Utah Christian company refuses to print LGBT Pride shirts for atheist group

[DonViejo]

By David Edwards
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:41 EDT

A group of atheists in Utah is considering taking legal action after the owners of a Christian printing company refused to print T-shirts for an LGBT Pride Parade, saying that the anti-God message “demeaned” their beliefs.

Atheists of Utah said that it was unaware that TIKI Printing had objections to doing business with non-Christian groups when it contacted the company to create pink T-shirts with the message “Gotta Be Real Cuz God Ain’t!”

“I found it quite shocking that an organization that stated that they were Christian would not do business with someone because they were not Christian,” Atheists of Utah member Connie Anast told KUTV.

TIKI Printing owner Sam Saltzman explained that the T-shirts were a personal attack on his faith.

“We weren’t going to be the delivery method for that message that demeaned our beliefs,” he insisted.

Saltzman, however, said that the company would print the back of the T-shirts with only the website address of atheistsofutah.org.

“When you cross the line and become personal and really demean my beliefs and my morals… is when I draw the line,” he added.

In a post on Facebook, Atheists of Utah said that the group “wouldn’t have contacted them if we had known ahead of time that they would refuse our business.”

“And just as they have every right to hold those beliefs, we have every right to let everybody know about them who may not want to spend money with a company who would discriminate against someone else for their views on religion.”

###

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/07/utah-christian-company-refuses-to-print-lgbt-pride-shirts-for-atheist-group/

Full article posted with permission

[Nye Bevan]

1. A dumb business decision IMO, but what are the grounds for a lawsuit?

Surely anyone can pick who they do business with. Should a liberal printer be sued for turning down an order to print "I heart GW Bush" T-shirts?

[backscatter712]

2. When you open your doors to the public, you can't discriminate.

It's in the Civil Rights Act - you can't discriminate based on religion, among other things.

You can't turn away black people, in at least some states, you can't turn away the GLBT community. And religion (or lack thereof in this case) is also a protected category under civil rights law.

[Nye Bevan]

3. I knew that applied to restaurants, stores etc.

Didn't realize it would apply in a case like this.

[hrmjustin]

4. That's what I thought. When I read this in the religion group my reaction was...

...there are laws against stuff like this.

[Shivering Jemmy]

6. that is for public accomodations.

I'm not sure that this qualifies under that exemption. I don't believe you can force a business to print a message the owner doesn't agree with...

[backscatter712]

7. All businesses that sell goods & services to the public are covered.

He was offering T-shirt printing services to the public, so he can't say "I won't make T-shirts for atheists!"

I vote for suing him.

[former9thward]

11. Vote all you want.

No legal basis for a suit. A company can't be compelled to take your business.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I'm not sure that technically applies in this case.

They could probably make an argument about refusing the business itself, but not the content of the message. Two different things.

[FBaggins]

8. That wouldn't apply here.

Rejecting offensive content isn't discrimination on the basis of race/color/religion/etc. Whether or not we agree that it's offensive doesn't much matter.

You can't turn away black people, in at least some states, you can't turn away the GLBT community. And religion (or lack thereof in this case) is also a protected category under civil rights law.

And they would have much larger problems if they "turned away" the customer, rather than rejecting a specific order that offended them. It's the difference between a bakery saying "we won't produce a phallic cake for you sex party" and "we won't sell any cake to people like you"

[dballance]

19. The Constitution Applies to Government, NOT Private Businesses. They Can Discriminate Legally.

There is this huge misconception in the US that the Constitution, including all the amendments 1-27, applies to everything. Well, it doesn't. The Constitution applies to government. Not private business or private persons.

That's why a employer, school, church, restaurant, and other private places can ban people from carrying weapons on their premises. That's why privately run web sites like DU can ban people for their "speech" on the website. That's why your employer is free to search you desk or your locker, that they provide at your place of employment, without a warrant. That's why the SCOTUS ruled that the Boy Scouts could exclude homosexuals.

So, in the absence of any laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation the company can refuse to do business with whomever they wish. There are many such laws on the books in towns, cities and other localities that are not federal laws.

The 14th amendment has been ruled by the SCOTUS to apply to minorities and equal accommodations. That same protection has not been extended to LBGT people through court decisions yet.

[codemoguy]

5. Would there be support here for a group of Christians

that went to a Muslim owned company and asked them to print T-shirts saying 'Allah is a fraud!!' ? It seems unlikely...

[MattBaggins]

9. Perhaps you should read the following wiki entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[codemoguy]

10. seems like an equivilant set of facts to me...n/t

[MattBaggins]

12. A hypothetical situation never meets the test for being called facts

misleads or detracts.

[tritsofme]

16. Oh please. You must have an incredibly weak argument

if you outright dismiss comparable scenarios like this.

[MattBaggins]

17. We could stay on topic?

[tritsofme]

18. I find it is very much on topic

To point out the hypocrisy in different reactions to comparable situations like this.

I see zero practical difference between the two situations, neither would be illegal.

[dembotoz]

14. i do not do business with various right wing companies and they shoud be able to avoid doing buisnes

with me

[LadyHawkAZ]

15. AofU isn't suing them

Last edited Tue May 7, 2013, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Dan said he even told the reporter last night that he wasn't planning any legal action, and the reporter ran with the lawsuit idea anyway:

I told Chris that I hadn't ruled it out, but that I also had no current plans for a suit. He mentioned the case(s) against the florists who refused to deliver flowers for Jessica Ahlquist, and said that they were being sued under state laws. He asked if Utah had any similar laws, and I replied that I don't know. I told him that the only thing I could think of that even comes close is Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that TIKI specifically said they disagreed with the message on the shirts, not necessarily the fact that we are atheist, and so they probably were _not_ violating the law.

Basically, Chris Jones kept trying to make the story more sensational and sounded like he desperately wanted me to say we're going to sue the pants (or, in this case, shirts) off of TIKI Printing, and then twisted things to suit the narrative he was promoting.

I know, it's difficult to think that a member of the news media would do such a thing, right? Ha!

TIKI has the entire email exchange up on their Facebook page. Initially they did just refuse the entire order on religious grounds; it wasn't until Dan brought up possible legal violations that they were suddenly OK with printing the web address but not the graphic.