Blaine
Adamson, a t-shirt maker from Kentucky, has spent the last five years battling
a court case that threatens his religious freedom. Blaine and his company,
“Hands on Originals”, was sued in 2012 after refusing to print t-shirts that
promoted the gay pride festival happening in Lexington, Kentucky at that time.
Adamson makes it extremely clear: by refusing to print t-shirts for the
festival he is not discriminating against homosexuals, but is simply exercising
his religious freedoms. He claims that he should not have to print messages
that he does not fundamentally support. Adamson is a devout Christian; he wants
his work to reflect the moral framework that his religion provides.
Adamson’s reasoning focuses on the messages he is promoting through these t-shirts, not whom he serves or with whom he works. Adamson supports this claim by referencing his past experiences with homosexuals. He argues that he is not homophobic because he has both served and employed homosexuals. Adamson states, “We’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages (The Daily Signal).”
This incident is not the first time Adamson has refused to print messages he does not support. In the past, he has also refused to print messages that are anti-religious and anti-homosexuality, in addition to those that promote homosexuality. For example, he refused to print a shirt in the past that had “Homosexuality is a sin” written on it, as his fundamental beliefs also do not promote slogans that demote other groups. Furthermore, he has, however, created custom shirts for homosexual people so long as he agreed with the message he was printing. For example, he printed t-shirts for a band in which the lead singer was a lesbian because the message of the band was not controversial with his religious beliefs. Finally, customers have asked him to print designs that portray Jesus in a negative manner, in which he also declined to create those as well. To this point, Adamson is respectfully showing that he will not print anything that does not align with his religious and personal moral framework, not just specifically pride gear. Additionally, Adamson once again clarifies that it is not about those he works with, but rather the messages they want printed.
Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO), the group that is suing Adamson, believes that his actions are discriminatory. The Humans Right Commision sided with GLSO, and required Blaine Adamson to print the shirts despite his religious beliefs. They found Adamson guilty of discriminating illegally (Alliance Defending Freedom). A different judge then supported Adamson’s case, however, and agreed, in May of 2017, that he has the freedom to print what aligns with his religious beliefs and personal morals, as is outlined in the constitution. That wasn’t all, though, as in September of 2017, it was reported that the government has appealed this case for the second time, and it is now being taken to the Kentucky Supreme Court on a date to be determined.
Recent laws have been placed in Kentucky regarding LGBTQ discriminatory acts. LGBTQ groups are concerned, as “Governor Matt Bevin [signed] SB 17 into law, a measure that allows student groups at colleges, universities, and high schools to discriminate against LGBTQ students (Human Rights Campaign).” The Humans Rights Campaign continues to support their claim that this law is unjust by saying, “While of course private groups should have the freedom to express religious viewpoints, they should not be able to unfairly discriminate with taxpayer funds.” These new laws protect Mr. Adamson, as he refused to make the pride t-shirts due to his religious morals.
This case can be closely compared to the Jack Phillips case, in which a baker refused to create a cake for a homosexual marriage, as those practices also did not align with his religious beliefs, and was also sued based of off discriminatory practices. The main argument surrounding Mr. Phillip’s case also applies to Mr. Blaine Adamson’s case. Some have said that Mr. Phillip’s cakes are artistic masterpieces that are extremely personal expressions of his, just like Mr. Adamson’s t-shirts. This case would be different if Mr. Phillips had denied a homosexual customer a pre-made baked good or cake, as that would be a case of clear discrimination. However, since they were asking him to exercise his artistic abilities to create a cake that does not align with his morals, this is a question of religious freedom and personal expression. The same principles surrounding this case, which will be tried soon, are found in the t-shirt case with Mr. Adamson.
I support Adamson, and believe that the first amendment supports him too. As “Hands on Originals” is a private company, they have the right to only promote and sell objects that align with their private beliefs. Particularly due to the fact that Adamson has a track record of supporting and serving homosexuals. Alliance Defending Freedom makes the point, would anyone force a homosexual couple to promote anti-gay slogans through their work?
Adamson makes his resting claim, saying: “All we are asking for is that the government not force us to promote messages against our convictions. Everyone should have that freedom. (The Daily Signal).”
Other Sources not already cited:
10 comments:
I agree with Ciara's, as she sides with Mr. Adamson. I also agree that there are many similarities with the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, which is in front of the Supreme Court as we type. I would venture to say that the same Hobby Lobby precent could be applied to this case, as the government cannot force this business to do something against their religious values. This closely held T-shirt company has a track record, as Ciara described in depth, of declining all sorts of shirt requests, not just those that are homosexual-positive. It appears that the intent of the shop owner is not to discriminate, but to use his right to free exercise that protects him from being forced to do something against his religious beliefs in a plethora of scenarios. In addition, the burden on the festival is not great, as I am sure there are many other t-shirt companies that would gladly fill their order within a close vicinity. I believe that the courts should and will continue to decide with Mr. Adamson.
I think the fact that the t-shirt maker does not aim to discriminate based on sexuality rather his focus on the message of design he is creating is clear in this case. His track record makes a good argument that his issue is not with the people but his religious freedoms and his right to support the messages that he believes in. I think that this case is slightly different from the Masterpiece Cake shop because of the t-shirt makers history and the use of the "art" form. A wedding cake is used in an often religious ceremony compared to a custom t-shirt which can have a wide range of uses and reasons.
This case does seem to share with Masterpiece Cakeshop that the person denying making the shirts is believing in the artistic license but the similarities seem to stop there. I agree with Ciara and Mr. Adamson in his right to refuse many different positive and negative messages about religion because he simply doesn't deny making shirts for homosexuals and he refused religious messages that wanted to say "Homosexuality is a Sin." This case is rather complex and Adamson doesn't specifically target one group with who he refuses to make shirts for, as anyone should have artistic license to deny service as long as it doesn't specifically target one group.
What really stood out to me was the authenticity of Mr. Adamson. At first, I assumed he didn't want to print the T-Shirt simply because he was discriminating against gays and used religion as his basis. However, the fact that he has refused to print other slogans in the past, whether they were targeted towards homosexuals or not, provided a solid foundation his the current argument. His reasoning applies to not only homosexuals, but to Anti-Christs', anti-homosexuals, and so on. Therefore, I believe that the intention of Adamson was not to be discriminatory; rather, to uphold his religious beliefs and morals. To force or require Adamson and his own private practice to make a shirt against his will would undoubtedly be a violation of the first amendment and his right to exercise.
With Adamson having a record of not creating any t-shirts that demote one's religion or values, and not being discriminatory to anyone's beliefs, in his line of work. He should have the right to not put anything promoting homosexuality on a t-shirt, or one that is anti-homosexuality. It is his privately-run business and, as long as, he is consistent and not promoting discriminatory actions; I believe, he has the right to put whatever he judges acceptable to put on t-shirts, not all people would be willing to lose business to stand behind a value. The fact he has worked with and hired homosexuals and refused to create any anti-homosexual t-shirts is enough evidence to show, his intent is not discriminatory. I do not know if I would even consider this entirely based on religion because he is not targeting anyone based on their religious beliefs, more so, standing behind one's values.
Since Mr. Adamson has refused to print other slogans in the past I think that this refusal is not out of line. He even refused to make t-shirts that said" Homosexuality is a sin" so I don't think its fair to say that he is just refusing because of discriminatory reasons. Just like in the cake case this s something that Mr. Adamson has to create, this is not a premade t-shirt that he is refusing to sell to a gay group. Just like everyone is saying, he isn't clearly targeting anyone, he is simply exercising his religion and to force him to make these shirts would be a substantial burden.
I agree with your statement that Mr. Adamson was within his rights to refuse to print a slogan that went against his personal religious beliefs. He is running his own private company and it would be wrong to force him to print a t-shirt if the t-shirt's message went against his own beliefs. If it were the case that he were refusing to sell t-shirts to homosexuals or refusing to employee homosexuals I would argue that this would be discriminatory, but because he is simply refusing to make a custom product, he is well within his rights. The First Amendment of the constitution states that, "Congress should make no law... prohibiting the Free Exercise [of religion]." I believe that charging Adamson with discrimination for enforcing his belief system in his personal company is unconstitutional.
It was very clear that Mr. Adamson made his decision not to print the messages on the t-shirt purely out of religious belief as opposed to any sort of prejudicial sentiments. With equal hiring practices and similar stances on other t-shirt messages, I believe that his beliefs are sincere. That being said, no matter how sincere his beliefs, I don't think the case brought against him ever implied that his actions weren't religious, but instead, that his religious beliefs shouldn't influence his business. In reference to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, I believe that a message on a t-shirt doesn't require the kind of personal and artistic expression that a wedding cake does, but it's hard to draw that line, and the case should definitely have some weight. I also saw similarities between this case and the Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell case. Although Hobby Lobby was more directed at employee healthcare rights, both also deal with the issue of religious free exercise in a private company.
I argue that Mr. Adamson was well within his right to create t-shirts with whatever insignias he wishes. Although they are to promote messages of rights and acceptance for members of the LGBTQ community, each shirt must be considered not only as a piece of individual property for Mr. Adamson to create, but they must also be recognized as his own individual art. Thus, any infringement upon Mr. Adamson’s right to create whatever t-shirts he wishes should be seen as unconstitutional.
I agree with Adamson, as I believe he is not behaving in a discriminatory manner and is just practicing his rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. I do not agree, however, that Adamson's case and Jack Phillip’s case are that similar. Even though it can be argued that both the making of a t-shirt and decorating of a cake are forms of artistic expression, I think that decorating a wedding cake with a couple of white flowers is different than putting a potentially persuasive message on a t-shirt. Decorating a wedding cake is very different unless it has some sort of persuasive message. Making and decorating a wedding cake is not contrary to anyone's religious freedom. There is no fear of a message that is in opposition to one’s religious beliefs. The Adamson case on the other hand involves the printing of a message. Adamson will sell shirts to anyone, regardless of their beliefs but he will not print images or messages that are contrary to his. He admits he will work with everyone. Adamson has every right to choose what he wants to print since he is not comfortable putting his name behind a message that he feels is not in alignment with his religious beliefs. Adamson is exercising his right of religious freedom.
Post a Comment