The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Company refused to print Gay Pride t-shirts - judge finds in favour!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/27/printing-business-has-first-amendment-and-rfra-right-to-refuse-to-print-gay-pride-festival-t-shirts/


A judge has found in favour of a printer who refused to print t-shirts for Gay Pride.

The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) tried to get Hands on Originals (HOO) to print some T-shirts promoting GLSO’s Lexington Pride Festival.

One of the owners of Hands on Originals refused, because he disapproved of the message that it was asked to print.

Hands On Originals (HOO) did not decline to print the t-shirts in question or work with Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) representatives because of the sexual orientation of the representatives that communicated with Hands On Originals (HOO).

It is undisputed that neither [of the] HOO representatives … knew or inquired about the sexual orientation of either GLSO representatives.

HOO’s declination to print the shirts was based upon the message of GLSO and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members.

There is no evidence in this record that HOO or its owners refused to print the t-shirts in question based upon the sexual orientation of GLSO or its members or representatives that contacted HOO.

Rather, it is clear beyond dispute that HOO 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.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/28/christian-t-shirt-company-doesnt-have-to-print-gay-pride-festival-shirts-court-says/


It may be the USA, but definitely a +1 here - finally common sense prevails for once.

What do you think?
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Lt.Hartigan


I do agree with this decision. It's like asking an Ann Summers store to put a "God hates you for your sexual deviancy, you'll burn in hell" flyer in their storefront window.
(edited 8 years ago)
This is very good news.
A victory for freedom over cultural Marxism.

No one should have their arm twisted by someone else's prejudices.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Finally, some common sense.
I am gay and I agree with this decision.

You should not be able to force someone to express speech with which they disagree. I don't think, for example, that you should be able to deny someone service based on their sexuality, but in this case that is not what occurred; the printer would not have printed the shirts whether or not the requester was gay

A sensible decision; I hope UK courts take notice of the clear reasoning as we may have gone too far here (the Northern Irish cake case, for example)
If only the UK Courts were like this!
Reply 7
Avatar for Zarek
Zarek
21
Original post by MatthewParis
I am gay and I agree with this decision.

You should not be able to force someone to express speech with which they disagree. I don't think, for example, that you should be able to deny someone service based on their sexuality, but in this case that is not what occurred; the printer would not have printed the shirts whether or not the requester was gay

A sensible decision; I hope UK courts take notice of the clear reasoning as we may have gone too far here (the Northern Irish cake case, for example)

I would be very cautious here. There is little logic in them refusing to print the shirt or bake the cake - the words don't hurt them or force them to 'approve of' homosexuality - they are just reasonable legal words. I see your point but this is the 'thin end of the wedge' as the underlying motive is intolerance and an unwillingness to provide a service because of that intolerance. This is the same intolerance that previously made gay relationships illegal, that let bullying go unchallenged, that prevented gay people renting a hotel room. It is a mark of progress that the law is now prepared to challenge these more minor issues.. If I were you I would support it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 8
Avatar for Lt.Hartigan
Lt.Hartigan
OP
1
Original post by Zarek
...the underlying motive is intolerance and an unwillingness to provide a service because of that intolerance...
The logic as previously explained is that they are a business and they should be able to decide whether or not to provide a service to an individual.

I think your explanation for intolerance is stretching credibility though, as in the end (in this case) they obviously do not agree with Gay Pride so they do not support, just like the bakers do not support the idea of Gay Marriage.

In the end, it is not a public service making a refusal, it is a private business.
Original post by Zarek
I would be very cautious here. There is little logic in them refusing to print the shirt or bake the cake - the words don't hurt them or force them to 'approve of' homosexuality - they are just reasonable legal words. I see your point but this is the 'thin end of the wedge' as the underlying motive is intolerance and an unwillingness to provide a service because of that intolerance. This is the same intolerance that previously made gay relationships illegal, that let bullying go unchallenged, that prevented gay people renting a hotel room. It is a mark of progress that the law is now prepared to challenge these more minor issues.. If I were you I would support it.


I can see where you are coming from, but would you not agree that a t shirt company owned by a gay couple shouldn't be forced to print a t shirt saying, "homosexuality is wrong", for example?
Original post by Chief Wiggum
...would you not agree that a t shirt company owned by a gay couple shouldn't be forced to print a t shirt saying, "homosexuality is wrong", for example?
My thoughts exactly.
Reply 11
Avatar for pjm600
pjm600
18
Original post by Chief Wiggum
I can see where you are coming from, but would you not agree that a t shirt company owned by a gay couple shouldn't be forced to print a t shirt saying, "homosexuality is wrong", for example?


It wouldn't be forced to, it can refuse to provide the service for whatever reason so long as that reason isn't a protected characteristic.
Original post by Zarek
I would be very cautious here. There is little logic in them refusing to print the shirt or bake the cake - the words don't hurt them or force them to 'approve of' homosexuality - they are just reasonable legal words


If I have a printing business, should I be required to print a shirt that says, "Marriage is ordained by god between a man and a woman"?

There is a very clear rationale for banning discrimination in service provision based on a protected characteristic (for example, I cannot refuse service to someone based on the fact they are gay/straight).

This is different from refusing to take a particular order; in the case of the shirt, it wouldn't have mattered whether the customer was gay or straight, it was the particular words with which they took issue. That is perfectly legitimate as a business/personal decision, given the printing of the shirts is a form of speech/expression, and you should not be forced to speak/express ideas that are contrary to your values
Original post by pjm600
It wouldn't be forced to, it can refuse to provide the service for whatever reason so long as that reason isn't a protected characteristic.


And in this case they are not refusing service based on the protected characteristic; they would refuse to print those shirts whether it was a gay or straight customer who requested them
Original post by Zarek
the underlying motive is intolerance and an unwillingness to provide a service because of that intolerance


Be that as it may, it is not a crime and we should be able to distinguish between things we don't like morally and things that are to be proscribed by law

It's like the idea that adultery is immoral, but it should not be illegal
Original post by pjm600
It wouldn't be forced to, it can refuse to provide the service for whatever reason so long as that reason isn't a protected characteristic.


Yeh I don't think they should be forced to. But my example is about sexuality in a similar way to the gay pride example.
Reply 16
Avatar for pjm600
pjm600
18
Original post by MatthewParis
And in this case they are not refusing service based on the protected characteristic; they would refuse to print those shirts whether it was a gay or straight customer who requested them


Who, the company in the real case or the hypothetical?
Original post by pjm600
Who, the company in the real case or the hypothetical?


Whoever the "it" you were referring to in your comment is.

The fundamental point here is that discrimination based on a protected characteristic is unlawful, but refusing to print a shirt that gives a particular message based on certain beliefs you have is not discrimination based on a protected characteristic, as the company in question would decline the business whether it was a straight or gay client requesting "I love homos" or whatever it is

It is simply declining to provide a service based on the characteristics of the product, not the characteristics of the customer
Reply 18
Avatar for Feels
Feels
1
Original post by Lt.Hartigan
x

Depends on what that company believed in.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 19
Avatar for Zarek
Zarek
21
Original post by Chief Wiggum
I can see where you are coming from, but would you not agree that a t shirt company owned by a gay couple shouldn't be forced to print a t shirt saying, "homosexuality is wrong", for example?

You've set me thinking a bit. Maybe each case needs needs to be taken on its merit. I wouldn't agree for example with an atheist T shirt shop proprietor refusing to print a T shirt for a church fete. But one thing is sure it is good we are moving away from the time when intolerant discrimination an intemperate language was viewed as acceptable

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you