Thursday, March 12, 2015

ADF's perverse plan

ADF keeps losing discrimination cases but they have a different agenda. Alliance Defending Freedom represents Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands On Originals, the Kentucky print shop that refused to print “Pride” T-shirts in 2012. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission ruled that the shop unlawfully discriminated based on sexual orientation which is prohibited. The ruling means that Hands On may not discriminate in the future and that its employees will have to undergo diversity training.

ADF refers to the diversity training as “reeducation.” Get it? ADF will likely appeal. However, winning an appeal may not be the real objective.

The whole point of this exercise is to facilitate license-to-discriminate legislation by building its list of self-manufactured victims while attempting to change the public's perception of what constitutes discrimination. For example, they cite four things that they claim are common to all of these cases:
  1. Business owner happily serves and/or employs people who identify as homosexual
  2. Business owner declines a request that would force him or her  to promote or convey messages about sexuality or marriage that conflict with his or her religious convictions
  3. Someone sues the business owner, either the customer or the government, for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
  4. Customer has no problem obtaining the requested goods or services from a different business, oftentimes free of charge
That the business employs or selectively serves (some) gay people is irrelevant. The business owner isn't being asked to “promote” anything. Printing T-shirts, baking a damned cake or arranging flowers is a business transaction. It is the customer, not the vendor, who is responsible for the use of the product. These folks want to be martyrs. Being able to obtain the goods or services elsewhere is also irrelevant. No minority should have to shop around to see who is willing to take their business.

If ADF can convince the general public that all of this is quite reasonable then they will have accomplished their objective. What happens to Mr. Adamson or Ms. Stutzman or any of their similar clients might be secondary.

What is really common to all of these cases is that they have unlawfully discriminated against LGBT citizens and they are represented by ADF. If the business owner prevails then ADF is triumphant. If the business owner loses then ADF adds another faux victim to their list. It's a no-lose proposition for ADF. The real victims are not these business owners. The real victims are the LGBT citizens and taxpayers who are told to take their business elsewhere.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.