The Kentucky Supreme Court is being asked not to mess with a lower court’s ruling that a T-shirt printer cannot be forced to make shirts carrying messages that violate his religious faith, because the decision was based on “settled legal principle.”
Blaine Adamson and his Hands On Originals shop were targeted by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission because he declined to promote a “gay” festival.
The commission demanded the courts order him to produce any message customers might request, even if it violates his Christian faith.
Lower courts ruled that while Adamson was required to serve any customer, he was not required to promote any message.
The case is among only a few ever to differentiate between discrimination regarding the status of the customer, which is protected, and the message demanded, which is not.
Now the commission is asking the state Supreme Court to review and overturn the decision, but the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Hands On Originals, has submitted a brief defending the lower-court rulings.
“Rarely are cases that involve expressive freedom, religious liberty and LGBT rights so clear cut that they unite people with opposing ideological perspectives. But this case does,” ADF said. “Lesbian print-shop owners, LGBT advocates and groups that support gay rights have joined with free-speech and religious-liberty groups, and they all agree that the commission cannot force HOO to print messages that conflict with its owners’ beliefs.”
ADF argued the court of appeals “decided this case based on the well-established distinction between unlawfully refusing services because of a customer’s protected status and lawfully declining to produce speech because of its message.”
“This distinction has such deep roots in the law that even the commission’s executive director affirmed it under oath in this very case.”
ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell said Americans “should always have the freedom to say no when asked to express ideas that violate their conscience.”
“Blaine is willing to serve all people, but he cannot print all messages. The two lower courts properly affirmed that Blaine can’t be forced to print words and logos that express ideas in conflict with his faith. The Kentucky Supreme Court should leave those decisions in place.”
The commission in 2014 ruled Adamson must print “messages that conflict with his faith when customers ask him to do so.”
But the commission’s agenda was foiled by a decision from the Fayette Circuit Court, which said Adamson cannot be required to express messages with which he disagrees. The commission then lost again at the court of appeals level.
It all started in 2012 when Adamson declined to print shirts with a message promoting the Lexington Pride Festival.
He offered to find another printer for the work, but the sponsoring Gay and Lesbian Services Organization refused his help.
The group went to the commission to demand Adamson be forced to print the offending messages.
WND reported this court case affects only the T-shirt shop, but its simple logic could ripple across the country in other cases, such as in Colorado where state officials ordered a baker and his staff to undergo re-training for refusing to promote homosexuality.
The most recent Kentucky court ruling stated: “Nothing of record demonstrates HOO, through Adamson, refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity. Adamson testified he never learned of or asked about the sexual orientation or gender identity of Don Lowe, the only representative of GLSO with whom he spoke regarding the T-shirts.”
“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 found.
“Also, nothing of record demonstrates HOO, through Adamson, refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question was engaging in an activity or conduct exclusively or predominantly by a protected class of people.”
The ruling said: “The ‘service’ HOO offers is the promotion of messages. The ‘conduct’ HOO chose not to promote was pure speech. There is no contention that HOO is a public forum in addition to a public accommodation. Nothing in the fairness ordinance prohibits HOO, a private business, from engaging in viewpoint or message censorship.”
WND reported recently the Adamson case was just one of several that suggest the ground underneath the “gay” agenda in America may be beginning to crumble.
The contention that the rights of homosexuals trump the Constitution’s protections of religious rights has been contested in many cases in recent years, including those targeting T-shirt makers, bakers, photographers and venue operators.
But a recent ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said magistrates in North Carolina can excuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages.
Earlier, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Mississippi law that protects the religious freedom of those who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that gender is determined at birth.
It not only reversed an injunction imposed by a lower court – preventing the implementation of the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act – it went further and simply dismissed the case.
And recently, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would decide whether or not a baker has a right to refuse to use his artistry to promote homosexuality, a ruling that likely will come in the fall.
