The anti-constitutionalist “bake that cake!” “print that t-shirt!” plaintiffs got sloppy. They failed to round up some people who would be instructed to claim as plaintiffs that they were terribly, terribly harmed by not having this one particular t-shirt printer make their gay pride shirts. If the lawsuit were filed with individual plaintiffs, it might have succeeded. The good guys won on procedure, not substance.
The dissent, which says the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission was acting anti-constitutionally, is more interesting:
The record discloses three essential facts, which are conceded by the Commission: First, Hands On
has an established practice of declining orders because of what Hands On
perceives to be their morally-objectionable messages, no matter who requested
them. In the two years preceding the hearing in this case, Hands On declined
thirteen orders on the basis that it believed the designs to be offensive or
inappropriate, including refusal to print shirts promoting adult entertainment
establishments, pens promoting a sexually explicit video, and shirts containing
a violence-related message. Second, Hands On accepted and completed an
order from a lesbian singer who performed at the 2012 Pride Festival. Third, at
no time did Hands On inquire or know the sexual orientation or gender identity
of the persons with whom it dealt on behalf of GLSO. These facts indicate that
Hands On was in good faith objecting to the message it was being asked to
disseminate. In case any doubt exists as to whether this case is about
compelled expression, the Commission argued before this Court: “Hands On
Originals’ practice is censorship. They want you and this Court to affirm the
fact that they can pick and choose who they want to serve based on the
message.” (emphasis added)
The Commission argues that the message expressed is in no way
connected, nor can it be connected to Hands On. I disagree.
If the 14 members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission are so bored, and have so few substantive disputes to adjudicate, that they’re going after a t-shirt printer, why does this taxpayer-funded Commission still need to exist?
The anti-constitutionalist “bake that cake!” “print that t-shirt!” plaintiffs got sloppy. They failed to round up some people who would be instructed to claim as plaintiffs that they were terribly, terribly harmed by not having this one particular t-shirt printer make their gay pride shirts. If the lawsuit were filed with individual plaintiffs, it might have succeeded. The good guys won on procedure, not substance.
The dissent, which says the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission was acting anti-constitutionally, is more interesting:
If the 14 members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission are so bored, and have so few substantive disputes to adjudicate, that they’re going after a t-shirt printer, why does this taxpayer-funded Commission still need to exist?