“[HOO owners] are Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and that they should strive to live consistently with its teachings. It is clear beyond dispute that HOO and its owners declined to print the t-shirts in question because of the MESSAGE advocating sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. . . . The well established Constitutional rights of HOO and its owners on this issue is well settled.”For background, read Kentucky Says Gays are a Protected Class, but Christians Aren't
-- Judge James D. Ishmael
Also read the increasing number of court rulings countering the Gay Agenda.
-- From "Kentucky T-shirt printer that wouldn’t make gay pride shirts vindicated by court" by Justin Wm. Moyer, Washington Post 4/28/15
[Judge] Ishmael made a distinction between a company choosing not to print a T-shirt because of the sexual orientation of a potential customer and choosing not to print a T-shirt because of its message.
The court noted that HOO had also turned down orders for “a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video, and shirts containing a violence related message” — in other words, shirts that it did not agree with that had nothing to do with homosexuality.
The court also found that HOO was “entitled to assert claims” under a Kentucky statute that’s been compared to Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion,” the statute reads.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kentucky Court Says Printing Business Has Right to Deny Service for Religious Reasons" by Kelsey Harkness, Daily Signal 4/27/15
“With all due respect to the Hearing Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission [the plaintiffs arguments] are not factually accurate and are in direct contrast to well established precedent from the United States Supreme Court interpreting the Federal Constitution,” wrote Judge James Ishmael.
“What this court found in this case is that no one should be forced to promote ideas—or in this case, print ideas—that conflict with their beliefs,” said Jim Campbell, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom representing the printing business. “That protection is for everyone. It’s a protection that’s for the atheist just as much as it’s for the person of faith.”
The Lexington-Fayette County government has a non-discrimination ordinance, which generally prohibits a public place from discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The state of Kentucky has not adopted the policy.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Fayette Circuit Court judge reverses finding in Hands On Originals discrimination case" by Cheryl Truman, Lexington Herald-Leader 4/27/15
Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation of Kentucky, hailed the ruling Monday in a statement: "We are pleased to see some courts are still acknowledging the First Amendment's right to religious freedom. And that the 'PC police' are not quite powerful enough to convince courts that it doesn't exist."
Ray Sexton, executive director of the Lexington Human Rights Commission, said an appeal was likely. He said the commission's board would consider its next step at a meeting Monday evening.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
How do homosexualists retaliate against those who resist the Gay Agenda? They threaten financial ruin of businesses, and they intimidate Christian lawmakers, and they sue Christians who won't celebrate "gay weddings," and they threaten to jail pastors who won't perform "gay weddings," and they torpedo fundraising aimed at helping the Christian victims, and they commit violence, even threatening death of Christians.
