A Kentucky appeals court ruled on Friday that a Christian T-shirt maker did not discriminate in his refusal to print shirts promoting a gay pride event.
In the court ruling, Chief Judge Joy Kramer stated that there was no evidence to prove that Blaine Adamson of Hands On Originals, a shirt-printing company, “refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Kramer said that instead, Adamson was found to have objected to spreading the message of the group, rather than rejecting them based on their sexual orientation.
“Nothing in the fairness ordinance …show more content…
In 2012, Adamson declined to print shirts for a gay pride festival hosted by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization. The organization then filed a complaint against him, and two years thereafter, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission ruled that the law requires Adamson to print shirts even if the messages printed on it violate his religious conscience.
Adamson, with Alliance Defending Freedom, filed an appeal with the Fayette Circuit Court, which sided with Adamson. Then the commission appealed to the Kentucky Appeals Court, which affirmed the circuit court ruling.
“People often ask me why I made that decision,” Adamson told Fox News. “Here is what I tell them: I will work with any person, no matter who they are, no matter what their belief systems are. But when they present a message that conflicts with my religious beliefs, that’s not something that I can print. That’s the line for me.”
Adamson had previously declined to print shirts for other customers based on their messages, such as those that were sexually explicit or
In the court ruling, Chief Judge Joy Kramer stated that there was no evidence to prove that Blaine Adamson of Hands On Originals, a shirt-printing company, “refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Kramer said that instead, Adamson was found to have objected to spreading the message of the group, rather than rejecting them based on their sexual orientation.
“Nothing in the fairness ordinance …show more content…
In 2012, Adamson declined to print shirts for a gay pride festival hosted by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization. The organization then filed a complaint against him, and two years thereafter, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission ruled that the law requires Adamson to print shirts even if the messages printed on it violate his religious conscience.
Adamson, with Alliance Defending Freedom, filed an appeal with the Fayette Circuit Court, which sided with Adamson. Then the commission appealed to the Kentucky Appeals Court, which affirmed the circuit court ruling.
“People often ask me why I made that decision,” Adamson told Fox News. “Here is what I tell them: I will work with any person, no matter who they are, no matter what their belief systems are. But when they present a message that conflicts with my religious beliefs, that’s not something that I can print. That’s the line for me.”
Adamson had previously declined to print shirts for other customers based on their messages, such as those that were sexually explicit or