I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

[Chosen Daughter]

I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

 Blaine Adamson  / September 17, 2017 /  comments


In 2012, my promotional printing company, Hands on Originals, was approached by a customer to print a message that conflicted with my conscience. When I said no, they sued me.

Hi, my name is Blaine Adamson.

I got into the T-shirt printing business because I wanted to create Christian shirts that people would want to wear. Christian T-shirts at the time were so cheesy, they were so bad.

For all the years that I’ve been running my business, Hands on Originals, I’ve happily served and employed people of all backgrounds, of all walks of life.....................................

http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/17/im-a-t-shirt-maker-with-gay-customers-and-gay-employees-i-still-was-sued/

[INVAR]

One must act and think according to the beast, or one cannot make a living.

Christians with an understanding of scripture recognize that mechanism as The Mark.

[DB]

One must act and think according to the beast, or one cannot make a living.

Christians with an understanding of scripture recognize that mechanism as The Mark.

The Mark is rapidly going hot.

[Free Vulcan]

He's got court precedent on his side for this one.

[Jazzhead]

He's got court precedent on his side for this one.

I agree.   Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights.   The customer's request was rejected because of the message, not because of who the customer is.   That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker,  who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.

[Sanguine]

I agree.   Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights.   The customer's request was rejected because of the message, not because of who the customer is.   That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker,  who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.

I don't think that is true, @Jazzhead.  In fact, I think the customer had been served there before.  It was only the issue of a "wedding" cake for a gay "marriage".

[driftdiver]

I don't think that is true, @Jazzhead.  In fact, I think the customer had been served there before.  It was only the issue of a "wedding" cake for a gay "marriage".

The key is how the message is offensive.  Some are more equal.

[Jazzhead]

I don't think that is true, @Jazzhead.  In fact, I think the customer had been served there before.  It was only the issue of a "wedding" cake for a gay "marriage".

I guess this is what the Court will be deciding.   For me, the difference is clear.   The baker advertised he made wedding cakes, which is exactly what his customer asked for.  Now if the customer had asked to place an offensive message on the cake, then the baker would have been within his rights to say no.  But it never got that far - these customers were shown the door without ever having indicated they wanted anything special placed on the cake.   As far as the baker was aware, all they wanted was eggs, flour and frosting.  But because they said the cake was to be served at a "gay wedding",  the baker turned them down.

I say that's unlawful discrimination.  You, I assume, don't.   So it'll be up to the Court to decide.   

[Free Vulcan]

I agree.   Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights.   The customer's request was rejected because of the message, not because of who the customer is.   That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker,  who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.

I hope at the very least SCOTUS will side with this businessman. Ruling in favor of forcing speech would have very bad ramifications far beyond business transactions.

[Jazzhead]

I hope at the very least SCOTUS will side with this businessman. Ruling in favor of forcing speech would have very bad ramifications far beyond business transactions.

The SCOTUS, of course, is addressing the Colorado baker's situation, not the T-shirt maker.   The T-shirt maker should be on firm ground although that, of course, doesn't prevent an angry customer from suing and forcing the T-shirt maker to incur legal bills.

I suspect the SCOTUS thinks very carefully before accepting a case,  and its agreement to accept Masterpiece Cakeshop strikes me as ominous.   Bad facts often lead to bad law,  and the SCOTUS likely sees an opportunity to bolster the law against discrimination in public accommodations.   The case was shot down on freedom of speech grounds by the lower court (the grounds that would have supported the T-shirt maker), and is now before SCOTUS on the retooled and very shaky ground of freedom of religion.   There is plenty of precedent - including Supreme Court precedent from the sixties, I believe - for the proposition that a claim of religious liberty doesn't allow a business to discriminate.   (The sixties case, if I recall, involved a  Bar-B-Q restaurant that claimed it didn't have to serve black customers because of the owner's religious beliefs.   That claim was shot down so fast it would make one's head spin!)   

Bottom line - the Colorado baker screwed up by rejecting service before even inquiring what the customers wanted on the cake.  He's going to lose, I predict.   The proper ground is freedom of speech, not freedom of religion.   The T-shirt maker has the law on his side, the baker, not so much.     

[Free Vulcan]

The SCOTUS, of course, is addressing the Colorado baker's situation, not the T-shirt maker.   The T-shirt maker should be on firm ground although that, of course, doesn't prevent an angry customer from suing and forcing the T-shirt maker to incur legal bills.

I suspect the SCOTUS thinks very carefully before accepting a case,  and its agreement to accept Masterpiece Cakeshop strikes me as ominous.   Bad facts often lead to bad law,  and the SCOTUS likely sees an opportunity to bolster the law against discrimination in public accommodations.   The case was shot down on freedom of speech grounds by the lower court (the grounds that would have supported the T-shirt maker), and is now before SCOTUS on the retooled and very shaky ground of freedom of religion.   There is plenty of precedent - including Supreme Court precedent from the sixties, I believe - for the proposition that a claim of religious liberty doesn't allow a business to discriminate.   (The sixties case, if I recall, involved a  Bar-B-Q restaurant that claimed it didn't have to serve black customers because of the owner's religious beliefs.   That claim was shot down so fast it would make one's head spin!)   

Bottom line - the Colorado baker screwed up by rejecting service before even inquiring what the customers wanted on the cake.  He's going to lose, I predict.   The proper ground is freedom of speech, not freedom of religion.   The T-shirt maker has the law on his side, the baker, not so much.   

Looks like at this point it goes to the Kentucky Supremes. If they lose I expect them to go Federal and eventually try to take it to SCOTUS. We shall see. If it does I hope SCOTUS knocks down forced speech.

[Jazzhead]

Looks like at this point it goes to the Kentucky Supremes. If they lose I expect them to go Federal and eventually try to take it to SCOTUS. We shall see. If it does I hope SCOTUS knocks down forced speech.

I agree with you - I hope the T-shirt maker wins his case. 

[RoosGirl]

I guess this is what the Court will be deciding.   For me, the difference is clear.   The baker advertised he made wedding cakes, which is exactly what his customer asked for.  Now if the customer had asked to place an offensive message on the cake, then the baker would have been within his rights to say no.  But it never got that far - these customers were shown the door without ever having indicated they wanted anything special placed on the cake.   As far as the baker was aware, all they wanted was eggs, flour and frosting.  But because they said the cake was to be served at a "gay wedding",  the baker turned them down.

I say that's unlawful discrimination.  You, I assume, don't.   So it'll be up to the Court to decide.

I went and looked at the T-shirt makers website.  It advertises custom made t-shirts.  Nowhere does it say they maintain some discrimination in the products they will produce.  By your logic they should make any t-shirt they are requested to make.

[Hoodat]

I agree.   Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights.

States do the same thing with license plates.

[Jazzhead]

I went and looked at the T-shirt makers website.  It advertises custom made t-shirts.  Nowhere does it say they maintain some discrimination in the products they will produce.  By your logic they should make any t-shirt they are requested to make.

Laws against nondiscrimination by owners of public accommodations protect against arbitrary discrimination, based on an individual's protected characteristic(s) (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)   They do not go so far as to require a business owner to agree to a customer's message or conduct.  A store can ban customers without shirts or shoes,  but cannot ban (for example) only black customers without shirts or shoes.   A store is not required to carry the product the customer demands - so, for example, a customer has no legal right to force a halal butcher to sell pork.  And a baker is not obliged to place a message on a birthday cake or wedding cake that he deems offensive. 

The rule is very simple - if you advertise a service,  provide it without regard to who the customer is.   The Colorado baker broke the law because he declined to provide an advertised service - a wedding cake - to a same-sex couple.  He can control the design and message on the cake, but he cannot just arbitrarily deny wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. 

[INVAR]

Laws against nondiscrimination by owners of public accommodations protect against arbitrary discrimination, based on an individual's protected characteristic(s) (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)   They do not go so far as to require a business owner to agree to a customer's message or conduct.  A store can ban customers without shirts or shoes,  but cannot ban (for example) only black customers without shirts or shoes.   A store is not required to carry the product the customer demands - so, for example, a customer has no legal right to force a halal butcher to sell pork.  And a baker is not obliged to place a message on a birthday cake or wedding cake that he deems offensive. 

You destroyed your entire argument by your own words.  "Sexual orientation" is a choice in behavior that is abhorrent conduct.  Demanding a business provide a custom-designed product that acknowledges, celebrates and advertises said abhorrent conduct - is a violation of the very "laws" you cite.'

But we understand that as with all Liberals, some skin colors, gender and sexual behaviors are more equal than others.

The rule is very simple - if you advertise a service,  provide it without regard to who the customer is.   The Colorado baker broke the law because he declined to provide an advertised service - a wedding cake - to a same-sex couple.  He can control the design and message on the cake, but he cannot just arbitrarily deny wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.

Most businesses have no idea what kind of sex any of their customers practice.  Not until the customer requests a product and service that announces it and explains what it is for.  Such denies the business owner the right to control the design and message.

And, contrary to your insistence - we CAN arbitrarily deny whatever product or service is our trade to whomever we choose to deny it.  Especially in matters of forcing us to violate our consciences to serve to accommodate, celebrate and acknowledge an evil behavior as good.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

You destroyed your entire argument by your own words.  "Sexual orientation" is a choice in behavior that is abhorrent conduct.  Demanding a business provide a custom-designed product that acknowledges, celebrates and advertises said abhorrent conduct - is a violation of the very "laws" you cite.'

But we understand that as with all Liberals, some skin colors, gender and sexual behaviors are more equal than others.

Most businesses have no idea what kind of sex any of their customers practice.  Not until the customer requests a product and service that announces it and explains what it is for.  Such denies the business owner the right to control the design and message.

And, contrary to your insistence - we CAN arbitrarily deny whatever product or service is our trade to whomever we choose to deny it.  Especially in matters of forcing us to violate our consciences to serve to accommodate, celebrate and acknowledge an evil behavior as good.

No, there is a difference between sexual orientation and acting on it.  Orientation is not behaviour.

[RoosGirl]

Laws against nondiscrimination by owners of public accommodations protect against arbitrary discrimination, based on an individual's protected characteristic(s) (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)   They do not go so far as to require a business owner to agree to a customer's message or conduct.  A store can ban customers without shirts or shoes,  but cannot ban (for example) only black customers without shirts or shoes.   A store is not required to carry the product the customer demands - so, for example, a customer has no legal right to force a halal butcher to sell pork.  And a baker is not obliged to place a message on a birthday cake or wedding cake that he deems offensive. 

The rule is very simple - if you advertise a service,  provide it without regard to who the customer is.   The Colorado baker broke the law because he declined to provide an advertised service - a wedding cake - to a same-sex couple.  He can control the design and message on the cake, but he cannot just arbitrarily deny wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.

We will disagree forever on this.

[INVAR]

No, there is a difference between sexual orientation and acting on it.  Orientation is not behaviour.

Demanding a printer or baker make a product to celebrate homosexuality - IS acting on the orientation.

[XenaLee]

I guess this is what the Court will be deciding.   For me, the difference is clear.   The baker advertised he made wedding cakes, which is exactly what his customer asked for.  Now if the customer had asked to place an offensive message on the cake, then the baker would have been within his rights to say no.  But it never got that far - these customers were shown the door without ever having indicated they wanted anything special placed on the cake.   As far as the baker was aware, all they wanted was eggs, flour and frosting.  But because they said the cake was to be served at a "gay wedding",  the baker turned them down.

I say that's unlawful discrimination.  You, I assume, don't.   So it'll be up to the Court to decide.

Well.... thank God (literally)..... that the Trump Justice Department disagrees with you and others like you.  They support the Baker's right to adhere to his religious beliefs while doing business in the USA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/7/jack-phillips-christian-baker-backed-justice-depar/

[gogogodzilla]

You destroyed your entire argument by your own words.  "Sexual orientation" is a choice in behavior that is abhorrent conduct.  Demanding a business provide a custom-designed product that acknowledges, celebrates and advertises said abhorrent conduct - is a violation of the very "laws" you cite.'

But we understand that as with all Liberals, some skin colors, gender and sexual behaviors are more equal than others.

Most businesses have no idea what kind of sex any of their customers practice.  Not until the customer requests a product and service that announces it and explains what it is for.  Such denies the business owner the right to control the design and message.

And, contrary to your insistence - we CAN arbitrarily deny whatever product or service is our trade to whomever we choose to deny it.  Especially in matters of forcing us to violate our consciences to serve to accommodate, celebrate and acknowledge an evil behavior as good.

If that was the case, someone could tell you to be gay... and you'd be able to find men arousing.  It's just behavior, totally under your control.

[Free Vulcan]

What I hope comes out in this is that there is absolute certainty that no vendor is compelled to put 1) speech, 2) symbols, or 3) creative artistry on or into their product.

In other words, if a gay couple wants a wedding cake, they get one. Plain, color of their choice, and nothing else. No decorations, no words, no artistic creativity.

[Hoodat]

In other words, if a gay couple wants a wedding cake, they get one. Plain, color of their choice, and nothing else. No decorations, no words, no artistic creativity.

Which is EXACTLY what they were offered.   But they sued anyway.

[Free Vulcan]

Which is EXACTLY what they were offered.   But they sued anyway.

I did not know that. That sheds a whole new light on the case.

[goatprairie]

I agree.   Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights.   The customer's request was rejected because of the message, not because of who the customer is.   That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker,  who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.

What is inoffensive to one person might be very offensive to another.  In reality, there is no difference.   Both customers demanded a business make a particular type of item.
The shirt maker decided it was offensive to him and decided not to make it.  Obviously, the person wanting the shirt made didn't think it was offensive.
Likewise, the baker declining to make a gay-themed wedding cake thought it offensive.  The homosexual customers who wanted him to bake it obviously didn't think it was offensive.
Both customes demanded an item made that was offensive to the business owners.
What is the difference in principal between the two cases?   NONE!!!!!!