From Kentucky.com.
Excerpt:
Hands On Originals discriminated against the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington when it refused to print the group’s Lexington Pride Festival T-shirts in 2012, according to a hearing officer in the case.
Greg Munson issued his decision Monday. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission released it Tuesday morning.
“The evidence of record shows that the respondent discriminated against GLSO because of its members’ actual or imputed sexual orientation by refusing to print and sell to them the official shirts for the 2012 Lexington Pride Festival.”
Munson wrote that the application of the Fairness Ordinance did not violate the T-shirt vendor’s right to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The Human Rights Commission found in 2012 that Hands On Originals violated the city’s fairness ordinance, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.
“No one should be forced by the government — or by another citizen — to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who argued before the hearing examiner on behalf of Hands On Originals on June 19.
“Blaine (Adamson, of Hands On Originals) declined the request to print the shirts not because of any characteristic of the people who asked for them, but because of the message that the shirts would communicate.”
In the statement, Hands On Originals’ co-counsel Bryan Beauman, with the Lexington firm of Sturgill, Turner, Barker and Moloney, said, “No one wants to live in that kind of America — a place where people who identify as homosexual are forced to promote the Westboro Baptists and where printers with sincere religious convictions are forced to promote the message of the GLSO. … In America, we don’t force people to express messages that are contrary to their convictions.”
In cases like this, the Human Rights Commissions will try to drag the trial out for as long as possible, in order to send an intimidating messages to minorities they want to discriminate against and coerce. This case went on for two years, and probably cost a lot of money to defend. In Canada, Ezra Levant’s case went 2 years and also cost $100,000. The goal here is to use the legal system as a form of terrorist action, to intimidate anyone who disagrees with the secular left. And it works.
If you are looking for something to do with your life, becoming an ADF attorney or supporter is probably a very good option.
Do you think that intimidation like this is uncommon? Well, I’ve blogged about things like before – e.g. – getting Frank Turek fired, forcing out Brendan Eich at Mozilla, expelling students from university, discriminating against foster parents,violence at student demonstrations, coercing Christian businesses, leaking the names of pro-marriage donors,closing down adoption agencies, threatening teachers with termination, terminating police chaplains, vandalizing businesses, vandalizing churches, or actually being convicted of committing domestic terrorism by attacking the Family Research Council building with guns. So sometimes it’s coercion, and sometimes it’s vandalism and sometimes it’s domestic terrorism. It depends on how extreme the gay activist is in his views.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Yep. Add trying to subvert my local presbyterian church assembly to the list, taking what was meant to be a time of worship and leaving people bleeding and hurt.
LikeLike
“No one should be forced by the government — or by another citizen — to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jim Campbell –
I Totally Agree. “The Left” does not require “left wing” T-Shirt companies to print shirts promoting Guns (i.e. Their ‘religious beliefs’ are protected). Unfortunately, this is what the United States is coming to – you must endorse what ‘the state’ endorses, and you’ll like it.
Soon, CHURCHES will be sued for preventing ‘gay’ couples from getting married in their establishment, and pastors will be sued for preaching against homosexuality.
If you doubt my statements – then think 5 years ago – did you ever imagine what we’re seeing now?
LikeLike
Sooner or later, even a liberal has to look at this and go: “Creeeepy!” Then again.
LikeLike
See you would think they would. You would think that atheists would see the danger of forcing people to violate their consciences. But I see no evidence that they can act any better than their worldview allows, which denies objective moral values and duties, and human rights.
LikeLike
Very good point. I was not giving liberals and other a-theists due credit for philosophical consistency.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Highland Church of Christ Texarkana and commented:
So we don’t have the right to refuse service?
LikeLike