Appeals Court Rules That Printer Can Refuse To Provide Gay Pride T-shirts

Finally a court gives political correctness a back seat to common sense.

Men's Custom Birthday Acrylic Yellow Orange Hibiscus Flower Painting with Red Short Sleeve T ShirtsA state appeals court ruled Friday that a Lexington, Kentucky print shop was not required to print gay pride T-shirts due to the company owner deeply-held religious objections to ride in being gay.?/p>

The case arose in 2012 when Hands On Originals?managing owner, Blaine Adamson, refused to print T-shirts for Lexington Gay and Lesbian Services Organization Lexington Pride Festival because he disagreed with the shirt message.

In a 2-1 decision, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling striking down the Lexington Human Rights Commission decision that the business violated the city fairness ordinance, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

ecause of my Christian beliefs, I can promote that,?Adamson told a Human Rights Commission hearing officer. Men’s Cotton Lady of March Short Sleeve Tee Shirt pecifically, it the Lexington Pride Festival, the name and that it advocating pride in being gay and being homosexual, and I can promote that message. It something that goes against my belief system.?/p>

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Judge Joy A. Kramer distinguished discriminating against gays and lesbians on account of their sexual orientation from disseminating a gay pride group message.

he right of free speech does not guarantee to any person the right to use someone else property,?Kramer wrote.

n other words, the ervice?Hands On Originals offers is the promotion of messages,?she continued. he onduct?Hands On Originals chose not to promote was pure speech. There is no contention that Hands On Originals is a public forum in addition to a public accommodation. Nothing in the fairness ordinance prohibits Hands On Originals, a private business, from engaging in viewpoint or message censorship.?/p>

The Wall Street Journal observed how many other jurisdictions have ruled against business owners with deeply-held religious beliefs in the past, including bakers, florists and wedding photographers. The Journal then offered this commentary:

The common sense of this ruling exposes the flawed logic used by judges in those other cases. It also shows the extreme danger to which the First Amendment is exposed. We have elevated nti-discrimination?to a place where it now supersedes freedom of speech and religious freedom. The Kentucky appellate court tries to rectify that problem, but it only a first step.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *