand portion of this page). This article, and all articles on this site, are © 2013 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.
Teacher Fired For Calling Her Students ”Future Criminals” on Facebook
Jennifer O’Brien, a New Jersey first grade teacher, has been fired for writing on her Facebook page “I’m not a teacher — I’m a warden for future criminals,” and that her students should take part in a “scared straight” program. She’d intended the posts to be read only by her … Continue reading →
Colorado 7-Year-Old Suspended For Throwing an Imaginary Hand Grenade
“I think that when a child is trying to save the world, I don’t think he should be punished for it” -Mandy Watkins, mother of Colorado second-grader Alex Evans During recess, Alex threw an imaginary hand grenade into a box full of “pretend evil forces.” You’d think school officials would … Continue reading →
Hands On Originals has the right to print or not print what it chooses. Now that all of Lexington knows its prejudice against homosexuals, I trust that Hands On will lose business.
The Gay & Lesbian organization will find another printer, and I hope that the organization publicizes the narrow-mindedness of Hands On.
I agree, but shame on this organization for filing this frivolous lawsuit.
I voted “no,” but this seems far from frivolous.
I doubt they lose business because of it. There was actually something very similar in my area where an insurance company refused to insure a church with an openly gay minister. That’s been a few years, and they are still doing fine.
As far as the story here goes, I don’t see any obvious prejudice or narrow-mindedness. Maybe they would not print shirts for a “hetero-pride” event either. Displaying one’s sexual preference on a shirt, whatever it may be, seems a little tasteless in my opinion.
What is tasteless about it? It is a political statement in this context not a personal announcement.
I very much get the owners point – I would think any printer has come across a situation like this . . What if the shirts were for a bestiality festival? Is it still discrimantion? How about refusing to print racist pamphlets? I think it should be possible to refuse to print ‘inapropriate’ material (in his own judgement) and not automatically be called discrimination.
A local T-shirt business in Tempe makes it clear up front what T-shirts they will and will not print up. They draw the line at hateful speech, so they would print shirts for a gay pride event, but not ones with racial slogans.
I can’t answer the poll question because I am not a Kentucky (or anywhere) lawyer and don’t know precisely what constitutes illegal discrimination there. Is it moral to refuse? My tendency is to say yes, and that it would be immoral to abet such people. But then I consider an opposite case, such as a pharmacist in a small town refusing to sell RU486 to a raped woman. How can I condemn one merchant and not the other?
The rule for pharmacists IS more restrictive… it allows pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions if they refer the patient to a pharmacist who will, but requires them to dispense if no other pharmacist is available.
Huh. Worst jail in America and it’s not even Arpaio’s?
Gives him something to strive for.
I don’t see a case against the T-shirt company at all. After all, it’s not like they’re denying an essential service or hold a monopoly on local wearable media. There might be some legal interest if the plaintiffs could demonstrate that the T-shirt company previously accepted jobs that violated the standards they used to deny service here, but otherwise it’s just pick up the phone and call another printer.
Mark M’s example of an insurance company is more problematic. Insurance is expensive, and a major necessity. Did they previously insure the church, then stop over disapproval of the new minister? Did the firm have a history of turning away clients over professed religious objections; or did they make the assertion that a gay priest created too much risk? (Either could be challenged) Were there reasonable options for the church (i.e., other firms willing to offer similar policies and terms)? Business owners definitely have the right to run their ventures as they see fit; the issues arise when their decisions cause more than inconvenience for other people.
There IS a legitimate reason why an insurance company might decline coverage for a church with an openly gay person associated with it.
Insurance is protection against risk. If the insurance company thinks that having open gays associated with them substantially increases the risk of fire (arson) or structural damage (vandalism), then the cost of providing coverage would be expected to rise substantially, as well…
Insurance is a highly-regulated industry. If the state imposes restrictions on how premium rates can rise and why, it might be safer for the company to simply decline to renew coverage.
(Note that this scenario depends upon the insurance company assuming that there are intolerant people who would intentionally damage a house of worship because there are, or might be, gay people in it. This assumption may be void in some areas.)
It is Hands On’s right to refuse to serve whoever they wish, assuming that this policy is not illegal in that community. The Gay Pride people are also free to rally well-deserved scorn to be heaped on their tiny heads as well [idiots].
The alternative is to say that the printer – or any individual, ultimately – would be REQUIRED BY LAW to do that work, even if it represents something to which he is religiously opposed. That boils down to a denial of his right to practice his religion as he sees fit.
Yet another case where the best thing the government can do is stay out of the way. Either people in that area will support the printer or people will boycott the printer.
“That boils down to a denial of his right to practice his religion as he sees fit.”
No, it doesn’t. It means he shouldn’t have entered a career field where the demands of the job run counter to the demands of his religion. (Kind of like the way Jews and Muslims probably shouldn’t take a job at the bacon-packaging plant).
That’s not the same thing at all. This is not one guy who /works for/ a printing company saying “I won’t do my job because I disagree with this message”; it’s an entire company saying “we are not going to do business with you because we disagree with this message”. Last I checked, businesses still had a right to decide with whom they choose to do business.
… and even if it was the same thing, the bacon-packing plant workers aren’t in danger of breaking the law if they refuse to handle bacon; they’re just going to get fired. Who’s going to fire the head of a T-shirt printing company? Is he going to fire himself?
From the article: “The quote from Hands On Originals was the lowest bid from a local company.”
If you’re going to bid on doing something, that means you intend to actually do it. If the Christians at HOO didn’t want to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival, they shouldn’t have submitted a bid in the first place. And if they thought the order might violate their “policies”, they should have clarified exactly what kind of event was being promoted. (Of course, they can’t be held to this, because it was probably only an oral agreement.)
It sounds like HOO missed out on a lot of money here, as well as a lot of word-of-mouth, which should be punishment enough.