# Can Anti-Discrimination Law Force A Private Company To Print A Message **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733 "2012-05-22T17:04:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/21 "2012-05-22T21:55:14Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > It seems to me that printing a shirt is not speech - wearing a shirt is (or, perhaps, printing a shirt with the name of the printer on it). > > All the company is doing is choosing who to do business with. And state law compels them not to use sexual orientation when making that determination. I deal with T-shirt companies, and many put their logo on the shirt. However I’m sure that GLSO would not object to the name of the maker being removed, which would eliminate any possibility it could be considered the speech of the manufacturer. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/22 "2012-05-22T21:57:29Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I do not know the answer to this question. However, let’s assume the phrase above does not appear on the t-shirt for the sake of, well, at least having some discussion on the issues. It seems to me that the maker is transmitting speech, not creating speech. Would you object if an ISP refused to transmit email or posts supporting your favorite protected group? How about if all of them did so? If they claimed they were doing it to exercise their right of free speech, is it any different from the T-shirt maker? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/23 "2012-05-22T23:36:00Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > This is the foundation of anti-discrimination law. Are you saying that you think that a company should be allowed to explicitly refuse to do business with black people or women? > > They are not compelled to sell any product someone might want - they are merely required to provide the same products and services to all people regardless of their gender, race, etc. In this case the service is printing T-shirts. > > If the group wanted shirts that said “Hands-On Originals supports gay marriage!” then they’d have a point. But doing business with someone isn’t speech, IMO. Letting someone march in your parade or print something under your masthead is. I do not think this is a sufficient rebuttal. Under this reasoning, book publishers could be compelled to create speech they otherwise disagree with so long as they place a disclaimer inside the book, “This speech is not the speech of the book publisher but the customer.” Under this rationale, a book publisher in the U.S. could be compelled to print and publish Osama Bin Laden’s Manifesto and place a dislcaimer in the book the views expressed are not that of the company, although the book disagrees with the speech. Yet, this misses the point the publisher, like the t-shirt company, is engaged in speech when they create speech by A.) Printing words on a piece of paper or B.) Print words on a t-shirt. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/24 "2012-05-22T23:40:03Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > The Pride Festival is an event celebrating the gay and lesbian lifestyle and they have also served as demonstrations for political and legal rights. A bit off topic, but: This phrase from the OP set my warning bells off. “Gay and lesbian lifestyle?” Whenever someone uses this phrase, I assume that they do not fully understand that sexual orientation is not a choice, not a “lifestyle”. “Oh, I think I’ll be gay this week, it’s the ‘in’ thing to do”. No. That’s not how it works. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/25 "2012-05-22T23:47:05Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Yet, this misses the point the publisher, like the t-shirt company, is engaged in speech when they create speech by A.) Printing words on a piece of paper or B.) Print words on a t-shirt. I doubt that publishers are considered public accommodations, but Mr. Bricker could probably tell us for sure. Publishers (not special interest ones) often publish books of directly opposed viewpoints. If this publication is speech, it is very confused speech. And publication comes in many forms. Do you think a copy store should be able to censor what content is copied in the store, assuming it is non-obscene? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/26 "2012-05-23T01:10:59Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I do not think this is a sufficient rebuttal. Under this reasoning, book publishers could be compelled to create speech they otherwise disagree with so long as they place a disclaimer inside the book, “This speech is not the speech of the book publisher but the customer.” Under this rationale, a book publisher in the U.S. could be compelled to print and publish Osama Bin Laden’s Manifesto and place a dislcaimer in the book the views expressed are not that of the company, although the book disagrees with the speech. > > Yet, this misses the point the publisher, like the t-shirt company, is engaged in speech when they create speech by A.) Printing words on a piece of paper or B.) Print words on a t-shirt. But the t-shirt company is more like a printer than a publisher. Sure, publishers print books. But they do more. They choose which books to publish, they market them, they distribute them,etc. But most importantly, the author is not paying the publisher. The publisher make its money of off the sale of books, and might lose money if the book doesn’t sell well enough.The T-shirt company is not investing the money to create t-shirts with the Pride Festivals designs, and hoping to sell them either directly to other stores or directly to customers as a book publisher does. The T shirt company would have been paid by the Pride Festival. It’s more like Fed Ex office or the printer who prints graduation programs, wedding invitations, etc. That printer isn’t publishing anything- just printing what the customer ordered ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/27 "2012-05-23T04:10:00Z")
> [@BunnyTVS](#): > > When the initial quote was given, was the design mentioned? I don’t know how block orders like this work, but it seems strange that a quote would be offered without enquiring as to the size and complexity of the design. It may be problematic for the company if they originally knew about the design and only changed their minds when they found out what/who it was actually for. Typically the quote would be based upon a) the material / design of the shirt b) the number of colours of the logo / graphic design The size of the printed area might come in, but is normally a much smaller factor, if at all considered (unless it’s humungous) Generally a quote would be given prior to the specifics of the design being discussed. The quote may have been in the name of GLSO - so connection may not have been made. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/28 "2012-05-23T04:13:19Z")
Would it be a defence for the T-Shirt printer if they specifically and deliberatly branded themselves as a “Christian Organisation” Should it be a defence? ---
**Author:** ![Untoward\_Parable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/51bf81/32.png) [@Untoward\_Parable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Untoward_Parable)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/29 "2012-05-23T04:23:08Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > A bit off topic, but: This phrase from the OP set my warning bells off. > > “Gay and lesbian lifestyle?” > > Whenever someone uses this phrase, I assume that they do not fully understand that sexual orientation is not a choice, not a “lifestyle”. > > “Oh, I think I’ll be gay this week, it’s the ‘in’ thing to do”. > No. That’s not how it works. For a lot of people it’s more of a gray area, for instance I live as a heterosexual man even though I’m actually bi-sexual. I used to but no longer attempt to defend it or identify as it except in very welcoming environments(which are extremely rare among gays or straights). And I live in California. Is it my ideal? No, but trying to make a thing out of it when I’m in a long term monogamous relationship with a woman (who understands the thing) just has no place in the kind of life I’m living. It makes me sad that family, friends, community and peers have seemingly pushed me into this box but I did have a choice and if I needed to be that person more publicly I could have, but there are consequences to all sorts of things like these. ---
**Author:** ![SuperAbe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@SuperAbe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuperAbe)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/30 "2012-05-23T04:29:19Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Would it be a defence for the T-Shirt printer if they specifically and deliberatly branded themselves as a “Christian Organisation” > > Should it be a defence? Of course not. Should it be a defense to deny providing a service to a Jewish group by stating that a business is an “Anti-Semitic Organization”? How about refusing to print t-shirts for the Knights of Columbus fun run because you’re an “Protestant Organization”? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/31 "2012-05-23T04:29:21Z")
A few years ago an organization I was involved with needed some t-shirts made and we called up several companies to get a ballpark figure for cost. We never mentioned any specific logo or what exactly would go on the shirts but we always got our ballpark figure. So I find it very believable that the GLSO was able to get some idea of costs without the company knowing exactly what was to be printed. We’ve got something of a sticky wicket here. If a Christian organization wanted my company to print Leviticus 18:22 could I refuse without running afoul of anti-discriminatory laws? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/32 "2012-05-23T06:54:45Z")
> [@SuperAbe](#): > > Of course not. Should it be a defense to deny providing a service to a Jewish group by stating that a business is an “Anti-Semitic Organization”? How about refusing to print t-shirts for the Knights of Columbus fun run because you’re an “Protestant Organization”? First of all - To equate being “christian” with being “anti-semitic” is not really a good comparison. But more to the point, if you specifically declare and uphold that you conduct your business based on “Christian Morals” and then it comes out that you have in your client list people that are commonly thought to be “anti christian” couldn’t that hurt your business? I thought there were exceptions in the legislation for that sort of situation? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/33 "2012-05-23T12:38:11Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > But the t-shirt company is more like a printer than a publisher. Sure, publishers print books. But they do more. They choose which books to publish, they market them, they distribute them,etc. But most importantly, the author is not paying the publisher. The publisher make its money of off the sale of books, and might lose money if the book doesn’t sell well enough.The T-shirt company is not investing the money to create t-shirts with the Pride Festivals designs, and hoping to sell them either directly to other stores or directly to customers as a book publisher does. The T shirt company would have been paid by the Pride Festival. It’s more like Fed Ex office or the printer who prints graduation programs, wedding invitations, etc. That printer isn’t publishing anything- just printing what the customer ordered > [@](#): > > But most importantly, the author is not paying the publisher. The publisher make its money of off the sale of books, and might lose money if the book doesn’t sell well enough. This constitutes as the author paying the publisher. The author is not receiving all of the money from his book sales because the publisher is charging the author a fee for publishing the book and the fee to publish the book is taken from the money made from the sales of the book. So this is not a good distinction between the t-shirt company and book publisher. Obsessing over a distinction between printer and publisher regarding 1st Amendment free speech is tenuous. The issue is not whether the speech was made by printing or publishing but whether there is speech, specifically words conveying a message under these facts by Hands On Originals should they be compelled to create the t-shirts. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/34 "2012-05-23T12:49:57Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Yet, this misses the point the publisher, like the t-shirt company, is engaged in speech when they create speech by A.) Printing words on a piece of paper or B.) Print words on a t-shirt. I understand the reasoning, and as a bit of a free-speech absolutist I’m certainly sympathetic to it. I do wonder where the line is drawn between business service and speech, particularly when the message is one of identity with a protected class. I think there is a distinction between, say, a message of support for affirmative action and one of identity (for example, a NAACP polo). In your mind can a T-shirt printer refuse both shirts? Is the mere fact that the group requesting the work supports gay rights enough to bring the First into it? Because if so, it seems to me that merely serving a protected class is speech. That is, by letting a black man sit at my lunch counter I’m speaking against segregation (and, conversely, by not allowing him to I’m speaking for segregation). And if we follow out that we are right back where we started. I see in your OP that you make a point of the fact that the phrase “Pride Festival” is speech. Do you agree, then, that if the shirt merely had the GLSO logo and name it wouldn’t be speech? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/35 "2012-05-23T13:07:12Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Obsessing over a distinction between printer and publisher regarding 1st Amendment free speech is tenuous. The issue is not whether the speech was made by printing or publishing but whether there is speech, specifically words conveying a message under these facts by Hands On Originals should they be compelled to create the t-shirts. Is Kinko’s engaged in speech when they let someone use their copy machine for $0.25? How about when someone engages their staff to make a copy of a flyer? How about when someone gives them a .pdf file and asks them to print a copy? Is it OK for Kinko’s to deny someone these services because they’re black? I point out that on free speech grounds, the nature of the speech is irrelevant. If you cannot force someone to print a document, it doesn’t matter if that document is a political screed, a gay pride t-shirt, or a lost cat flyer. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/36 "2012-05-23T13:53:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I doubt that publishers are considered public accommodations, but Mr. Bricker could probably tell us for sure. > Publishers (not special interest ones) often publish books of directly opposed viewpoints. If this publication is speech, it is very confused speech. And publication comes in many forms. Do you think a copy store should be able to censor what content is copied in the store, assuming it is non-obscene? With all due respect to Mr. Bricker, we do not need him to inform us as to whether a book publisher is a public accommodation. The Kentucky statute defines public accommodation for us. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, “place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement” includes _any place_, store, or _other establishment_, either licensed or unlicensed, which supplies goods or _services to the general public_ or which solicits or accepts the patronage or trade of the general public or which is supported directly or indirectly by government funds, except that: (1) A private club is not a “place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement” if its policies are determined by its members and its facilities or services are available only to its members and their bona fide guests; (2) “Place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement” does not include a rooming or boarding house containing not more than one (1) room for rent or hire and which is within a building occupied by the proprietor as his residence; and (3) “Place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement” does not include a religious organization and its activities and facilities if the application of KRS 344.120 would not be consistent with the religious tenets of the organization, subject to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this subsection. (a) Any organization that teaches or advocates hatred based on race, color, or national origin shall not be considered a religious organization for the purposes of this subsection. (b) A religious organization that sponsors nonreligious activities that are operated and governed by the organization, and that are offered to the general public, shall not deny participation by an individual in those activities on the ground of disability, race, color, religion, or national origin. (c) A religious organization shall not, under any circumstances, discriminate in its activities or use of its facilities on the ground of disability, race, color, or national origin. Book publishers, like the t-shirt company, offers a service to members of the general public. Book publishers offer the service of printing and publishing as a book the writings or prose of people of the general public just as the t-shirt company offers the service of creating t-shirts to people of the general public. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that the maker is transmitting speech, not creating speech. Would you object if an ISP refused to transmit email or posts supporting your favorite protected group? How about if all of them did so? If they claimed they were doing it to exercise their right of free speech, is it any different from the T-shirt maker? Very good questions and you make a very good point which immediately addresses the issue. I hadn’t really given much thought to the distinction between transmission of speech and speaking, if any distinction exists. The issue is whether the entity is creating speech or speaking when it prints someone else’s words to paper or some other medium which conveys or expresses a message or what you’d call transmission. Perhaps there are some contexts in which transmission of speech constitutes as speaking or creating speech. Isn’t it true book publishers are merely transmitting speech? After all, the individual approaching a book publisher with a story to tell owns the story, it is the individual’s speech and message, the book publisher is merely assisting the individual in reaching a larger audience by, essentially, transmitting his speech and message when publishing books. In my opinion, the book publisher is creating speech and speaking when they print the author’s words to its own paper, regardless of whether it is actually published. In _Miami v. Tornillo_, the newspaper was being asked to merely transmit someone else’s speech and message. Isn’t this really all a newspaper is doing with its opinion page? The newspaper designates a section for people to express their points of view and aren’t they just merely transmitting the points of view by various members of the public in the opinion section? Yet, isn’t the newspaper also creating speech and engaging in speech when they take ink to paper to reprint the message from someone in the public? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/37 "2012-05-23T16:03:51Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > With all due respect to Mr. Bricker, we do not need him to inform us as to whether a book publisher is a public accommodation. The Kentucky statute defines public accommodation for us. > > Book publishers, like the t-shirt company, offers a service to members of the general public. Book publishers offer the service of printing and publishing as a book the writings or prose of people of the general public just as the t-shirt company offers the service of creating t-shirts to people of the general public. Publishers do not typically have stores. That’s why we need someone who might be familiar with the case law. Now, publishers have typically been selective, it might be more interesting to see if the law would apply to self-publishers/vanity publishers who take anything for money. > [@](#): > > Very good questions and you make a very good point which immediately addresses the issue. I hadn’t really given much thought to the distinction between transmission of speech and speaking, if any distinction exists. > > The issue is whether the entity is creating speech or speaking when it prints someone else’s words to paper or some other medium which conveys or expresses a message or what you’d call transmission. When our conference has T-shirts made, we transmit all artwork and the layout. There is absolutely no content provided by the T-shirt maker. He does not even offer editorial judgement. > [@](#): > > Perhaps there are some contexts in which transmission of speech constitutes as speaking or creating speech. Isn’t it true book publishers are merely transmitting speech? After all, the individual approaching a book publisher with a story to tell owns the story, it is the individual’s speech and message, the book publisher is merely assisting the individual in reaching a larger audience by, essentially, transmitting his speech and message when publishing books. > > In my opinion, the book publisher is creating speech and speaking when they print the author’s words to its own paper, regardless of whether it is actually published. In _Miami v. Tornillo_, the newspaper was being asked to merely transmit someone else’s speech and message. Isn’t this really all a newspaper is doing with its opinion page? The newspaper designates a section for people to express their points of view and aren’t they just merely transmitting the points of view by various members of the public in the opinion section? Yet, isn’t the newspaper also creating speech and engaging in speech when they take ink to paper to reprint the message from someone in the public? A book publisher, and an op-ed column, are selective as to what messages they transmit, in the normal course of business. They reject manuscripts and reject op-ed column submissions. On the other hand, if the paper has a letter column which prints everything within guidelines, they are not being selective. There is another problem, in that if the government forced a publisher to print everything submitted, regardless of potential return, there could be a first amendment issue in which certain types of speech would get crowded out by others. Not true for the T-shirt maker who makes money based on the print run, not on sales of the shirts. But I know enough to know that I don’t know what the law actually says. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/38 "2012-05-23T16:17:25Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Book publishers offer the service of printing and publishing as a book the writings or prose of people of the general public just as the t-shirt company offers the service of creating t-shirts to people of the general public. You should probably have a word with the fine folks at [Random House](http://www.randomhouse.biz/manuscripts/) > [@](#): > > Random House, Inc. does not accept unsolicited submissions, proposals, manuscripts, or submission queries via e-mail at this time. > > If you would like to have your work or manuscript considered for publication by a major book publisher, we recommend that you work with an established literary agent. Who knew it was this tough to get a t-shirt printed? I guess the Pride Festival was pretty foolish to think they could get their t-shirts printed without working with an established t-shirt logo agent. ---
**Author:** ![SuperAbe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@SuperAbe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuperAbe)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/39 "2012-05-23T19:14:00Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > First of all - > To equate being “christian” with being “anti-semitic” is not really a good comparison. “When asked by The Barna Group\*\* what words or phrases best describe Christianity\*\*, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. **The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers** ” (from: [unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity… and Why It Matters](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801013003/)) If 91% of non-Christians immediately associate “Christian” with “anti-homosexual”, it seems like this not so different from “anti-Semitic” - in both cases it is discrimination against a group for a specific characteristic. If this isn’t true, it a appears Christians have a very, very serious image problem. > [@bengangmo](#): > > But more to the point, if you specifically declare and uphold that you conduct your business based on “Christian Morals” and then it comes out that you have in your client list people that are commonly thought to be “anti christian” couldn’t that hurt your business? As a society we mandate any number of things to promote fairness: it surely “hurts business” to be required to pay their employees, pay taxes for the common good, and honor any contracts they sign. If all such tshirt printers are required to play by the same rules, how does it hurt the business of any one company any differently than any other one (pro-discriminatory or not)? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733/40 "2012-05-23T20:30:12Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > We’ve got something of a sticky wicket here. If a Christian organization wanted my company to print Leviticus 18:22 could I refuse without running afoul of anti-discriminatory laws? IMHO, no–once you choose to offer a service, you cannot discriminate against members of protected classes when offering that service. IANAL, but were I the judge in this case I would reason to the effect that the 14th Amendment doesn’t allow you to accept some t-shirt designs and reject others (except in service of a non-discriminatory policy that is universally applied to all customers, like “no obscenities” or “no threats of violence”). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anti-discrimination-law-force-a-private-company-to-print-a-message/622733.md?page=3)