Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The company's "owners did not want to communicate the message of the requested shirt — that people should be 'proud' about engaging in homosexual behavior or same-sex relationships — nor did they want to promote the pride festival or the ideology conveyed at that advocacy event," the lawyers wrote, adding that Hands On Originals has gay employees and "has filled past orders for customers who it knew identified as homosexual."
That's pretty clear right there. Why should the owners not be allowed to refuse the order once they realized what the organization/t-shirts/symbols stood for?
Having gay employees who do their jobs--and don't try to force their lifestyle on the owner is quite different. They're just employees, whatever their orientation--as long as they don't promote it at work.
What exactly is promoting your "lifestyle"? I talk about my husband at work to all my co-workers when we are on coffee breaks or lunch or just taking a break and shooting the breeze. Is that promoting my lifestyle?
It's interesting how upset everyone is about this issue but allowing people to use their religion as an excuse not to serve the public is a dangerous and slippery slope. What's next then? Should a Muslim owned business refuse service to women who are not properly covered, according to their religion. Or should Hasidic Jews in the NYC Diamond District be allowed to refuse to do business with women since it violates their religion? Should every customer coming into a religious owned business have to pass a "faith" test? Were the "Irish Not Welcome" signs in US storefronts 150 years ago something we should celebrate and encourage?
Being religious is a CHOICE, your gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. is not.
Be that as it may the USG has made it a civil right which can be taken to court.
Their civil rights trump your religious beliefs now and you really have no religious rights when it comes to business unless you are a church run business.
Well, that may be the way some think.
Nobody has any right to compel anyone to affirmatively do anything, and that includes the United States Government.
It's interesting how upset everyone is about this issue but allowing people to use their religion as an excuse not to serve the public is a dangerous and slippery slope. What's next then? Should a Muslim owned business refuse service to women who are not properly covered, according to their religion. Or should Hasidic Jews in the NYC Diamond District be allowed to refuse to do business with women since it violates their religion? Should every customer coming into a religious owned business have to pass a "faith" test? Were the "Irish Not Welcome" signs in US storefronts 150 years ago something we should celebrate and encourage?
Being religious is a CHOICE, your gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. is not.
And who you choose to do business with is also a choice.
Being religious is a CHOICE, your gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. is not.
Yeah, some of you keep insisting on that, but whatever... So why do some dudes try to become women through genital mutilation and some women get an adidictomy procedure? That's certainly a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
And who you choose to do business with is also a choice.
And whom you choose not to do business with is just as valid a choice.
For such a small minority the homosexual lobby is powerful.. there is more to it..The ultimate goal of the gay movement is the discrimination of religious rights.
]if the business refused to make those shirts for a group calling itself 'Straight Folks for Equality,' would it be illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation ?[/b] Or if a self-proclaimed straight man asked for that shirt, is it illegal to refuse him the shirt ? Are there not non-gays in a whole host of glbt groups ?
This was an over-reaching, terrible decision.
Yes, it would be discrimination! No, it is not a terrible decision.
All of these homosexuals are likely to experience a backlash. Screw 'em.
Well, the boys anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why do some dudes try to become women through genital mutilation and some women get an adidictomy procedure? That's certainly a choice.
