Christian T-shirt company refuses to do gay pride T-shirts

[iiandyiiii]

@Esco

Exactly.

And this is where the gay movement has now gone too far and is losing sympathy with a lot of people

What does this have to do with the “gay movement”? Do you have any evidence that any significant portion of gay people or gay activists are pushing this?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The last thing this country needs is more godless people running our corporations, and I say that as an atheist.

What does this have to do with the rest of the story? And what do you mean by this? What’s wrong with atheists running corporations?

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@iiandyiiii

What’s wrong with atheists running corporations?

We have no moral framework or ethics, you know. Without Jesus as our CEO, it’s just pillage, pillage, pillage. Not so much rape any more.

[Chronos]

I think that this was probably the right decision, with one proviso: If the decision was based on the company being a Christian company, then it is wrong to that extent. A company cannot be Christian. A company can specialize in Christian-themed merchandise or services, and it can be owned and/or operated by Christians (both of which appear to be true here), but the company itself cannot hold religious beliefs. Note, incidentally, that I said “cannot” there, not “should not” or “may not”.

[DigitalC]

@adaher

The last thing this country needs is more godless people running our corporations, and I say that as an atheist.

As opposed to christian bigots? what we need is godless people running everything so we don’t have assholes like this with any power.

[octopus]

I see nothing wrong with not being coerced by the state to create content you don’t want to. The only thing that worries me is that it was a 2-1 decision.

[octopus]

@DigitalC

As opposed to christian bigots? what we need is godless people running everything so we don’t have assholes like this with any power.

You plan on eradicating all religions? If not, you may have people actually following religion. Which means they may not be keen on promoting things they perceive as sinful. I don’t consider not wanting to go to hell an unreasonable bigotry with regards to their set of moral axioms. It may be irrational fear but that’s a normal feature of many religions.

[DigitalC]

@octopus

You plan on eradicating all religions? If not, you may have people actually following religion. Which means they may not be keen on promoting things they perceive as sinful. I don’t consider not wanting to go to hell bigotry. It may be irrational fear but that’s a normal feature of many religions.

I don’t plan on eradicating anything, just stating a fact that having evil people in power is not a good thing. If your god is against gays then your god is an evil piece of shit and you are an asshole for worshiping it, and of course it is bigotry and cowardice on top of it if you are agreeing to be a bigot just to cover your own ass.

[octopus]

@Riemann

I agree that it’s a fine line, but there has to be a line somewhere. The question is, when does protecting a class from bigotry trump the free speech rights of the business owner? I think the answer should be that protection is paramount if a class is prevented from just living their lives - from celebrating their wedding in the same way as anyone else, for example. The essential purpose of the cake was to celebrate the wedding of two specific people, not to make a general political statement about all same-sex weddings. But when we’re talking about materials that explicitly support general social or political views, then I think the free speech rights of the business owner trump the protection. I think the (very fine) line should be: if you ask the cake-maker to write “Steve loves Andrew” when he would routinely write “Steve loves Jane” then he must do so; if you ask him to write “SSM is awesome” then he should be free to decline.

I don’t know if anyone must create any customized message.

@DigitalC

I don’t plan on eradicating anything, just stating a fact that having evil people in power is not a good thing. If your god is against gays then your god is an evil piece of shit and you are an asshole for worshiping it, and of course it is bigotry and cowardice on top of it if you are agreeing to be a bigot just to cover your own ass.

Well, work to eradicate religion then. Should start with the source. The source books of religions practiced by billions are evil, according to your set of morals, and they and their god are as well. Wouldn’t working to get rid of such a strong and pervasive source of evil be good?

And it may be technically bigotry to act in a way to not go to hell. But it’s not cowardice to choose to piss off a few loud mortal people to preserve an immortal soul. Martyrdom isn’t about losing the permanent for the temporary.

[DigitalC]

@octopus

Well, work to eradicate religion then. Should start with the source. The source books of religions practiced by billions are evil, according to your set of morals, and they and their god are as well. Wouldn’t working to get rid of such a strong and pervasive source of evil be good?

It would be wonderful, but the law is on their side. Believe me if there was a viable way to get rid of religion I would be all for it, we are long past time when we should be excusing evil because a silly book recommended it.

[Bricker]

@Chronos

I think that this was probably the right decision, with one proviso: If the decision was based on the company being a Christian company, then it is wrong to that extent. A company cannot be Christian. A company can specialize in Christian-themed merchandise or services, and it can be owned and/or operated by Christians (both of which appear to be true here), but the company itself cannot hold religious beliefs. Note, incidentally, that I said “cannot” there, not “should not” or “may not”.

I’ll pass your view on to the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, a corporation.

[ctnguy]

@Riemann

But I do think a baker should have the right to decline to produce customized cakes with explicit and generalized social or political statements such as “Gay Pride” or “Heil Hitler”.

I agree with your point, but did you really have to choose such an inflammatory example to juxtapose to the “Gay Pride” message?

[John_Mace]

@Riemann

I agree that it’s a fine line, but there has to be a line somewhere. The question is, when does protecting a class from bigotry trump the free speech rights of the business owner? I think the answer should be that protection is paramount if a class is prevented from just living their lives - from celebrating their wedding in the same way as anyone else, for example. The essential purpose of the cake was to celebrate the wedding of two specific people, not to make a general political statement about all same-sex weddings. But when we’re talking about materials that explicitly support general social or political views, then I think the free speech rights of the business owner trump the protection. I think the (very fine) line should be: if you ask the cake-maker to write “Steve loves Andrew” when he would routinely write “Steve loves Jane” then he must do so; if you ask him to write “SSM is awesome” then he should be free to decline.

That line is getting so fine, it’s beginning to disappear.

What if the baker is asked write: Joined in Holy Matrimony? Seems like we’re getting to a point where we need a list of court-approved phrases, and that way lies madness.

[Little_Nemo]

@octopus

I see nothing wrong with not being coerced by the state to create content you don’t want to. The only thing that worries me is that it was a 2-1 decision.

Do you feel it should be legal for a business to refuse to serve black customers if it wished to do so?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Little_Nemo

Do you feel it should be legal for a business to refuse to serve black customers if it wished to do so?

I don’t understand the relevance of this question. As hajario pointed out upthread,

@hajario

The distinction is that they aren’t refusing service to gay people. They would make a different shirt for gay people and they wouldn’t make that same tshirt for a straight person.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@John_Mace

That line is getting so fine, it’s beginning to disappear.

What if the baker is asked write: Joined in Holy Matrimony? Seems like we’re getting to a point where we need a list of court-approved phrases, and that way lies madness.

Really, who puts text on wedding cakes,anyway? The same people that buy them at Costco?

[octopus]

@Little_Nemo

Do you feel it should be legal for a business to refuse to serve black customers if it wished to do so?

This isn’t about refusing a class of customers. This is refusing to create custom content.

But to answer your off-topic question, I think in some cases people or businesses can exclude from serving or hiring whomever they wish. In most cases, for general regular commercial activities I’d say no. In some cases yes. I wouldn’t expect a prostitute to be forced to provide services if he or she did not wish to. For whatever reason.

Businesses like Taco Bell? I don’t think they should be able to discriminate based on gender or skin color. Want a white female live in nanny? That’s your choice. Want a black male live in nanny? Again. That’s your choice.

I also don’t think Harvard should be in the business of segregation with regards to graduation. So, in this crazy world, I’m not really sure what forms of exclusion are moral or not.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Esco

I am NOT religious myself, but I agree with this verdict.
If something goes against a company’s ethics or religion, they shouldnt have to perform a service they dont want to
.

Yes, so Mormons who have a doctrinal problem with black people shouldn’t have to worry about any pesky anti-discrimination lawsuits when they turn them away.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@octopus

This isn’t about refusing a class of customers. This is refusing to create custom content.

And as far as I understand it, absolutely nobody here has objected to this, this is the legal doctrine in the USA, and has pretty much unanimous support, to the point where I wonder what the point of this lawsuit was.

[aldiboronti]

@iiandyiiii

What does this have to do with the “gay movement”? Do you have any evidence that any significant portion of gay people or gay activists are pushing this?

I agree, there is no evidence at all that this was other than some idiotic local bunch of gays who wanted to push the envelope further, blind to the fact that such actions do all gays an immense disservice. If they want to prolong prejudice against gays these assholes are going the right way about it.

And the legal decision was the right one to make.