Christian printer wins a major victory

[EverCurious]

Or they played the courts to find a more accepting... or well less accepting I guess, judge. SOP

 

[martybegan]

The thing about this ruling is if it applies to this printer shouldn't it apply to bakers as well?

This is a much clearer 1st amendment issue, as it regards speech as well as religion. Courts have been denying baking and photography as means of expression, but I guess actual printed material was too much for this court to rule against the printer in question.

Until we start seeing similar cases outside actual "speech" issues, we should be careful not to overestimate the impact of this one case.

That's my thought as well. I think bakers who refuse to write something on a cake will find far more shade legally than those who refuse to make a cake. As writing is speech. And cake is a confection.

The 'pastry equals speech paradigm is going to be a tough sell.

Only if you think the government has the right to force people to associate with those they don't want to in every situation.

 

[martybegan]

The thing about this ruling is if it applies to this printer shouldn't it apply to bakers as well?

The printer was asked to write speech on the shirt. The baker was not. So the 2 cases are completely different.

both are forms of expression, the t-shirt is just the harder one for progressive judges to punish without looking bad. and if not expression, they are forms of association, evidently the right to which you don't believe in for people who disagree with you.

No. If they were both forms of expression the baker would have won.

You act as if courts are infallible.....

Oh wait, they only are when they decide YOUR way.

 

[Ravi]

What exactly was he being asked to print on the shirts?

 

[TheOldSchool]

The thing about this ruling is if it applies to this printer shouldn't it apply to bakers as well?

The printer was asked to write speech on the shirt. The baker was not. So the 2 cases are completely different.

both are forms of expression, the t-shirt is just the harder one for progressive judges to punish without looking bad. and if not expression, they are forms of association, evidently the right to which you don't believe in for people who disagree with you.

No. If they were both forms of expression the baker would have won.

You act as if courts are infallible.....

Oh wait, they only are when they decide YOUR way.

Or when you correctly interpret the law. I didn't see you whining when Zimmerman walked after killing Trayvon.

 

[hortysir]

The thing about this ruling is if it applies to this printer shouldn't it apply to bakers as well?

The printer was asked to write speech on the shirt. The baker was not. So the 2 cases are completely different.

To me SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby case set the precedent for companies with closely held religious beliefs to opt out of anything that contradicts those beliefs

 

[martybegan]

The thing about this ruling is if it applies to this printer shouldn't it apply to bakers as well?

The printer was asked to write speech on the shirt. The baker was not. So the 2 cases are completely different.

both are forms of expression, the t-shirt is just the harder one for progressive judges to punish without looking bad. and if not expression, they are forms of association, evidently the right to which you don't believe in for people who disagree with you.

No. If they were both forms of expression the baker would have won.

You act as if courts are infallible.....

Oh wait, they only are when they decide YOUR way.

Or when you correctly interpret the law. I didn't see you whining when Zimmerman walked after killing Trayvon.

Based on the evidence he should have walked.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The thing about this ruling is if it applies to this printer shouldn't it apply to bakers as well?

The printer was asked to write speech on the shirt. The baker was not. So the 2 cases are completely different.

To me SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby case set the precedent for companies with closely held religious beliefs to opt out of anything that contradicts those beliefs

That ruling did not allow them to discriminate against gay people. All their employees will be treated the same and their treatment of customers did not change at all.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The printer was asked to write speech on the shirt. The baker was not. So the 2 cases are completely different.

both are forms of expression, the t-shirt is just the harder one for progressive judges to punish without looking bad. and if not expression, they are forms of association, evidently the right to which you don't believe in for people who disagree with you.

No. If they were both forms of expression the baker would have won.

You act as if courts are infallible.....

Oh wait, they only are when they decide YOUR way.

Or when you correctly interpret the law. I didn't see you whining when Zimmerman walked after killing Trayvon.

Based on the evidence he should have walked.

Based on the evidence the baker illegally discriminated.

 

[martybegan]

both are forms of expression, the t-shirt is just the harder one for progressive judges to punish without looking bad. and if not expression, they are forms of association, evidently the right to which you don't believe in for people who disagree with you.

No. If they were both forms of expression the baker would have won.

You act as if courts are infallible.....

Oh wait, they only are when they decide YOUR way.

Or when you correctly interpret the law. I didn't see you whining when Zimmerman walked after killing Trayvon.

Based on the evidence he should have walked.

Based on the evidence the baker illegally discriminated.

its not the event that was in question, it was the government response. The argument is over if this should be punishable in the first place.

The argument in the Zimmerman case was who initiated physical contact, and was Zimmerman in fear for his life.

Nice attempt at a "gotcha" but fail.

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly, finally a court with some common sense.

Christian Printer Who Was Punished By the Gov’t for Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts Just Scored a Major Victory

A Christian printer who was previously found guilty of discrimination for refusing to print T-shirts for a gay pride parade won big on Monday after a court ruled that he can decline to print messages that run in opposition to his religious views.

The Fayette County Circuit Court’s ruling overturned a previous decision by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, finding that Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands On Originals, a printing company in Lexington, Kentucky, was within his rights when he declined to make shirts for the Lexington Pride Parade, according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm.

The court found that Adamson did not violate the law in citing his religious convictions as the reason for the refusal, and that his decision was based on his personal freedom not to be forced or coerced to print messages that contradict his views.

Christian Printer Who Was Punished By the Gov t for Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts Just Scored a Major Victory TheBlaze.com

I believe business, bias and based, upon ideology over Commerce should be required to operate on a not-for-profit basis.

 

[TheOldSchool]

No. If they were both forms of expression the baker would have won.

You act as if courts are infallible.....

Oh wait, they only are when they decide YOUR way.

Or when you correctly interpret the law. I didn't see you whining when Zimmerman walked after killing Trayvon.

Based on the evidence he should have walked.

Based on the evidence the baker illegally discriminated.

its not the event that was in question, it was the government response. The argument is over if this should be punishable in the first place.

The argument in the Zimmerman case was who initiated physical contact, and was Zimmerman in fear for his life.

Nice attempt at a "gotcha" but fail.

The court found that it was punishable. So you can keep arguing circles around yourself if you like but the fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the case. And that's exacerbated by how you are purposely preventing yourself from understanding it.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

The thing about this ruling is if it applies to this printer shouldn't it apply to bakers as well?

Amen to this.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[martybegan]

You act as if courts are infallible.....

Oh wait, they only are when they decide YOUR way.

Or when you correctly interpret the law. I didn't see you whining when Zimmerman walked after killing Trayvon.

Based on the evidence he should have walked.

Based on the evidence the baker illegally discriminated.

its not the event that was in question, it was the government response. The argument is over if this should be punishable in the first place.

The argument in the Zimmerman case was who initiated physical contact, and was Zimmerman in fear for his life.

Nice attempt at a "gotcha" but fail.

The court found that it was punishable. So you can keep arguing circles around yourself if you like but the fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the case. And that's exacerbated by how you are purposely preventing yourself from understanding it.

Courts can be wrong. In the zimmerman case they got it right, in the baker case, what they did shouldn't be punishable at all.

It's all perfectly clear to anyone that can grasp the concept of people having differing opinions of their own, without having to come up with some rationalization for it.

Although I have to admit, your "willful attempt to not understand something" rationalization is a new one for me when it comes to progressives trying to understand how someone can have a differing opinion from their own.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Or when you correctly interpret the law. I didn't see you whining when Zimmerman walked after killing Trayvon.

Based on the evidence he should have walked.

Based on the evidence the baker illegally discriminated.

its not the event that was in question, it was the government response. The argument is over if this should be punishable in the first place.

The argument in the Zimmerman case was who initiated physical contact, and was Zimmerman in fear for his life.

Nice attempt at a "gotcha" but fail.

The court found that it was punishable. So you can keep arguing circles around yourself if you like but the fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the case. And that's exacerbated by how you are purposely preventing yourself from understanding it.

Courts can be wrong. In the zimmerman case they got it right, in the baker case, what they did shouldn't be punishable at all.

It's all perfectly clear to anyone that can grasp the concept of people having differing opinions of their own, without having to come up with some rationalization for it.

Although I have to admit, your "willful attempt to not understand something" rationalization is a new one for me when it comes to progressives trying to understand how someone can have a differing opinion from their own.

Your opinion is opposite of law. If America were ruled by opinions we'd be a mess. 2 different courts ruled the same for 2 different bakers. If you don't want to understand why then that's your problem.

But don't compare those 2 cases to this one in the OP because it was not the same argument as the one used by the bakers. And to compare them is dishonest.

 

[martybegan]

Based on the evidence he should have walked.

Based on the evidence the baker illegally discriminated.

its not the event that was in question, it was the government response. The argument is over if this should be punishable in the first place.

The argument in the Zimmerman case was who initiated physical contact, and was Zimmerman in fear for his life.

Nice attempt at a "gotcha" but fail.

The court found that it was punishable. So you can keep arguing circles around yourself if you like but the fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the case. And that's exacerbated by how you are purposely preventing yourself from understanding it.

Courts can be wrong. In the zimmerman case they got it right, in the baker case, what they did shouldn't be punishable at all.

It's all perfectly clear to anyone that can grasp the concept of people having differing opinions of their own, without having to come up with some rationalization for it.

Although I have to admit, your "willful attempt to not understand something" rationalization is a new one for me when it comes to progressives trying to understand how someone can have a differing opinion from their own.

Your opinion is opposite of law. If America were ruled by opinions we'd be a mess. 2 different courts ruled the same for 2 different bakers. If you don't want to understand why then that's your problem.

But don't compare those 2 cases to this one in the OP because it was not the same argument as the one used by the bakers. And to compare them is dishonest.

Actually when you legislate via the courts we are being ruled by opinions, but recently its mostly opinions you agree with, so of course you don't notice it.

When law is able to punish someone almost $130k for not baking a cake, there is something wrong with the law. That you don't see that is sad.

 

[Iceweasel]

The fact that you even need a religious argument to not print something is evidence of how far down the slippery slope we've come. The bottom line in all this is the militant homosexual lobby trying to force down the throats of Americans the normalization of their sexual identity. Their end game is that we all believe same gendered couples are just as normal as opposite genders. Acceptance isn't enough.

It's stupid of course, any child that isn't brainwashed knows it isn't the same. We are to live their lie or have our lives ruined. It's game on and we need to fight back.

 

[Ravi]

The fact that you even need a religious argument to not print something is evidence of how far down the slippery slope we've come. The bottom line in all this is the militant homosexual lobby trying to force down the throats of Americans the normalization of their sexual identity. Their end game is that we all believe same gendered couples are just as normal as opposite genders. Acceptance isn't enough.

It's stupid of course, any child that isn't brainwashed knows it isn't the same. We are to live their lie or have our lives ruined. It's game on and we need to fight back.

You don't need a religious argument to not print something. No one can be forced to print something that they wouldn't normally print.

 

[Iceweasel]

The fact that you even need a religious argument to not print something is evidence of how far down the slippery slope we've come. The bottom line in all this is the militant homosexual lobby trying to force down the throats of Americans the normalization of their sexual identity. Their end game is that we all believe same gendered couples are just as normal as opposite genders. Acceptance isn't enough.

It's stupid of course, any child that isn't brainwashed knows it isn't the same. We are to live their lie or have our lives ruined. It's game on and we need to fight back.

You don't need a religious argument to not print something. No one can be forced to print something that they wouldn't normally print.

It used to be that way.

 

[August West]

Exactly, finally a court with some common sense.

Christian Printer Who Was Punished By the Gov’t for Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts Just Scored a Major Victory

A Christian printer who was previously found guilty of discrimination for refusing to print T-shirts for a gay pride parade won big on Monday after a court ruled that he can decline to print messages that run in opposition to his religious views.

The Fayette County Circuit Court’s ruling overturned a previous decision by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, finding that Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands On Originals, a printing company in Lexington, Kentucky, was within his rights when he declined to make shirts for the Lexington Pride Parade, according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm.

The court found that Adamson did not violate the law in citing his religious convictions as the reason for the refusal, and that his decision was based on his personal freedom not to be forced or coerced to print messages that contradict his views.

Christian Printer Who Was Punished By the Gov t for Refusing to Print Gay Pride T-Shirts Just Scored a Major Victory TheBlaze.com

I don`t see where the printer is "Christian". No wonder Gandhi said they suck.
Quote by Mahatma Gandhi I like your Christ I do not like your Christia...