If the guy was renting apartments....

Again, I disagree with you Amy as I have a more cynical view of human nature. I can see a situation where your car breaks down in the wrong town in the wrong state, and you can't get it fixed because you're the wrong _fill in the blank_ and no one is required to help you.

If you did this, you would have to have more state-run services. You'd have to have a state-run version of every business that might be needed in an emergency.

Oh, I forgot to add...

I don't think you should be required to provide any service the customer wants, however.

I'm against them not printing t-shirts for the customer because they're lesbians. If there's a t-shirt they sell to other people, say a Red Sox t-shirt, I'd be against them not also selling it to lesbians or gays.

I'm not against them not printing this particular t-shirt because they're against this particular t-shirt.

A very interesting question!

Yes, I could see a business passing on the "God hates Faggots" t-shirt and not being publicly condemned for that decision. But, this is a somewhat extreme example. What if a company decided to pass on printing a t-shirt because the religious (or political) message was something that most folks would consider mainstream; but the owner was against? I think that is getting into a somewhat more "gray" area.

NicoleK; I think your example of a car breaking down is a somewhat better example, there have been many "news stories" over the years, especially in NYC, where cab companies, pizza delivery, etc, have refused to provide their services to a high-risk area. The fill-in-the-blank customer doesn't even come into play (although the news media would have you believe otherwise); it is more about the safety of the cabbie, the pizza delivery guy, etc. than it is about the customer.

I guess the real question is when should the rights of the business take priority over the rights of the customer? To that question, I really don't have an answer.

Keep this in mind: just because a person identifies with a particular cause doesn't make them any better a person.

You should know that from watching politics, but you probably fail to transfer the lesson. You can check your own tendency to do this by reading a newspaper and noting that immediately after you identify an article as bogus when it deals with your interests, you then assume the article right next to it is correct.

There's two things:

1. Replace "Gay Marriage" with "Mixed-Race Marriage" (which also used to be illegal/immoral in many many places) and see how you feel.

2. Point #1 said, I'm not sure suing is the best way to deal with it at this point. With social media and a little leg work, you could pretty effectively boycott this store and put a good dent in their business.

I suppose what we need here is the "2013 Civil Rights Act" which will require that we all buy GLBT shirts, that all companies offer them for sale and that the IRS will send you such shirts in lieu of your refund check if you cannot prove you've made the purchase.

flighty; "With social media and a little leg work, you could pretty effectively boycott this store and put a good dent in their business."

I'm not totally disagreeing with you; But, when does this method turn into "tyranny of the majority"?

Look at how the media has jumped the gun on several cases; Duke LaCrosse, Martin-Zimmerman, etc. Even social media in the Martin-Zimmerman case has forced an innocent couple out of their own home because of Spike Lee tweeting their address.

In my opinion, too many folks react with their emotions, rather than any rational thought. Amy makes a good point in that many folks might not side with this busines owner unless he was refusing to print t-shirts for the Westboro idiots.

NicokeK makes an interesting and very nuanced point: There's a difference between a) refusing to serve a customer based on their sexual orientation and b) refusing to serve a customer based on the service they want.

If it's a case of refusing service based solely on orientation, then replace "gay" with "black" and "t-shirt maker" with "landlord" and see if you truly think anyone should be able to refuse a business transaction with anyone else for any reason. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is just as wrong as discrimination based on race, and to allow it causes actual harm that the free market alone cannot remedy.

On the other hand, business owners should always have the right to refuse to endorse *speech* that they disagree with. In this case, it appears the t-shirt maker appears to be following his convictions and refusing to endorse the speech of his customers. Good on ya. This is where the free market tends to work quite well, as evidenced in the original article:

"Hands On Originals has faced a barrage of attacks since the accusations were made public. More than 2,000 people have joined a boycott movement on Facebook. Another group is trying to buy the company’s mortgage so they can be evicted.
The Fayette County public school system placed a temporary hold on buying t-shirts from the company until the issue is resolved. The University of Kentucky is also reviewing its future business with the t-shirt maker."

Aaron: Well said!

Charles: There's no "tyranny of the majority" when it comes to business. The beauty is we're all free to shop or not shop wherever we want based on whatever criteria is important to us.

If I found out my local bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, I probably wouldn't go there anymore. Not because they don't make nice baked goods, but because I don't want to support someone whose values I so vehemently disagree with.

The buying the mortgage thing is a bit sleazy for me, though.

Amy's a good egg.

"Replace "Gay Marriage" with "Mixed-Race Marriage" (which also used to be illegal/immoral in many many places) and see how you feel."

Replace "Gay Marriage" with "Santorum for President" and see how YOU feel.

Argument from analogy doesn't work if you're missing the point in the first place.

It's not about feeling. It's about thinking, and whether the law can be used to tell you what to think. More thinking, less weeping, please.

If he refused them service BECAUSE they were gay, I'd be against that, but I understand him not wanting to print messages he couldn't support.

HOWEVER, we need to be honest; all people are not treated equally. If your religion/race/social group is not constantly targeted then you really don't understand the frustration of dealing with these issues. It's easy to say you're okay with being refused service if you haven't had to deal with such things your whole life.

I think it is important to avoid the tyrannical nonsense of trying to shut the business down. That really smacks of thought police in full-effect. People disagree about everything. How is this case so special in our world? They did not call for the gays to be hung in the public square. They did not tell anyone they hated them. They just refused to print the t-shirts, yet looked for a vendor that would print them for the same price. Politics is the art of compromise, but when the gay activists continue to fail to compromise in rather meaningless cases such as this, they will become a pariah to the world they seek to convert. Dying on every hill may win a few battles, but you will lose the war.

The kneejerk reaction over this is astounding...

Let's not just take our business elsewhere, lets destroy his business and get him evicted! If he doesn't toe the party line he must be CRUSHED!

Do people really want that? Should I be able to walk into a Curves Gym, and force them to accept my membership in the woman's only gym thereby integrating it? I mean after all they are discriminating against men...

Unfortunately the GLSO are completely classless in this, they could have just gone somewhere else, and showed the same restraint that the T-shirt guy did... "I can't do this for you, but here are other places I can recommend"

After all HE LOST MONEY SENDING THEM ELSEWHERE.

In my own businesses I've done this for customers that were just too much trouble to work with, and I lost money, but why are my interest and feelings to be sacrificed on the alter of PC? We can still discriminate against a-holes right?
Or will it be that the PC police will come in and force that one too?

If T-shirt guy learns nothing else, he will learn to not tell anyone his reasons for doing things and just say, sorry, we're too busy for an order like that, these other guys can help.

"Should I be able to walk into a Curves Gym, and force them to accept my membership in the woman's only gym thereby integrating it?"

Of course - and into Augusta National Golf Club as well.

But only if you are a member of a protected minority, by definition incapable of anything without government aid.

All you have to do is shout "Sex!" in some form or another, and the public will obediently turn away from anything else going on to blab about that.

Is it cool with everyone if I decide my apartment complex isn't going to make room for gays? Blacks? Jews? Women? The mentally retarded? Vets?

Children? (Please, please say yes!)

E- I like this one too.

so Cridster help me articulate that... What you are saying about descrimination of that sort is something I've accepted all my life, but where is that line? [and I'm not being ironical here] If I have a house, I don't have to let anyone in, it's mine. IF I let out a room, I have the right to check credit and background, yeah? I can avoid people who don't pay, or who trash the place or are felons, because they are a danger...

But since I am letting a room in my own house, I don't have to let it to someone I don't like, yeah? It's in my home. So now I have an 8 flat, where I live in the larger apartment at the end... seems like the rules change right there, but I can't articulate why. Is it because it is now considered commercial property?
What's the mechanism?

And why should it be an identical mechanism if someone wants me to make tshirts for them, and I don't like their message?

On the level, I am in earnest.

You have to draw a line.

This is how you allow more and more government intervention, which costs you real money.

Banks were told to lend to people who couldn't afford to borrow. Everybody pays.

I totally agree with you Amy. Great points you make. It's not about religion or hate; it's about rights to choose what you want to produce and the image you put out as a company. That is up to the business owner.
From a writer's perspective ;) - it's like getting mad at a writer for not writing about something they don't want to. :)

@flighty: Replace "Gay Marriage" with "Mixed-Race Marriage" (which also used to be illegal/immoral in many many places) and see how you feel.
____________

That is one of the more popular comparisons, which is unfortunate since it is flawed. Ones race has nothing to do with being a father and being a mother, but ones gender has everything to do with it. It would be like comparing having the boy scouts and girl scouts with having black scouts and white scouts... two completely different things.

Back to point, i do not think someone should have to make a pro-gay shirt any more than I think a printing press owned by a gay man should have to print pamphlets entitled "why i support traditional marriage." The solution to this is competition, not government.

So slaveowners should have had equal rights back when slavery was legal?

There is nothing you cannot be forced to accept? You have to rent to the convicted but now released pedophile because he served his time? You aren't allowed to do what you know best to protect your children?

I disagree vehemently with private businesses and individuals being forced to compromise their principles. It doesn't matter if their cause is right or abhorrent to me.