web analytics

Don’t Miss an Update! -Subscribe:

Follow AforFaith on Twitter

Categories

vineyard-roll.gif

Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Malware Free Guarantee

SiteLock

Join Our Facebook Network

Visitor Map

Locations of visitors to this page

-Kentucky: Court Rules in Favor of Christian T-Shirt Printer

by Dr. D ~ April 30th, 2015

Hands-On-Originals-Web-146x180

Finally a victory for a Christian owned business. A county commission had originally ruled against the business for refusing to print a message on a t-shirt that was contrary to the business owner’s closely held Christian beliefs. Here’s the story from Citizen Link:

A Kentucky court says a t-shirt seller does not have to print messages that conflict with his religious beliefs.

Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands On Originals, declined to take a job printing shirts for the Lexington Gay Pride Festival. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission determined last year that Adamson must print the shirts, even if the message violates his deeply held beliefs.

But this week a circuit court judge overturned that.

<Read the whole article>

Response: Good news for a change. This should not be news but lately so many state and federal court decisions have gone against Christian businesses that it is. Which is why so many believe that state ‘religious freedom restoration acts (RFRA)’ are now necessary to protect religious liberty in America.

So many activist judges are ruling lately against religious liberties and the freedom of religion. This is probably the case because so many law schools like the one President Obama graduated from (Harvard) are teaching and floating the idea and theory that the Constitutional right to freedom of religion needs to be limited to ‘freedom to worship’ within ones home or an official place of worship.

This theoretical idea was  clearly reflected in the decision by the New Mexico State Supreme Court in 2013 against two Christian photographers who did not want to participate in a same-sex ceremony. The ruling by the court made it plain that one could have closely held religious beliefs but could be compelled to act against them in the public square. Still probably the worst activist judicial decision against religious liberty to date.            *Top

>>>Don't Miss an Update!**CLICK NOW**Get ANSWERS For The Faith by email<<<

Leave a Reply