Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Should a Pro-Abortion Printer be Forced to Print “Abortion is Murder” Signs and Shirts?

Posted by   + Show Post



Should a Pro-Abortion Printer be Forced to Print "Abortion is Murder" Signs and Shirts?

Posted on February 25, 2014 by Filed under 1st Amendment, Abortion, Christianity, Constitution, Culture, Ethics, Homosexuality

44 Comments

Share443 Tweet42 Share623 Email13

 

The courts have kicked a legal hornet's nest by redefining marriage and forcing people to agree with their decision under threat of fines and possible imprisonment.

Now states are trying to project business owners that do not agree with the redefinition of marriage by passing laws allowing them to refuse service to people of the same sex who want to get married. Consider Arizona's governor Jan Brewer:

"She must decide if she is going to sign into law legislation that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers."

These new legal attempts to fix what the courts broke are getting a lot of attention. They are being portrayed as pro-discrimination laws. Some have described them as similar in kind to 'Jim Crow' laws. Being black is not a behavior or a belief.

Business owners (religious or not) should be able to make their own decisions about who they want to do business with.

Sometimes the best way to explain to people the nature of something is to put the shoe on the other foot. Here are some "what ifs." Babies are Murdered Here

  • What if a print-shop owner holds to a "pro-choice" view on abortion and a pro-life group comes in and wants shirts and signs made that read "Babies are Murdered Here" to use in front of an abortion clinic? Should the owner of the shop be forced to make the shirts and signs?
  • What if a print-shop owner who is homosexual gets an order for shirts and signs that are to read "God Hates Fags"? Should the owner be forced to fill the order under penalty of law?
  • Should a supporter of PETA who owns a print shop be forced to make signs and shirts that read "PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals"?
  • Should a baker be forced to supply cakes to a KKK-themed wedding or birthday party?
  • Should an atheist who owns a print shop be forced to print signs and shirts that read "All Atheists are Going to Hell"?
  • Should a printer be forced to print shirts and signs that read "Hitler Was Right"?
  • Should a photographer be forced to film and photograph a wedding that has a "White Power" or KKK theme?

I suspect that the vast majority of people in America would sympathize with these business owners who were asked to do something contrary to their beliefs that is an advocacy position against those beliefs.

This is quite different from a rabid racist who buys a cake from a baker or wants business cards made for his son's new business venture. In the majority of cases, people who operate businesses don't know the personal views or sexual habits of their customers, and in most cases they don't want to know.

But when someone comes in to advocate for a view that has moral meaning for them, that's a different story.

We may not like the advocacy of this group or that group, but what we should like even less is the government saying how we should advocate for our beliefs.

The above examples would not be prohibited by law. Same-sex sex has special protection under the law. Laws have been written that say a business cannot refuse to support the behavior of people who engage in same-sex relationships and marriage.

This is tyranny of the highest order. The First Amendment was drafted to protect speech, popular or not. My view of unpopular speech and someone else's view of unpopular speech are equally protected. The government may want to stop the propagation of popular speech since to them it's a threat to the establishment.

Academia likes to protect its eggs by keeping out dissent. Global Warming advocates have declared that the "debate is over." Dissent is not only not tolerated; it's not even allowed to speak.


by on Feb. 28, 2014 at 2:53 PM
Replies (11-20):
Debrowsky
by Silver Member on Feb. 28, 2014 at 4:32 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting mjmorrison:

what if a gay owned business is forced to work for the westboro baptist church.

jaw dropwhoa

Ziva65
by Bronze Member on Feb. 28, 2014 at 4:33 PM
3 moms liked this

I still think private business owners should have the right to refuse service for whatever reason they want. I may not agree with their reasoning, but I still believe they should have the right to refuse.

Perhaps then instead of saying it is religious based, that they are simply "offended". Or, not even give a reason. They manage their business, and accept customers as they see fit-

If I were a printer for some signs, I'd refuse. I know printers who won't print for certain companies or organizations, I do think it is their right.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 28, 2014 at 4:37 PM
2 moms liked this

I say no in every instance, including the Christian baker who wishes to decline to make a cake for a gay wedding.

My guess is that liberals will say yes to all.

Ziva65
by Bronze Member on Feb. 28, 2014 at 4:38 PM

The thing is, there are ways to refuse business to someone without stating why- "we can't meet that need", "we are booked up that weekend", "we are short staffed" "we can't meet your deadline"... whatever it is. I've seen people delay in giving answers to the point where the customer takes their business elsewhere... there are ways without offending someone or making an issue of it.

While I won't say what line of business we are in, I have refused customers for various reasons. It might be as simple as being given a heads up they don't pay their bills, or using foul language in front of me... would I ever say that? No. We simply find a cordial reason that we are unable to meet that request.

Debrowsky
by Silver Member on Feb. 28, 2014 at 5:00 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting Ziva65:

The thing is, there are ways to refuse business to someone without stating why- "we can't meet that need", "we are booked up that weekend", "we are short staffed" "we can't meet your deadline"... whatever it is. I've seen people delay in giving answers to the point where the customer takes their business elsewhere... there are ways without offending someone or making an issue of it.

While I won't say what line of business we are in, I have refused customers for various reasons. It might be as simple as being given a heads up they don't pay their bills, or using foul language in front of me... would I ever say that? No. We simply find a cordial reason that we are unable to meet that request.

 I really appreciate your perspective from the business side.  you seem to have good sense.

Ziva65
by Bronze Member on Feb. 28, 2014 at 5:08 PM
1 mom liked this

I don't understand why someone would be so bold as to say why they are refusing service to someone... it's just offensive. That to me is also really bad for business... I may not agree with someone, but I wouldn't intentionally offend them.

Quoting Debrowsky:

 

Quoting Ziva65:

The thing is, there are ways to refuse business to someone without stating why- "we can't meet that need", "we are booked up that weekend", "we are short staffed" "we can't meet your deadline"... whatever it is. I've seen people delay in giving answers to the point where the customer takes their business elsewhere... there are ways without offending someone or making an issue of it.

While I won't say what line of business we are in, I have refused customers for various reasons. It might be as simple as being given a heads up they don't pay their bills, or using foul language in front of me... would I ever say that? No. We simply find a cordial reason that we are unable to meet that request.

 I really appreciate your perspective from the business side.  you seem to have good sense.

 

blueforewolf
by on Feb. 28, 2014 at 7:56 PM

 not accepting a job because the words they would be printing would be against their philosophy or disgusting to them is different from the bakers situation because - they are not discriminating against a group because of racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual orientation and therefore it does not apply 

PamR
by Platinum Member on Mar. 1, 2014 at 1:31 PM

This thread is apparently intended to make some point regarding the law that was vetoed in AZ.  Had it been signed, it would have created a law that sanctioned discrimination.  This is an entirely different matter.  No comparison.

Quoting Debrowsky:


Quoting PamR:

Should a law be passed forcing him to?

should a court, a judge pass a judment forcing someone to.New Mexico's state Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision, ruling that Elane Photography's decision to refuse photographing a 2006 commitment ceremony violated the state's Human Rights Act. Owner Elaine Hugenin cited religious beliefs as the cause behind her choice, according to the wire service.


Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Mar. 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM
Quoting PamR:

This thread is apparently intended to make some point regarding the law that was vetoed in AZ.  Had it been signed, it would have created a law that sanctioned discrimination.  This is an entirely different matter.  No comparison.

Quoting Debrowsky:

Quoting PamR:

Should a law be passed forcing him to?

should a court, a judge pass a judment forcing someone to.New Mexico's state Supreme Court
came to a unanimous decision, ruling that Elane Photography's decision
to refuse photographing a 2006 commitment ceremony violated the state's
Human Rights Act. Owner Elaine Hugenin cited religious beliefs as the
cause behind her choice, according to the wire service.



Only in your mind

PamR
by Platinum Member on Mar. 1, 2014 at 4:05 PM

When you have no actual response, you choose to insult.  Put your dick away and try to play nice.

Quoting Billiejeens:
Quoting PamR:

This thread is apparently intended to make some point regarding the law that was vetoed in AZ.  Had it been signed, it would have created a law that sanctioned discrimination.  This is an entirely different matter.  No comparison.

Quoting Debrowsky:


Quoting PamR:

Should a law be passed forcing him to?

should a court, a judge pass a judment forcing someone to.New Mexico's state Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision, ruling that Elane Photography's decision to refuse photographing a 2006 commitment ceremony violated the state's Human Rights Act. Owner Elaine Hugenin cited religious beliefs as the cause behind her choice, according to the wire service.


Only in your mind


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)