That’s the question brewing in Lexington, Kentucky. The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization has filed the following complaint with the Lexington Human Rights Commission.
... even if the Ordinance does prohibit what Hands On Originals did ... then the Ordinance unconstitutionally compels speech, because it requires printers to print material that they do not want to print. Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. (1977) and Keller v. State Bar (1990) reaffirmed that the government generally may not compel someone to give over money to a private or even quasi-public entity when that money will be used for political or ideological speech. (There is an exception for when the government is acting as employer or regulator of the bar, and the compulsory payments are germane to the collective bargaining functions of a union or a bar association, but that does not apply here.) If so, then requiring someone to actually physically print political or ideological speech is an even clearer First Amendment violation.
Indeed, speech on T-shirts is as protected as speech in books. Under the GLSO’s view, a book publisher that is opposed to (say) Scientology could be required to print pro-Scientology books. Likewise, a printer that hates Nazi ideology could be required to print pro-Nazi leaflets in those jurisdictions — such as Washington, D.C. and Seattle — that ban public accommodations discrimination based on political affiliation. That, it seems to me, can’t be constitutional: Though the publishers (or the T-shirt printer) would be required to produce speech, rather than utter or display it himself, the creation of speech is itself speech, and compelled creation of speech is a speech compulsion.
... Any printer, whether religious or not, has a First Amendment right to choose what messages it will print and what messages it won’t print.
From a joint press release by the Coalition for African American Pastors and Education For All:
The Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) and Education for All consist of pastors, leaders, and organizations whose mission is to protect and promote life, the sanctity of marriage, and to advocate for K - 12 students, especially those living in urban areas.
Our group of distinguished leaders from across America is launching a campaign today to garner 100,000 signatories supporting marriage between one man and one woman. This one hundred day campaign will be highlighted at the leadership summit and the news conference at The Heritage Foundation in May.
Bishop George D. McKinney, Bishop Felton Smith and Rev. William Owens will lead in ensuring the 100,000 names for the marriage campaign around the nation. They plan to travel to various cities around the country to gather signatures, but the thrust of the campaign will begin in North Carolina where there is a marriage vote slated for May 8, 2012.
Rev. Owens stated that the civil rights he marched and fought for in the late 50s and early 60s is being seized by the radicals who want to take advantage of a long and hard fight for civil rights and use it for their own agenda on same-sex marriage.
These leaders agree that they will not sit back and let the rights they fought so hard for be distorted and used by the homosexual community to further their agenda. "We will host a news conference to let the Washington politicians know that we want them to protect the family," exclaimed Rev. Owens
For more information on how to support this effort, please contact [email protected].
Kalley Yanta in this Minnesota Marriage Minute explains why children need a mom and dad, and why not just any two adults will do:
"It is an accepted truth of human existence that ... children do best when they are raised by their biological parents. A recent report by Child Trends, a non-partisan research organization, summarized the scholarly consensus on marriage this way: 'Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is the family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.'"
A statement by New York State Senator and pro-marriage hero Rev. Ruben Diaz:
You should know that like many Black and Hispanic members of the clergy in New York and throughout the United States, I am exceptionally grateful for the National Organization for Marriage, and for NOM’s President, Brian Brown.
I write this as a Democrat, as a State Senator and as the President of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, which represents tens of thousands of Hispanic and Black Christians.
On behalf of all those churches, I am here to say: I have worked closely with the National Organization for Marriage and I have marched with NOM's President Brian Brown to defend our civil right to be heard in the debate over the meaning of marriage.
Brian Brown and NOM have done something, that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate.
You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage---a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us.
Today on Public Discourse, Jennifer Roback Morse argues that privatizing marriage would be unjust to children. This is the third and final installment of her series on the state and marriage:
The primary business of the state is justice. Because children cannot be autonomous, adult society has an obligation in justice to provide institutional structures that protect their most basic interests.
I was once a libertarian activist. I was on the platform committee of the national libertarian party twice in the late seventies. I used to give introductory talks about libertarianism in people's homes when I was a graduate student.
I would begin these talks by describing the problems that contracts between consenting adults could solve. Often someone would ask, "What about children?" I would always admit that children posed a tough problem for libertarianism, but that we would deal with it in a more advanced lesson. Somehow the time for that more advanced lesson never came.
It was only when I had children of my own that I came to see that something was deeply wrong with the way I had been avoiding the "tough questions" about children. In my personal experience of parenthood, I have had responsibility for profoundly neglected children. These children were permanently damaged by lack of relationship. I came to see that we libertarians have been starting our theorizing from the perspective of adults who are equipped to take care of themselves, make contracts, keep promises, defend their own property, and respect other people's property.
Byron Babione is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund:
"Imagine a T-shirt print shop run by owners who openly practice homosexual behavior. Let’s call it “Tolerance 101.” They make T-shirts for community events, annual “gay pride” rallies, and sports teams around their city. Now, imagine that a major Christian ministry contacts the company to have them make T-shirts that will be worn at an event supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Tolerance 101 declines to the make the shirts. In short, the managing owner exercises his prerogative as a business owner to refuse to communicate a message in genuine conflict with his beliefs. Tolerance 101 does business all the time with heterosexuals and even has heterosexual employees, so it’s not about discrimination against any person. It’s simply about not wanting to further a message the owners so deeply oppose. Tolerance 101 even goes the extra mile and finds another T-shirt shop willing to do the job at the same price.
This scenario never happened, but if it did, it’s almost certain that the Christian ministry would not be traipsing off to the local human rights commission to file a discrimination complaint. But turn the tables and see what happens.
A company called Hands On Originals decided to not make T-shirts for an upcoming “gay pride” event in Lexington, Kentucky. As a result of Hands On Originals’ decision, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington has filed a complaint with Lexington’s Human Rights Commission and is pushing what many would consider an all-out smear campaign against the T-shirt company for exercising a prerogative it would almost certainly want to reserve for itself..." -- TownHall
As the investigation of a Christian-owned T-shirt company in Kentucky continues, a member of the county human-rights commission says the owners of the Christian business may not have the same rights as others.
In turning down a bid to print T-shirts for a local gay-pride event, the owners of Hands On Originals said it was a free-speech issue — that printing T-shirts affirming homosexuality conflicts with their faith.
The group investigating the complaint, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, is taking a different view.
“It wasn’t necessarily the message that was being rejected,” said executive director Raymond Sexton. “It was allegedly based on the sole fact that the individuals who were bring the shirts happened to be a protected class, in this case homosexuals.”
... Sexton said the commission will be applying a litmus test to find out just how “Christian” Hands On Originals is by comparing the business it’s turned down with proposals it’s accepted.
"... the justices at the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the two French women “did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.”
This decision needs to be shouted from rooftops in Europe, and in the U.S. it needs to be put before American judges who have been so very fond of selectively citing foreign law to support U.S. decisions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Is foreign court precedent only important when it furthers leftist priorities?
Common sense should lead us to concur with the European Court of Human Rights in at least this much: legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” diminishes, if not completely takes away, the religious liberty of those who have moral objections to such unions. And if same-sex “marriage” is indeed legalized in Britain or France, pastors who remain true to God’s Word and refuse to perform ceremonies for such unions may soon find themselves compelled, or arrested, or both."
David Cameron told Britain’s Christians he doesn’t want to fall out with them over plans to allow gay marriage, as he hailed a “Christian fightback” against attempts to ban crucifixes and public prayer.
... Cameron offered what he described as a “plea” to the assembled churchmen. “I hope we won’t fall out too much over gay marriage,” he said. “There’ll be some strong arguments and some strong words.”
... Guests at today’s reception told the prime minister after his speech he was wrong to be looking at the issue, arguing that the legal definition of marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman. Cameron had sought to reassure his audience that his proposals would “change what happens in a register office, not what happens in a church.”
"...For the most part, Europe has already spent its demographic dividend. And the recent inability of countries like Spain and Greece to hit their deficit targets illustrates just how difficult coping with financial and fiscal instability can be when growth fails to materialize as expected. Neither voters nor employers were prepared to make the necessary compromises—and as the endless, fractious negotiations over Greek debt show, it is very hard to get them to adjust to reality, even when the alternative is disastrous. We shouldn’t necessarily expect people to become more resigned to compromise as time goes on—quite possibly we should expect the opposite.
Southern Europe is already living in Twilight City. And those of us who live in Morningburg or Afternoonville should pay close attention to what happens next, because eventually, we’re all heading to that neck of the woods. The United Nations estimates that by 2030, the number of people older than 60 will be growing more than three times as fast as the general population. By 2050, one in every five people will be over 60. In the developed world, the proportion will be more like one in three. Europe (along with Japan) is at the forefront of an unprecedented shift.
“The problem,” says Canning, “is that aging is a new thing. We know quite well what the effects of going to low fertility are—but we’ve never seen this sort of aging before, so it’s hard to make predictions.”
One prediction is safe, however: aging will present challenges that, as of now, no nation has adequately prepared to face."
Some exciting news about one of the great political consultants in this country: Frank Schubert, who led marriage to victory in California and Maine, has decided to found a new firm Mission Public Affairs which will allow him to focus 100 percent of his energy on campaigns for life, marriage and religious liberty!
From his press release announcing his decision:
"Schubert, a conservative Catholic, said he would build a new national consulting practice focused on social issues such as protecting life, strengthening families, preserving traditional marriage and protecting religious liberties, along with pursuing conservative public policies that promote prosperity and liberty. A 30-year veteran of public affairs, Schubert has twice been named the nation’s most valuable political consultant by the American Association of Political Consultants, and received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Association of Business Communicators (Sacramento Chapter).
“My conservative ideology and my faith have been major guiding forces in my decision to work on some important but controversial issues, including life and marriage,” Schubert said. “But the firm has become much bigger than me personally. I don’t want my work on social issues to continue to overshadow the people who work for me, or the clients we serve. By stepping away from the company, I will be able to continue to work on the issues I care about while allowing the remaining leadership and staff of the firm to pursue the excellent work they are doing for clients, and to continue to grow the business going forward.”
One small step for a man--one giant leap for life, marriage and religious liberty!
Today on Public Discourse, Jennifer Roback Morse explains how getting the state out of the marriage business will result in a larger, more-intrusive government. This is the second in a three-part series from Morse on privatizing marriage:
Libertarians are being taken in by rhetoric that sounds libertarian but, in fact, will lead to a dramatic shift in the balance of power between the state and civil society, indeed between the state and the natural order itself.
In my previous article, I showed why it is impossible to get the state out of the marriage business. Marriage attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. This is an irreducibly public function. Yet attempting to do the impossible is not harmless. Assigning the state an impossible task amounts to giving it a blank check.
That is because the attempt to privatize marriage will hinder the ability of marriage to perform its essential public function. Nonetheless, children still need to be attached to mothers and fathers somehow. The state will pretend to get out of the marriage business all right, but then the state inevitably will be caught up in the business of defining who counts as a parent. Up until now, that job has been largely left to Mother Nature, with the state simply recording the natural reality of parenthood.
You can see this process at work by looking at disputes between same-sex partners over child custody. These kinds of disputes are already redefining parenthood. Some of the cases involve various kinds of civil unions. Some of these cases involve agreements between the would-be parents. The difficulties these cases present illustrate how problematic it really is to attempt to “privatize marriage.”
Over the past few years, Republicans have led the charge in passing marriage laws or constitutional amendments in various states and are batting 31 for 31 in their efforts. Now some are wondering if the GOP is backing away from fighting for traditional marriage.
"Are we backing down from advocating for marriage between a man and a woman? Absolutely not," said Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance. "Look, we've had to work smarter on fighting those who want to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman. Fortunately, we're still winning the battle."
A recent article in Politico quoted several unnamed congressional staffers who maintained that House leaders had quietly killed several amendments that were opposed to gay marriage so that more controversial social issues would not distract from the leadership's economic agenda.
"People need to understand that to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage was between one man and one woman takes a large majority in both chambers and a president willing to sign it," Nance added. "Hopefully we have it after November but we don't right now."
Nance said that the focus of proponents of traditional marriage is to win battles at the state and local levels such as the upcoming votes in North Carolina and Minnesota. -- The Christian Post
"...Gay activists have conducted their focus groups and message-testing and realized there is one message that works better than all others. In fact, the gay magazine OUT explained in the mid-1990s that the phrases "marriage equality" and "freedom to marry" were "actually something that activists began using on the advices of a Los Angeles PR firm, based on how well they believed it would play in the heterosexual mainstream."
The genius is that while the average American might not personally like the idea of same-sex "marriage," they are hard-pressed to offer meaningful reasons for why it shouldn't be adopted in society. Compound this with the very deliberate and widespread accusation that opposition to same-sex "marriage" and parenting is tantamount to hate-filled bigotry at its worst and back-woods ignorance at its best. With that gambit, this movement has really accomplished something. Show of hands: Who wants to be seen as hateful or ignorant?
But here is the truth. Same-sex "marriage" advocates have largely gained their ground through deception, emotional manipulation and diverting the public's attention away from the thousands of scientific studies that tell us healthy child-development requires the two different models of human parents: mothers and fathers. They have manipulated us by high-jacking civil rights language for their own narrow purposes. And as a result, millions of boys and girls will be subjected to intentionally motherless and fatherless families for no other reason than to fulfill the desires of adults who want such radical homes." -- The Baptist Press
Byron Babione is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund:
Today on 
