Can Anti-Discrimination Law Force A Private Company To Print A Message

[doreen]

@NotreDame05

I agree there is a difference between refusing to print a message because of the sexual orientation of the speaker or source of the message and refusing to print the message because of the content of the message. The owner of Hands On Originals stated they objected to printing the message because of the content of the message, not the orientation of anyone, and if true, then they aren’t in violtation of at least the plain text of the statute.

The content of the message is “number “5” and the name “Pride Festival” on the front of the t-shirt with sponsors on the back of the t-shirt.” Somehow, I don’t believe that the owner of Hands On Originals would have had a problem his pastor wanted the exact same content for a Christian pride festival.

[Voyager]

@NotreDame05

I understand the difference between publishing and printing. In either case, speech is being created, whether by Hands On Originals when using machines it owns to print words on a t-shirt, or a publishing company of any kind using a machine to print words onto paper. Both are creating speech, assuming a message exists in what they have printed.

Furthermore, some of the cases I cited ostensibly disagree with your characterizatoin of who is speaking when it comes to printing a message onto some medium and they certainly do stand for the notion the person printing is speaking, regardless of the source of the message.

So, I could have considered myself to the the creator of the papers I copied? Is Creative Loafing actually speaking your post - since we see it not from you, but only when transmitted through the software and servers that they own.

Also, if you claim that New Jersey or someplace else considers any business interacting with any member of the public a public accommodation (unless not explicitly excluded by law) then almost any place is one. When we fed our kids in NJ, they were members of the public, did that make our kitchen a public accommodation?

[Zeriel]

Incidentally, by Kentucky’s own definition of Public Accomodation (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/344-00/130.pdf), a company that prints items on a per-piece basis would, since they are supplying “goods or services” (customized t-shirts) to the “general public” (there are no special restrictions on who can come in the door and purchase services).

And, of course, a true publishing house (that purchases only selected manuscripts, and doesn’t generally print unsolicited ones) would not fall under that definition, since they are not offering services to the general public.

It seems odd to me that NotreDame05 doesn’t seem to want to address the simplest points that prove this publishing house in the wrong, choosing instead to pursue these endless distractions over whether any one thing is a public accommodation in any arbitrary place, when it’s **manifestly **clear that Hands On Originals is a public accommodation by the text of Kentucky law.