Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

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

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."

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.

There are other choices as well such as contraceptives, adoption and keeping the child. Pro choice means just that. Leave the woman to make her own decisions on what she doe with her life and her body.

Quoting Debrowsky:

choice - includes killing babies- pretty much means your for abortion.Pro- life means exclusively saving life of baby.

Quoting Owl_Feather:

I hate the term "pro-abortion". As if thats all they support and encourage. Wat happened to the term "pro-choice"

I'm not sure what "pro-abortion" means, but it seems to be something certainly pro-lifers really, really think will piss you off so they toss it around often. (abortion, yayyy! Everbody get pregnant quick so they can go have one)

But that said, yes I think. The two situations are vastly different (printing t-shirts vs telling someone "I won't service your wedding because I think you are sinning blah blah blah), but yes. If we are going to be fair.

He's in business. He has a license. He pays taxes, and he uses everything every other tax-payer uses.

So if your conscience tells you that you shouldn't serve black people, that's okay?

Your religious freedom is protected. You are allowed to believe whatever you wish. You are not allowed to extend that into violating another person's civil rights. Business owners have always had the right to refuse business. If they are truly going to be so very offended by serving a gay person, they can refuse the business without making a huge fuss over their "religious beliefs" being at stake. This isn't violating free speech, religious freedom or anything else.

Quoting Debrowsky:

If that were true, then all the cases of businesses that have been sued and forced to provide service against their conscience haven't been protected at all.

Quoting PamR:

People are already protected in those areas. There is no need to make a law that singles out any segment of the population for lawful discrimination.

Quoting Debrowsky:

judging by the reason of this law, it was truthfully intended to protect people from prosecution for reasons of: freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. Everyone falls into one or more of those categories.

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.

apparently you haven't been paying attention to what has happened to businesses and people for standing on their convictions, or you ignore them purposely. One's conscience SHOULD be able to tell you that serving a person with different colored skin is okay, as it is only color. However, your conscience SHOULD be able to guide you in considering what offensive behavior they commit or stand for that you don't want a part of.If a gay couple seeking to be married finds someone not supportive of their ceremony due to their conscience - they should move on and find someone who does - not sue the business and violate their freedom of religion or conscience.

Sadly, due to the aggressive pressure by gay activists, people are not allowed any longer to live according to their conscience in schools, businesses or in public.

What's even sadder, is many people's conscience have been clouded and pressured by cultural shiftings to think many things are acceptable and healthy for society that in essence, really aren't. So the understanding of what is right and wrong is skewed and turned upside down. We shouldn't need a so many laws to define what we can and cannot do, if we would only hold onto sensible, healthy, right thinking. But that is slipping away from us at an alarming rate. we have one majorly messed up society- and the future ain't lookin' too good for us.

Quoting PamR:

So if your conscience tells you that you shouldn't serve black people, that's okay?

Your religious freedom is protected. You are allowed to believe whatever you wish. You are not allowed to extend that into violating another person's civil rights. Business owners have always had the right to refuse business. If they are truly going to be so very offended by serving a gay person, they can refuse the business without making a huge fuss over their "religious beliefs" being at stake. This isn't violating free speech, religious freedom or anything else.

Quoting Debrowsky:

If that were true, then all the cases of businesses that have been sued and forced to provide service against their conscience haven't been protected at all.

Quoting PamR:

People are already protected in those areas. There is no need to make a law that singles out any segment of the population for lawful discrimination.

Quoting Debrowsky:

judging by the reason of this law, it was truthfully intended to protect people from prosecution for reasons of: freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. Everyone falls into one or more of those categories.

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.

You are saying that the pro-abort person has the right to conscience, but not the religious person.

That's inconsistent. People have the same rights in this country regardless of ideology.

Are you suggesting that some people are more equal than others?

Quoting blueforewolf:

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

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.