10 Attorneys General, 16 Scholars File Legal Briefs in Support of Screen Printer Who Declined Order for ‘Gay Pride’ T-Shirts

FRANKFORT, Ky. — A number of friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed with the Kentucky Supreme Court as it is set to decide an appeal surrounding an expressly Christian screen printing business accused of discrimination for declining to print shirts for a “gay pride” parade. Among the amicus briefs include those filed by 10 states, the governor of Kentucky, and 16 legal scholars.

“[C]onsistent with [the court’s wrongful] interpretation of Section 5 of the Constitution, a publisher who supports same-sex marriage could be required to print materials for a group seeking to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges; the government could require a Christian advertising agency to publicly promote strip clubs; a homosexual photographer could be required to photograph a rally opposing homosexuality; and a pro-life speech writer could be forced to write a speech for a pro-choice candidate voicing support for Roe v. Wade,” wrote attorneys for Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin.

“This is plainly not a world in which we would want to live, nor is it a world in which we should live,” they wrote.

A brief was also filed by attorneys general representing 10 other states: Dylan Jacobs, assistant solicitor general of Arkansas; Steve Marshall, attorney general of Alabama; Jeff Landry, attorney general of Louisiana; Doug Peterson, attorney general of Nebraska; Alan Wilson, attorney general of South Carolina; Patrick Morrissey, attorney general of West Virginia; Derek Schmidt, attorney general of Kansas; Josh Hawley, attorney general of Missouri; Mike Hunter, attorney general of Oklahoma; and Ken Paxton, attorney general of Texas.

“Critically, the Commission cannot be allowed to define the governmental interest here as ‘anti-discrimination’ broadly speaking. Not only would such a definition open the door for government-compelled speech, it would be beyond the scope of this case,” they wrote. “As the record shows, HOO will print t-shirts for individuals no matter their sexual orientation—it simply will not print t-shirts supporting an event such as the Lexington Pride Festival, no matter who requests them.”

“The situation here thus parallels the ‘peculiar way’ that the state … interpreted its law when no individual has been discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, but only because of the message at stake,” the legal brief continued.

16 legal scholars, whose names have not yet been provided for publication, submitted a similar amicus brief.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[T]he book of Daniel in Hebrew Scripture narrates the story of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (given the Babylonian names of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) who were thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to bow before a golden statue. In late antiquity, Christians were often required to burn incense to pagan idols or pay obeisance to divinized emperors; this practice seemed perfectly innocuous to Roman Authorities but was a sacrilege to Christians,” they noted.

“The oppressiveness of such practices lay not so much in preventing people from expressing their beliefs; rather, it consisted of the even more invasive practice of forcing people to affirm, utter, or support what they did not believe,” the scholars outlined. “The American founders rebelled against the oppression inherent in such compulsion.”

As previously reported, in 2012, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington (GLSO) approached the Kentucky-based Hand On Originals—a company that identifies as “Christian outfitters” and providers of “Christian apparel” on the homepage of its website—to print t-shirts for the Lexington Gay Pride Festival.

When manager Blaine Adamson declined the order due to the company’s biblical convictions, GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Human Rights Commission (HRC).

“I want the truth to come out—it’s not that we have a sign on the front door that says, ‘No Gays Allowed,’” Adamson said following the filing of the complaint. “We’ll work with anybody. But if there’s a specific message that conflicts with my convictions, then I can’t promote that.”

HRC examiner Greg Munson ruled in October 2014 that Hands On Originals violated the law by not printing the shirts for the event. The company was then ordered to undergo diversity training so that it would not decline to print such messages in the future.

“The evidence of record shows that the respondent discriminated against GLSO because of its members’ actual or imputed sexual orientation by refusing to print and sell to them the official shirts for the 2012 Lexington Pride Festival,” he wrote.

GSLO representative Aaron Baker admitted to the commission during the hearing that his desire to force Christians to print pro-homosexual messages works both ways, and that homosexual companies could be forced to print—for example—messages for the Westboro Baptist “Church.”

“I believe that a gay printer would have to print a t-shirt for the Westboro Baptist Church,” he stated, referring to the controversial organization whose messages express a desire for Americans to burn in Hell rather than repent and be saved. “And if the Westboro Baptist Church were to say, ‘Look, we’re a church; we’re promoting our church values by having our name on a T-shirt,’ I don’t see how you could refuse that.”

Hands on Originals filed an appeal with the Fayette Circuit Court via its legal counsel, contending that the ruling violated its constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

In April 2015, the court reversed Munson’s ruling, noting that the company regularly does business with homosexuals, and so the decision not to print the shirts was not based on any person’s sexuality, but rather the message that the company would be forced to convey.

The court noted that from 2010-2012 Hands on Originals declined 13 orders from various groups because of the message that was to be printed.

“Those print orders that were refused by HOO included shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video and shirts containing a violence-related message,” it explained. “There is further evidence in the Commission record that it is standard practice within the promotional printing industry to decline to print materials containing messages that the owners do not want to support.”

The HRC appealed the ruling to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which upheld the circuit court determination in favor of Hands on Originals and Adamson.

It noted that GLSO representative Don Lowe never identified himself as a homosexual in placing the order, and the requesting organization isn’t limited to homosexuals. Therefore, the refusal had nothing to do with discriminating against a specific person, but rather the message that was requested.

“Don Lowe testified he never told Adamson anything regarding his sexual orientation or gender identity. The GLSO itself also has no sexual orientation or gender identity: it is a gender-neutral organization that functions as a support network and advocate for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered,” the court wrote.

The HRC then appealed again to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which agreed in October to hear the case.

“As the numerous briefs filed in this case affirm, printers and other creative professionals should be able to peacefully live and work according to their beliefs without fear of punishment by the government,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Jim Campbell said in a statement on Monday. “Blaine serves all people. He simply declines to print messages that conflict with his faith. The law promises him that freedom.”

According to ADF, only one brief in support of the GLSO has been filed with the court.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • NCOriolesFan

    More evidence of who the REAL bigots and bullies are.

    • Lydia Church

      Yes, the lgbt.
      That is why they targeted the CHRISTIAN company.

  • james blue

    A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish.

    • Netizen_James

      Nonsense.
      Every person has an equal right to participate in the economy.
      Everyone’s money is exactly as green as everyone else’s money.
      Everyone with a business license that opens their business to the public, must take ‘the public’ as it comes, without discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

      Under your paradigm, if you were out of gas, and the only station for 100 miles around refused to do business with ‘people like you’, then you’d just be SOL. That’s unacceptable.

      Or is it ok to ignore Jesus, and for you to treat others in a way that you would not want others to treat you?

      God is love. Not hate. Not intolerance. Love.

      • james blue

        I disagree.. Or should churches have to accept gay priests?

        • Netizen_James

          Does a church need a business licence? Are all churches open to ‘the public’? No to both. Apples and oranges. When churches refused to ordain black people, did the government interfere? When churches even today refuse to ordain females, does the government interfere? No again. Apples and oranges, yet again. Religious organizations are different from commercial operations. Religious organizations are exempt from FLSA regulations, for example – heck, even religious schools that charge tuition and pay wages are allowed to ignore the FLSA and fire workers just for getting pregnant, or becoming disabled, under the ‘ministerial exception’. So from the legal/civil perspective, your question is irrelevant.

          From the spiritual perspective: What part of Jesus’ Golden Rule are you trying to weasel out of here? Would *you* want to be shunned and discriminated against for being born as God made you? (Or are you one of these people who don’t understand that being gay is no different from being left-handed or near-sighted – it’s not something that people CHOOSE, it’s how they were born.) So…bottom line – how would you want others to treat YOU, if YOU were the one that was born gay? Would you want them to shun you and treat you as sub-human garbage? No? Then don’t treat other people that way. That’s what Christians are called to do – treat others as we would want to be treated.

          As Paul told us, ALL fall short. ALL are sinners. Recall that even LOOKING at an attractive woman walking down the street and thinking ‘mmm, nice butt’ is committing the sin of adultery. And any straight man who claims to /never/ have done that is lying! This is what Jesus Himself said, as part of pointing out that /everyone/ is a sinner and falls short. Gay people are no more or less sinful than anyone else. We are ALL sinners, and ALL children of God, and thus ALL brothers and sisters. Yes, even atheists, Muslims, and Jews. Yes, even Scientologists! We are called to educate and demonstrate, never to attack or denigrate.

          If this screenprinter refused to do shirts for a wedding between a man and woman where each had been previously married and divorced, would you say he was right in refusing to countenance such adulterous sinfulness? Or is that ‘different’ somehow?

          • james blue

            Okay so churches went against Jesus, but that’s okay because they don’t need business licenses….Got it.

            If this screenprinter refused to do shirts for a wedding between a man and woman where each had been previously married and divorced, would you say he was right in refusing to countenance such adulterous sinfulness?

            Would I say he was right? Probably not, I wouldn’t approve of him refusing service.

            Would I defend his right to do so? YES YES YES What part of “A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish” is confusing you?

            Or is that ‘different’ somehow?

            NO !!!!

          • glenbo

            >>”If this screenprinter refused to do shirts for a wedding between a man and woman where each had been previously married and divorced, would you say he was right in refusing to countenance such adulterous sinfulness? Or is that ‘different’ somehow?”<<

            It's different.
            Why? Because even adulterous heterosexuals have the potential to make babies.
            This is ONLY what the whole "gay sin" bullspit is all about.

            Jack Phillips of Masterpiece cakes agreed to make a wedding cake for an "adulterous" couple.
            He knew both the man and woman were previously divorced, yet he didn't bat an eye.

            Just goes to show it's NOT about biblical "morality."

        • glenbo

          >>”private businesses should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish” to all? “<>”A Christian should be able to refuse to non Christians and non Christians should be able to refuse to do business with us.”<<

          If you needed my services to repair your home, (I am an Atheist contractor) and I said no, because I, as an Atheist, don't serve Christians, would you accept that?

          Would the ADF find that acceptable? Would the Family Research Council find that acceptable? Would the Liberty Council find me doing that acceptable?

          Would all of you take me refusing service to a Christian laying down?

          • james blue

            Yes to the private business and home repair questions.

            The ADF et al question — Probably (actually absolutely) not, but I’m not with them, they think it should be a one way street where we can refuse service, but should be protected from refusal. Apparently they don’t believe in the golden rule and like to argue that they should be exempt from that as well.

            Final question– All of “ME”….. yes, although I wouldn’t say I’d take it laying down as I would be defending your right to refuse. Think of it like free speech- I might disagree with what you say, I may even find what you say offensive and repugnant and would voice my disagreement, but I absolutely believe you have the right to say it
            That said I can’t speak for others and I know they wouldn’t be with me on this. I am constantly upsetting a certain group on this and other sites because I believe that we are 100% responsible for living by our faith and nobody else should be forced to accommodate us in order to do so. It is our responsibility to work around life’s obstacles in order to live by our faith, not demand others remove the obstacles for us.

            This doesn’t mean I would approve of a business that discriminated, I most certainly wouldn’t, I would be standing for freedom and liberty, not the business. Like free speech, if we don’t protect repugnant or unpopular speech then we might find it’s us being silenced next.

            Hope this clears up any doubt, I will be happy to answer any other questions about my stance and the reasoning behind it. Have a blessed day

          • glenbo

            >>” I may even find what you say offensive and repugnant and would voice my disagreement, but I absolutely believe you have the right to say it”<>” I believe that we are 100% responsible for living by our faith and nobody else should be forced to accommodate us in order to do so. It is our responsibility to work around life’s obstacles in order to live by our faith, not demand others remove the obstacles for us.”<<

            How does operating a business in the public marketsphere become an obstacle to "live by one's faith?"

          • james blue

            What are you talking about…what is offensive and repugnant?

            You completely missed the point. If you were to say something I find offensive or repugnant I may voice my disgust at what you said, but I would fight for your right to say it. I haven’t said you HAVE SAID something offensive or repugnant.

            .How does operating a business in the public marketsphere become an obstacle to “live by one’s faith?”

            Okay let’s say a Christian photographer who is self employed doesn’t agree with gay marriage because of his faith. He shouldn’t be forced by law to do that wedding. However if that photographer was EMPLOYED by a company that does cater gay weddings he should either do the gig or seek a different employer. It should be up to him to work around that obstacle. It should not be down to the employer to accommodate his religious needs by force of law.

          • glenbo

            >>” He shouldn’t be forced by law to do that wedding.”<>”It should not be down to the employer to accommodate his religious needs by force of law.”<<

            Like I said, they are not "forced" by law to do anything. They have choices.
            Sell products and provide services to ALL as according to anti-discrimination law, or NOT offer services and products that are in demand by those they hate.
            It's a simple solution and nobody is harmed.

            Cake making, flower arranging and photography are NOT religious conduct.
            Their faith is under NO threat if they comply with the law. They will suffer NO tangible concrete harm.

          • james blue

            Under currant law if a photographer does weddings he can’t refuse gay weddings. Same with bakers who make wedding cakes..

            Under the law employers have to make “reasonable” accommodations for religious beliefs.

            The business person is harmed if he is forced to sell to all or not be allowed to do business at all.

            Making the cake etc. isn’t part of their faith, making one for a gay wedding would be.

          • glenbo

            >>”Under currant law if a photographer does weddings he can’t refuse gay weddings. Same with bakers who make wedding cakes..”<>”Under the law employers have to make “reasonable” accommodations for religious beliefs.”<>”The business person is harmed if he is forced to sell to all”<>”or not be allowed to do business at all.”<>”Making the cake etc. isn’t part of their faith, making one for a gay wedding would be.”<<

            Incorrect.
            Cake making is not religious conduct.

            I cannot continue this debate until you answer my 7 questions I previously posted.

          • glenbo

            >>”If you were to say something I find offensive or repugnant I may voice my disgust at what you said, but I would fight for your right to say it.”<<

            You mean like preaching anti-gay biblical hate speech?

          • james blue

            Yes, and preaching anti religious hate speech. I’m not sure what isn’t clear about this.

            Do you believe in freedom of speech?

          • glenbo

            >>”Do you believe in freedom of speech?”<<

            Yes, I do.
            But not when it is needlessly offensive, inciting and harmful.

          • james blue

            Okay so you only believe in freedom of speech you approve of. The other speech should be banned?

            Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it and then find your own speech being outlawed.

          • glenbo

            >>”Okay so you only believe in freedom of speech you approve of. The other speech should be banned?”<>”Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it and then find your own speech being outlawed.”<<

            What exactly is "hateful" about my words?
            What exactly is "offensive" about what I say?
            What exactly is "inciting" about what I write here?

            Am I labeling you as evil based only upon who you are?
            Am I labeling you a sinner based only upon who you are ?
            Am I labeling you as being immoral based only upon who you are?
            Am I calling you a pedophile based only upon who you are?
            Am I calling your kind diseased based only upon who you are?
            Am I saying you are promiscuous based only upon who you are?

            What about my speech is hate?

          • james blue

            >>”Do you believe in freedom of speech?”<<

            Yes, I do.

            But not when it is needlessly offensive, inciting and harmful.

            You believe in freedom of speech, but not when it’s “needlessly offensive”… so how is that believing in freedom of speech?

          • glenbo

            >>” how is that believing in freedom of speech?”<<

            I don't believe hate speech is necessary.

          • james blue

            I didn’t ask what you thought was “necessary” I asked if you believed in freedom of speech.

            If you only believe in freedom of the speech you approve of, you do NOT believe in freedom of speech.

          • glenbo

            >>”I didn’t ask what you thought was “necessary” I asked if you believed in freedom of speech.”<<

            I stand corrected!
            Let me re-answer your question.
            YES, I DO believe in the freedom of speech, whether I approve it or not. That is a fundamental 1st Amendment Constitutional right.

            What I DON"T understand is the NEED for hate speech.
            You can stand on a soap box on a street corner and preach Leviticus 20:13 all day long.
            My issue is WHY?
            Why is this necessary to do?
            What is the purpose of doing this?
            What does it accomplish?

  • Lydia Church

    Good for them!
    Stand up against the sin and refuse, no matter what!
    Someone with a spine, thank God!

  • Netizen_James

    What hypocrites.
    If a Jewish screenprinter refused to do tee-shirts that said ‘Jesus Saves’, these same folks would be screaming about discrimination from the rooftops.

    But as usual, the hypocrites are unable to see their own hypocrisy. Unable to accept that gay people are EQUAL to them in the eyes of the law.

    These are the same sort of people who had no problem with businesses discriminating against black people 60 years ago. Or against Irish or Italian people 100 years ago. These are the same sort of people responsible for the Philadelphia Bible Riots back in the day.

    Get that log out of your own eye….

    • Having a perverted and deformed mind about sex and sexuality, which is what homosexuals and bisexuals have, is not equal to a healthy heterosexual mind.
      homosexuals are equal to pedophiles in the eyes of the law – you don’t have to provide services to further their garbage of sexual ideologies. If the State compels you, then you’re living under a dictatorship.

      • james blue

        homosexuals are equal to pedophiles in the eyes of the law

        Ermmm….No.

      • glenbo

        >>” is not equal to a healthy heterosexual mind.”<>”homosexuals are equal to pedophiles in the eyes of the law “<<

        In the "eyes of the law?"
        Please prove you aren't LIAR with this statement.
        And please note that there are NO HETEROSEXUAL pedophiles… AT ALL…ANYWHERE!!!!

    • james blue

      What hypocrites.

      I agree.with that.

  • glenbo

    I am an Atheist contractor.
    I don’t believe in God, and I am against religion.
    But guess what…I work for a church.
    That’s right, an Atheist contractor working for a church. Who’d a guessed!
    Why am I against religion?
    Because it teaches and condones bigotry, prejudice and discrimination towards LGBT people for no rational reason.
    I have LGBT family members, LGBT friends, clients and employees.
    I overwhelmingly disagree on The Church’s teaching on LGBT issues.
    But guess what…I still get up and go to work for my church client.
    Why? Because I am not a bigot.
    Therefore, this makes ME better as an Atheist that those so-called phony “Christian” business owners as Christians.

    • Nonsense, you’re just a greedy louse who’ll take money from anybody because you’re a sellout. And given how many sexuality pigs you seek to interact with, this can only mean you think you must that porn and homosexuality are normal. The real reason you think you are above Christians is that you have the mind of a sexual pig.

      • glenbo

        >>”And given how many sexuality pigs you seek to interact with. “<<

        ??
        I am not gay.
        I am heterosexually married with 2 children.

        I treat ALL my clients with equality, respect, dignity and fairness.
        I don't judge others based on their religion, sexuality, race or ethnicity.

        • Who knows what you really are given your obsession with promoting homosexuality. But if you are heterosexual, you’re a heterosexual with the mind of a pig – that’s why you think porn and homosexuality are normal.
          And if you treat all your clients – whether they are pedophiles, homosexuals, or Nazis – with respect, it means you have no scruples – you’re a greedy sellout, nothing more.

    • james blue

      You sound like a decent human. It’s wonderful that you do not discriminate

      • glenbo

        >>” It’s wonderful that you do not discriminate”<<

        What is accomplished when a Christian business owner discriminates?

        • james blue

          Their freedom to do so.

          • glenbo

            >>”Their freedom to do so.”<<

            Sooo… nothing…for them.
            Just as I thought.

            But let me ask you this:
            Is anything BAD accomplished? Is anyone harmed when someone discriminates? Is any one's freedom lost when one discriminates?
            Why do anti-discrimination laws exist at all in the first place?
            What is the purpose of anti-discrimination laws?

            And what is lost if they DON'T discriminate?
            What tangible concrete harm will they suffer if they DON'T discriminate?

          • james blue

            I think most of those questions are answered by “their freedom to do so”

            It’s obvious you think there should be laws forcing people to accommodate even if it violates their own religious or non religious views. I do not. It’s not about if they gain or lose anything, If a store discriminated against gays or Christians or people of color I wouldn’t do business with them and I hope they would go bankrupt. it’s about the freedom to be able to decide to risk taking such a stance.

          • glenbo

            >>”I think most of those questions are answered by “their freedom to do so””<<

            Most? Most?
            Your freedom to do so andwered NONE of my questions.
            Why don't you look them over again…slowly this time and try doing something different this time…
            HONESTY.

            Try answering the above questions HONSESTLY if you are able to do so.
            Your HONEST answers will reveal the truth of what your "freedom" accomplishes.

            I shall repost them by number so you can honestly answer them by number.

            1) Is anything BAD accomplished by discrimination? Yes or no.
            2) Is anyone harmed when someone discriminates? Yes or no.
            3) Is any one's freedom lost when one discriminates? Yes or no.
            4) Why do anti-discrimination laws exist at all in the first place?
            5) What is the purpose of anti-discrimination laws?
            6) And what is lost if they DON'T discriminate?
            7) What tangible concrete harm will they suffer if they DON'T discriminate?

            I cannot continue our debate until you please answer my above questions.

          • james blue

            Okay

            1- Only your hurt feelings
            2. Only their hurt feelings.
            3. No. not when it comes to business in the private sector.
            4. Because people like you think others owe you something.
            5. The purpose should be to stop government from discrimination, it shouldn’t be to force the private sector to violate their personal beliefs.
            6. If they choose to not discriminate– nothing, if they are forced to – their right to live by their faith or beliefs.
            7. Let me turn that round, what tangible concrete harm would you suffer if a cake maker refused to sell you a cake even if he sells cake to others?

          • glenbo

            1) Incorrect. Denying rights of any kind is harmful to those being denied rights
            2) Incorrect. Denying rights of any kind is harmful to those being denied rights.
            3) Good Lord. WRONG. Denying rights denies freedom.
            4) Incorrect. They exist to protect tyrannical unfair denying of rights to minority groups.
            5) Wrong. They exist to protect tyrannical unfair denying of rights to minority groups.
            6) Wrong. You cannot lose the freedom to live by your faith by selling a cake.

            **7) Manipulative answer rejected. But to patronize your manipulative response: Loss of freedom in the public marketsphere.**

            Please answer question #7.

            Redirect:

            **7) What tangible concrete harm will they suffer if they DON’T discriminate?**

          • james blue

            1. except you don’t mind harming the rights of private business people to operate their business by their beliefs.
            2. see 1
            3. Yes, and denying the rights of private sector business owners to operate by their beliefs is denying their freedom.
            4. From government
            5. Since when was your services a “right” for others to demand?
            6.yes you can if the cake is to be used for something counter to your faith. or beliefs.

            7. they will suffer the loss of their right to live by their faith or beliefs. You keep talking about “the public marketplace” like it’s some sacred thing, but it’s not. You have the right to shop elsewhere if one vendor doesn’t want to serve you.

            Your entire argument is based on the premise that you have the right to goods and services of others. I disagree that you have that right and say the laws that grant you your demands are violating the rights of others.

          • glenbo

            1) Their rights to operate their business is not harmed. Their right to exercise their religion is not infringed. There’s no such thing as “operating a business by beliefs.”
            2) See 1.
            3) This is not about the private sector. This is about the public sector.
            4) Your right to exercise your religion is not infringed by anti-discrimination laws.
            5) It’s not. You just don’t have the right to deny your services to a protected class.
            6) Wrong. Cake making is not religious conduct. You are not hindered from exercising your religion by selling a cake.

            **7) Manipulative answer again!**

            Selling a cake does not and cannot cause one to “suffer the loss of their right to live by their faith or beliefs.” That is neither possible nor is it tangible/concrete harm. Selling a cake does not and cannot prevent one from believing in God, worshipping God, praying to God or going to church. Religious freedom cannot be hindered by merely selling a cake.

            Please try again.

            Redirect:

            **7) What TANGIBLE CONCRETE harm will they suffer if they DON’T discriminate?**

            >>” You keep talking about “the public marketplace” like it’s some sacred thing, but it’s not. You have the right to shop elsewhere if one vendor doesn’t want to serve you.“<>” Your entire argument is based on the premise that you have the right to goods and services of others”<<

            Wrong.
            My argument is when you operate a business in the public marketsphere, you are obligated to follow local ordinances and business practice laws.

  • Looks like the shakedown from the homosexual pigs isn’t going to go down as easily as they planned. Let’s hope that Kentucky isn’t governed by the same kind of slime of liberals they have in Colorado.

  • The goal of homosexual pigs is domination in society and the destruction of decent people. They hate anyone with a clean and healthy mind about sexuality and relationships.

    • glenbo

      >>”The goal of homosexual pigs is domination in society and the destruction of decent people. They hate anyone with a clean and healthy mind about sexuality and relationships.”<<

      REALLY????
      Why?