Trending Topics:

Las Vegas print shop refuses to print JVP banner over Israel politics

US Politics
on 103 Comments

As a gay man I was disappointed but not surprised when a bakery in Colorado refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but I never expected to have a similar experience in Las Vegas. Valley Press, a local printer, refused to print a banner for our Las Vegas chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace because the CEO disagrees with our positions. What makes this even worse is that Valley Press brags on its Facebook page about printing for the local Human Rights Campaign and the AIDS Walk.

Valley Press was recommended as a union shop that did excellent work for progressive causes at fair prices, so I asked them to print our banner.  Initially everything was smooth. I talked to Sheila Hacco, the CEO who answered my questions, gave me a quote and agreed to lay out the banner and email me a proof.  Seeing the many positive online ratings and the work for HRC and the AIDS Walk left me confident that this was a company I wanted to do business with.

Sheila promised a proof in a few days but when it did not arrive I emailed asking when I could expect it and I got the following response:

Hi Seth,

I am sorry but I will have to decline making this banner for you. I had to check your website before moving forward.  How sad that this is a one sided voice and some very false. I was born in Israel and was thought hope and peace, would love to see peace in my life time, would never want to see anyone die or suffer but with the type of information I just read and saw from jvp.org, all it does is spread lies, create hate and leaves no solutions.

It seems that your organization is really not explaining so much.. I would have loved to do a banner for peace, but this is not one of them.

If you believe in peace, you should learn more and give both sides a true chance.

Peace,

Sheila

Needless to say, I was amazed.  The Colorado courts agreed with the ACLU in ruling that a reasonable person would assume that the cake expressed the message of the couple, not the baker. Is a banner any different?  Sheila has every right to personally disagree with JVP’s position on Israel and Palestine but no right to use her printing company to censor our speech. Valley Press’s name is not on the banner.

We have filed a complaint with the ACLU and will pursue other legal remedies, but I hope that protesting this censorship will remind other businesses that everyone’s first amendment right to free speech must be respected.

Seth Morrison
About Seth Morrison

Seth Morrison is the Coordinator of the Las Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace and a member of the national JVP Board of Directors.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

103 Responses

  1. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    April 27, 2018, 4:08 pm

    I’m willing to bet that Sheila is hiding something!

    Analysis: Adelson Has Hijacked the Israeli-American Community for His Hard-right Agenda
    ▪ New political pressure group will outflank AIPAC and fragment the Jewish establishment
    By Chemi Shalev | Haaretz.com | Nov 07, 2017
    LINK – https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/adelson-hijacks-israeli-american-community-for-his-agenda-1.5722229

  2. Citizen
    Citizen
    April 27, 2018, 4:45 pm

    Should a zionist printer be forced to print a JVP banner? How about an evangelical baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple? How about a Jewish baker being forced to bake a swastika flag for a Nazi customer? Or turn the example around–should a Nazi baker be allowed to refuse to serve Jewish customers?

    When will SCOTUS rule on Masterpiece Cake?

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      April 27, 2018, 6:46 pm

      A SCOTUS ruling is not a remedy for the terminal stupidity of entrusting a DBS banner to a Zionist entity citizen without even checking her record (nder the ridiculous pretext that she’s “progressive” –like Ben Gurion), then “progressively” denying her the right to choose her own customers.

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 3:41 pm

        given the political climate, i don’t think patronizing a zionist shop to make the bds banner is “terminal stupidity”. scotus is closely divided over this issue and they have not decided yet, the ruling is supposed to be made this year. the colorado court determined the bakery ran afoul of the states “public accommodations discriminations” ruling. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/public-accommodations-discrimination

        Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

        Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation

        perhaps this is the ideal time to file a claim w/ACLU for many reasons.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 28, 2018, 5:22 pm

        Annie,

        So where in “Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation” do you see political opinion?

        What must be protected is not the obligation to help your own enemy. What any democracy is supposed to protect is the citizen’s right to speech and political action, i.e. the right to refuse service and act against your political opponent. That printer is a Zionist hole, possibly a Zionist criminal, but if I agreed with the JVP nonsense of trying to force a private business to provide service against itself I would agree to forsaking my own right to political action.

        Besides, it might be a good idea for the censoring, witch-hunting enemies of free speech called JVP to avoid calling attention to their hypocrisy.

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 6:19 pm

        echi, i can’t help but think perhaps your personal distain for jvp is impacting your judgement as it pertains to the principle we’re discussing.

        So where in “Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation” do you see political opinion?

        i see the message of the banner: “Palestinian Human Rights” as part of “Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation”. the shopowner had no problem w/the message until she knew who wanted to say it. i’m not sure if her political opinion about jvp is enough to override that message in the state of nevada if they have a law similar to colorado’s.

  3. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    April 27, 2018, 4:48 pm

    I cannot imagine that a printer can be forced to print something against their wishes. If someone is more aware of the law than I am, enlighten me. (a cake maker is not in the message business, but in the food business. that’s why they can be coerced into providing a food service no matter their feelings on the reason why the people are gathering to eat food. but a print shop, can you force them to print what they find objectionable? can you force them to print: “down with straight people.” i don’t think so. you can’t force them to print against their will. that’s my thinking. i could be wrong.)

    • eljay
      eljay
      April 28, 2018, 8:23 am

      Yonah Fredman April 27, 2018, 4:48 pm
      I cannot imagine that a printer can be forced to print something against their wishes. If someone is more aware of the law than I am, enlighten me. (a cake maker is not in the message business, but in the food business. that’s why they can be coerced into providing a food service no matter their feelings on the reason why the people are gathering to eat food. but a print shop, can you force them to print what they find objectionable? can you force them to print: “down with straight people.” i don’t think so. you can’t force them to print against their will. that’s my thinking. i could be wrong.)

      Oh. My. Gawd.  Your comment was brief, intelligible and I agree with it.  8-o

      • eljay
        eljay
        April 28, 2018, 9:37 am

        I just noticed that I was so shocked by y.f.’s comment that I forgot to enclose it in (what I use for) brackets! Crazy…  ;-)

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 28, 2018, 10:09 am

        “Yonah…Oh. My. Gawd. Your comment was brief, intelligible and I agree with it”

        Scary, isn’t it? A Sign of the End?

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        April 28, 2018, 12:04 pm

        @eljay & yonah

        While I agree that the printer likely will not be required to provide service I think you’re wrong on both the cake and the reasons why.

        The cake is not mere food. We’ve all seen wedding cakes. Highly decorated, often containing words, images, etc. It is indeed a message as an image is worth a thousand words and the baker is helping the couple to make that message.

        The constitution provides a number of protected classes(?)/attributes which may not be discriminated against. Race, gender, yada, yada.

        The refusal of service does not, imo, target any of those protections. They aren’t being refused service due to the race, religion, gender, etc.
        They are being refused service due to what I would consider to be a form of political position or opinion. That to my knowledge is not a protected characteristic under the constitution.

        My only hedge is that I vaguely remember a discussion wrt to software years ago about a case of refusing to provide a service. The case was being made that if you run a business offering public service then you must indeed provide that service to the public without any discrimination. I don’t remember the outcome but that would sure change things.

    • Keith
      Keith
      April 28, 2018, 11:13 am

      YONAH FREDMAN- “I cannot imagine that a printer can be forced to print something against their wishes.”

      If the message was objectionable, perhaps not. However, who would claim to find “PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS” offensive and beyond the pale? Sheila Hacco originally was going to print the banner until she visited JVP’s website. Is her business open to the public or not? Unless the banner itself was offensive, she should not have the power to ARBITRARILY discriminate. Unfortunately, in our Zionist friendly society, she probably can refuse JVP but not transgendered folks. I mean, if it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel, then we all have an obligation to save the Zionists from the Palestinians.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        April 28, 2018, 1:59 pm

        @Keith

        Message was objectionable? Objectional by whose opinion?

      • Keith
        Keith
        April 28, 2018, 2:47 pm

        OLDGEEZER- “Message was objectionable? Objectional by whose opinion?”

        No, the message was not objectionable, hence, could not be used as a reason to refuse service. I thought I was clear, but perhaps not. In any event, I now wonder why JVP is even considering using this print shop. They should be picketing it instead. Echinococcus is right, getting Valley Press to print this seems a contradiction to what BDS is all about.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        April 29, 2018, 9:18 pm

        @Keith

        You missed my point. You said
        “If the message was objectionable, perhaps not. ”

        It’s obvious that you don’t find this message objectionable but I am asking you who gets to make the determination if it actually is and what is the basis for their determination.

        I think objectionable is far too weak a standard for anything.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      April 28, 2018, 12:42 pm

      Old Geezer,

      “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        April 28, 2018, 1:57 pm

        Nice sign ech. Doesn’t mean it is legal should you do so.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 28, 2018, 2:13 pm

        Sure it is legal. As long as you don’t do it explicitly and demonstrably on the basis of skin color, religion, national origin or disability status. Political opinion is NOT protected, at least in the US.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        April 28, 2018, 2:57 pm

        @ech

        “As long as you don’t do it explicitly and demonstrably on the basis of skin color, religion, national origin or disability status.”

        Doh….

    • Donald
      Donald
      April 30, 2018, 12:00 pm

      Yonah, that makes sense, but I don’t know what the law is on this.

  4. Keith
    Keith
    April 27, 2018, 4:53 pm

    SETH MORRISON- ” Sheila has every right to personally disagree with JVP’s position on Israel and Palestine but no right to use her printing company to censor our speech.”

    Do you really expect an Israeli born Zionist Jew to care about your right to free speech? Besides, with Zionist Jews using their power to pass laws defining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, in the near future you could be arrested for even having the banner. Or discussing it, etc. And things are likely to get worse. Sheila has a totalitarian mindset backed by power. Below is a quote and link regarding this latest Zionist lawfare offensive.

    “The South Carolina Senate has recently passed legislation that changes the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel, and then applies this new definition to college campuses in a manner that experts say will impede free academic inquiry. The U.S. gives Israel over $10 million per day, and Congress frequently approves increases to that amount; restricting discussion on this issue could serve to bolster and increase these expenditures.

    The legislation codifies a definition of anti-Semitism that significantly changes the meaning of the word, and it requires the state’s colleges to use this new definition when determining whether an action is “discriminatory” and therefore prohibited. This new definition declares statements that are critical of Israel—even when factual—“anti-Semitic” and therefore impermissible.” (Allison Weir) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49295.htm

    • Nathan
      Nathan
      April 28, 2018, 3:34 pm

      Keith – Perhaps you could provide a link to the actual wording of the South Carolina legislation. Allison Weir is an anti-Israel activist, so for the sake of reasonable objectivity in reporting, she might have taken the effort to quote the actual definition of anti-Semitism that she is criticizing. Actually, it is quite puzzling that she writes in her article about a change in the definition of anti-Semitism without telling us what is the original definition and how it has now been changed. Obviously, she has read the legislation, so why doesn’t a quote thereof appear in her article?

      Anyway, criticizing Israel is just fine, and I would imagine that the South Carolina legislature has no problem with criticism.

      The anti-Israel crowd likes to claim that it’s all about “criticism of Israel”, but it’s not. “Criticism” is a tool for bettering a situation. For example, you might tell someone that he really needs a shower – and that would be criticism. However, if you tell someone that he shouldn’t have been born and that you wish that he’d just drop dead – that would be hostility. Most of the “criticism” that one reads on this website is in reality an expression of hostility. Obviously, it’s one’s right to be hostile; however, it’s manipulative to present one’s hostility as mere criticism.

      I thought it was rather humorous to read in this article that the JVP (an organization that calls for boycotting Israel) became a victim of a kind of boycotting. In the past, I have read articles of JVP activists who cry to us that they won’t be allowed to visit Israel. One would think that the activists should be grateful that Israel aided them in keeping their policy of boycotting her. Anyway, when you wage a struggle, you have to take into account that sometimes you get the bear (but sometimes the bear gets you). In this case, the JVP has had a little setback in its struggle. They should be able to handle it.

      Finally, Keith, your claim of the “Zionist Jews using their power” is a kind of setback for the claim that anti-Zionism is not an expression of anti-Semitism. You should note that the central theme of classical anti-Semitism has always been the “power of the Jews”. Your belief that the “Zionist Jews” are threatening your way of life is the same anti-Semitic figment of the imagination that we’ve been hearing for centuries.

      • Keith
        Keith
        April 28, 2018, 6:15 pm

        NATHAN- “Keith – Perhaps you could provide a link to the actual wording of the South Carolina legislation.”

        Why don’t you?

        NATHAN- ” Actually, it is quite puzzling that she writes in her article about a change in the definition of anti-Semitism without telling us what is the original definition and how it has now been changed.”

        She indicates the change involves including criticism of Israel in the definition of anti-Semitism. This is consistent with the State Department definition, other state laws and some of the European laws. There has been a big push these last twenty or so years by the major Zionist organizations to criminalize criticism of Israel. Mondoweiss has covered this. Haven’t you been paying attention? Do you think that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism? Do you think that Zionist Jews should act as society’s censors?

        NATHAN- “However, if you tell someone that he shouldn’t have been born and that you wish that he’d just drop dead – that would be hostility.”

        I currently have 3956 comments in my commenter file going back 8 years. Perhaps you could provide a few of my comments which you feel indicate hatred and hostility. Any where I say I wish someone would just drop dead, or are you creating a straw man because you lack substantive arguments? Your whole comment is one big red herring.

        NATHAN- “Finally, Keith, your claim of the “Zionist Jews using their power” is a kind of setback for the claim that anti-Zionism is not an expression of anti-Semitism. You should note that the central theme of classical anti-Semitism has always been the “power of the Jews”.

        Your attempt to conflate me with anti-Semites indicates your lack of intellectual and moral integrity, and suggests that anti-Gentilism lies at the heart of Jewish Zionism. None of these laws we have discussed appeared right after World War II when Jews and Zionism were considerably less powerful. Starting after the six day war, Zionism went on an extremely successful power quest. Jewish Zionist power has increased steadily since then. The power of the Israel Lobby has grown considerably and speaks for itself. Are you suggesting that Jews are a weak and powerless minority? That my opinion that Zionist Jews exercise considerable power and influence is out of touch with reality, the product of Jew hatred? You have turned reality on it head. It is Zionist Jews with their reckless charges of anti-Semitism which indicate the classical anti-Gentilism of medieval Jewry.

        “Everywhere, classical Judaism developed hatred and contempt for agriculture as an occupation and for peasants as a class, even more than for other Gentiles- a hatred of which I know no parallel in other societies. This is immediately apparent to anyone who is familiar with the Yiddish or Hebrew literature of the 19th and 20th centuries.” (p52-53, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” Israel Shahak)

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 6:24 pm

        This is consistent with the State Department definition, other state laws and some of the European laws. There has been a big push these last twenty or so years by the major Zionist organizations to criminalize criticism of Israel. Mondoweiss has covered this. Haven’t you been paying attention?

        there’s no way nathan is not aware if this. there should be a separate term for hasbara/pilpul

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 6:53 pm

        nathan, when Israel’s deputy foreign minister, the Israeli consul general, and StandWithUs northwest director all conspire to waste the courts time pressing a slap law court case against a little co op in the state of washington, that is “Zionist Jews using their power” . http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/whos-who-behind-the-olympia-food-co-op-lawsuit-2/

        when state after state after state wastes legislators time and money on unconstitutional anti bds legislation (in california, sponsored by “Capitol Knesset” otherwise known as “California Legislative Jewish Caucus”) that is “Zionist Jews using their power”. http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/anti-bds-legislation-faces-crucial-hearing-tomorrow-in-california-judiciary-committee/

        one can understand why you would want that phrase eliminated/banned and characterized as anti semitic but none the less, it exists — just as placing snipers on the hillside murdering gazans while dictating “security” talking pts to msm which they faithfully report like lemming eliminationist stenographers exists (also an example of “Zionist Jews using their power”). the list goes on and on. no amount of “classical anti-Semitism has always been the “power of the Jews”” will change that.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        April 29, 2018, 7:58 am

        The Jewish Telegraphic Agency for April 13 has a report about S. Carolina indicating that anti-S, previously undefined legally, is now to cover holocaust denial and conspiracy theories about Jewish control, then ‘more controversially’ per JTA also to cover ‘double standards’ by demanding behaviour from Israel not demanded ‘of any other democratic state’.
        In a rational world I would not be too afraid of this definition. But in a less rational world I might find that since I have never demanded that the UK stop shooting people for trying to cross our border fences I can’t ‘criticise Israel’ for the horrors on the Gaza perimeter. Alison Weir’s remarks are quite sensible, I think, in the light of this language in SC.
        The same edition of JTA has an admiring report on JK Rowling’s ‘gentle’ – I found not too easy to follow – reproof of the anti-S of those who say that being Jewish is a matter of religion not race.

      • Emory Riddle
        Emory Riddle
        April 29, 2018, 8:25 am

        You need Alison Weir to tell you what anti-Semitism is?

        Zionists do not have power in America?

        They don’t use that power?

        Or is it you acknowledge they have power and do use it, but we cannot state this fact because this makes us guilty of “classical anti-Semitism (I thought you needed Alison Weir to define that for you)?

        What a ridiculous comment. Guess it ain’t easy defending the indefensible.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 29, 2018, 1:35 pm

        “classical anti-Semitism has always been the “power of the Jews””

        “Nathan”,
        you better go have a talk with “yonah fredman”.
        He just told us everything got better for the Jews when we ‘decided’ to have power.

        “To seek power thus is natural.
        In a world of nations, nationalism is the most obvious means to eliminate powerlessness. And this is the basis of zionism.”

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 30, 2018, 1:21 am

        “But in a less rational world I might find that since I have never demanded that the UK stop shooting people for trying to cross our border fences I can’t ‘criticise Israel’ for the horrors on the Gaza perimeter. ”

        Just to be safe, pre-empt. Demand that the UK stop shooting all the people climbing over the border fences along the North-West coast.

  5. echinococcus
    echinococcus
    April 27, 2018, 5:11 pm

    Well, JVP, that’s what happens when you don’t research in advance and avoid taking your business to Zionism supporters, tribal or not.

    That’s also what Boycott means: Do Not Give Any Business (or even the time of the day) to Any Supporters of Zionism. What’s so hard to understand here?

    • Keith
      Keith
      April 28, 2018, 1:32 pm

      ECHINOCOCCUS- “Well, JVP, that’s what happens when you don’t research in advance and avoid taking your business to Zionism supporters, tribal or not.”

      Good point. In a way, Sheila Hacco did Seth Morrison a favor. Instead of trying to force Valley Press to do business with them, perhaps an informational picket would be more appropriate. And you are right about the “progressive” crapolla. Meaning what? A tribal Democrat?

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 3:45 pm

        like if you’re black just avoid taking your business to starbucks. oh yeah, that makes perfect sense.

      • Keith
        Keith
        April 28, 2018, 5:32 pm

        ANNIE- “like if you’re black just avoid taking your business to starbucks. oh yeah, that makes perfect sense.”

        Let us begin with the obvious, the situations are not even remotely comparable. Does Starbucks support apartheid in South Africa? Did Starbucks refuse service to folks who opposed apartheid in South Africa? What does the “B” in BDS stand for? Are not supporters of BDS supposed to boycott businesses which support Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians? JVP can’t find any non-Zionist print shops in Las Vegas to print their banner? It has to be Valley Press? They have to give their business to Valley Press? Some boycott. Finally, if Starbucks doesn’t correct the situation and continues to exhibit racism against blacks, then, yes, blacks SHOULD boycott Starbucks. I am under the impression that the manager in question no longer works for the company and that the CEO of Starbucks either has or intends to personally apologize to the two black men. Does this sound like Sheila Hacco and Valley Press to you?

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 5:56 pm

        keith, see my recent comment @ April 28, 2018, 5:35 pm

      • Keith
        Keith
        April 28, 2018, 6:28 pm

        ANNIE- “keith, see my recent comment @ April 28, 2018, 5:35 pm”

        Yes, and I disagree. BDS is about boycotts, not lawsuits.

      • annie
        annie
        April 29, 2018, 8:35 am

        Finally, if Starbucks doesn’t correct the situation and continues to exhibit racism against blacks, then, yes, blacks SHOULD boycott Starbucks…… BDS is about boycotts, not lawsuits.

        keith, are you implying if starbucks continues to exhibit racism against blacks you don’t think this would very much be about a lawsuit? the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

      • Keith
        Keith
        April 29, 2018, 12:16 pm

        ANNIE- “the 2 are not mutually exclusive.”

        MLK didn’t get sidetracked with lawsuits. Sheila Hacco has provided JVP with a golden opportunity to get publicity and awareness which is what BDS is all about. They should be picketing Valley Press with signs which say “VALLEY PRESS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE” and “ISRAEL MURDERS PALESTINIAN CHILDREN.” Street heat and economic pressure NOW in support of the Gaza protests, not some invisible lawsuit which drags on forever and which garners Valley Press support from Zionist organizations. How much good have lawsuits done the Palestinians to date? This is about the Palestinians not JVP’s right to get stuff printed. And Gaza is where the emphasis should be.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 29, 2018, 12:54 pm

        Annie,

        if you’re black just avoid taking your business to starbucks. oh yeah, that makes perfect sense.

        Again and yet again: if you are against Zionism, boycott Starbucks NOW:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2018/04/refuses-banner-politics/#comment-914772

        Hey Mondoweiss,

        Once again, how about contributing to boycott at home?

        Starbucks, the committed Zionist b&^%$, have chosen the ADL to give lessons of “antiracist sensitivity”!

      • annie
        annie
        April 29, 2018, 3:14 pm

        hey echi, how about you contributing. write an article about it and send it in!

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 29, 2018, 1:03 pm

        Keith,

        What does the “B” in BDS stand for? Are not supporters of BDS supposed to boycott businesses which support Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians? JVP can’t find any non-Zionist print shops in Las Vegas to print their banner? It has to be Valley Press? They have to give their business to Valley Press? Some boycott.

        Yeah, but this is re what JVP is about: boycotting select targets while supporting liberal tribal business, no matter if Zionist-sympathizer or not.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 29, 2018, 2:19 pm

        “MLK didn’t get sidetracked with lawsuits.”

        I think that was more Thurgood Marshall’s province (before his elevation to the SC, spent a long time at civil-rights litigation) and the NAACP, ACLU and SPLC, etc.

      • annie
        annie
        April 29, 2018, 3:33 pm

        keith, speaking of getting sidetracked with lawsuits, this reminds me of the most fascinating keynote address by jules lobel, president of the center for constitutional rights, at a conference i attended on palestine. he spoke about how laws are changed by trials and lawsuits. often it is very gradually but many of our civil and voting legislation are hard won through trials and lawsuits most notably susan b anthony. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/trials/susanbanthony.pdf

        an organized strategy to win in the federal courts a recognition of what the women argued was their constitutional right to vote, guaranteed by the recently ratified Fourteenth Amendment.

        take for example the recent ACLU threat of a lawsuit challenging anti-BDS legislation in Kansas after requiring a public school teacher to pledge she wouldn’t boycott Israel violating her 1st amendment rights. i think kansas backed off.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 29, 2018, 2:28 pm

        ” They should be picketing Valley Press with signs which say”

        If you Google the street location, it doesn’t look like a propitious place to picket. A light-industrial strip off a lonely road.

      • Keith
        Keith
        April 29, 2018, 4:22 pm

        MOOSER- “…it doesn’t look like a propitious place to picket.”

        Unless they pick up and deliver to most of their customers, someone is going in and out the front door. Certainly more visible than the inside of a courtroom 6 months down the road. The time to protest Gaza is now. Even the Orthodox school children are protesting. But not JVP? https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=378981719174317&id=263127990759691

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 29, 2018, 7:48 pm

        Annie,

        I summarized the news and gave a link and issued two reminders. If that is not enough to boycott an already notorious Zionism supporter, no full-length article will do it either.

    • annie
      annie
      April 28, 2018, 5:49 pm

      That’s also what Boycott means: Do Not Give Any Business (or even the time of the day) to Any Supporters of Zionism. What’s so hard to understand here?

      there’s a big difference between choosing not to take your business to an establishment and not being allowed to take it there. that might be challenging for you to “understand here”. boycotting starbucks because of their racist practices is different than legislation that protects starbuck’s racism. or legislation that allows starbucks to dictate to the police who is or is not breaking the law.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 29, 2018, 1:08 pm

        there’s a big difference between choosing not to take your business to an establishment and not being allowed to take it there

        There’s some law that would get me a fine or jail time if I buy a coffee at Dunkin Donuts or if I visit my usual bespoke tailor?
        This is NEWS, Annie.
        Or did you mean something else?

      • annie
        annie
        April 29, 2018, 2:00 pm

        perhaps my meaning would have been clearer had a written “vs not being allowed to take it there” — not being allowed to buy a coffee at Dunkin Donuts or visit a bespoke tailor. jon posted this link down thread https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

        African-American travelers faced hardships such as white-owned businesses refusing to serve them or repair their vehicles, being refused accommodation or food by white-owned hotels, and threats of physical violence and forcible expulsion from whites-only “sundown towns”. Green founded and published the Green Book to avoid such problems, compiling resources “to give the Negro traveler information that will keep him from running into difficulties, embarrassments and to make his trip more enjoyable.”[2]

        ….Before the legislative accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement, black travelers in the United States faced major problems unknown to most whites. White supremacists had long sought to restrict black mobility, and were uniformly hostile to black strangers. As a result, simple auto journeys for black people were fraught with difficulty and potential danger. They were subjected to racial profiling by police departments (“driving while black” or “DWB”), sometimes seen as “uppity” or “too prosperous” just for the act of driving, which many whites regarded as a white prerogative.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 29, 2018, 7:59 pm

        Annie,

        Yes, your meaning is a little clearer. You mean not being served because of some group discrimination by the business owner.
        I used to support legislation against such discrimination (provided it was against discrimination based on some accident of birth, not some optional trait.) After almost 60 years, though, I start thinking that this kind of legislation has finished being useful and that it might be much better if any discrimination was allowed to private actors. Because such freedom will allow to
        1. avoid the general hypocrisy and reveal the cockroaches
        2. organize more effective action to boycott the racists –till ruin ensues
        3. void any pretexts that are now being used to ban boycotts

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        April 29, 2018, 9:14 pm

        @ech

        “, I start thinking that this kind of legislation has finished being useful and that it might be much better if any discrimination was allowed to private actors.”

        Worst idea I’ve heard in ages. How racists and bigots would take advantage of this is quite clear.

        You’d set everything back at least a half century and balkanize US society to an extent greater than it is now.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 30, 2018, 9:12 am

        Old Geezer,

        Yes, that’s under point 1.
        I guess 2 and 3 are not “quite clear” to you.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        April 30, 2018, 10:04 am

        @ech

        No it’s quite clear. It’s also clearly stupid.

      • annie
        annie
        April 30, 2018, 10:47 am

        oldgeezer, check his archives. we’ve got our very own agent provocateur.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 30, 2018, 11:53 am

        ” After almost 60 years, though, I start thinking that this kind of legislation has finished being useful”

        ROTFL! And “this kind of legislation” has never been useful to you, has it?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 30, 2018, 12:03 pm

        “Worst idea I’ve heard in ages. How racists and bigots would take advantage of this is quite clear.”

        No, no, it’s really quite clever. Once the racists and bigots have all the power, and everything running their way, the country will be ripe for revolution. Or maybe not.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 30, 2018, 3:55 pm

        The liberal crowd just doesn’t mind legislation that hampers political action and speech as long as the “other side” is impaired, uh?

        Yes, stopping the anti-discrimination laws will liberate bigots and racists. It will also liberate those who need effective action to fight them.

        What doesn’t seem clear to many here is that there is a wall between public and private. It’s not the private citizen’s job to accommodate his enemies. It’s not the government’s job to take sides.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 30, 2018, 5:52 pm

        “What doesn’t seem clear to many here is that there is a wall between public and private.”

        That’s funny, before the civil rights legislation and decisions segregation was the law in many states.
        Segregation was legal and integration was illegal.
        Nobody could ‘opt-out’ of it.

        In fact, many white people like bus drivers and hotel clerks (besides police and sheriffs) were legally empowered to enforce it in the South.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 1, 2018, 3:07 am

        “there is a wall between public and private”

        Perhaps there should be, but it is not very clear where to put it. The idea that matters which do not affect the social order are private is not as helpful as we would like it to be. To take an extreme case, if your disgusting private predilections affect your character, and your public conduct reflects your character, then those predilections are not private after all.

        Or take a less extreme case from Mill’s On Liberty. (Recommended reading on this topic.) Many people now regard marriage as the private choice of the victims, and not a matter for civil servants to involve themselves in except as registrars. But, according to Mill, in some European countries people could (in the 19th century) only get legal permission to get married if they could show that they would be able to support future children. Mill thinks this is a perfectly acceptable restriction, on the grounds that the children would otherwise be a burden on society.

        Similarly, philosophy might seem to be a private matter, but the public has decided, for its own protection, to lock philosophers away in universities. (And quite right, too. Otherwise they would be wandering around, accosting innocent citizens and asking them awkward questions*, and then tricking them into self-contradictory answers. We all know what that led too.)

        Because of this lack of clarity, we end up having these arguments about whether a business can refuse service, or whether there needs to be laws to compel service.

        (*E.g.: “What is justice?”, “How can we distinguish between the public and the private?”, “Is it right to govern people without the consent of the governed?”, “If a light goes off, is that light then on?”)

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        May 1, 2018, 7:04 am

        Correct, Mooser, and that’s what needed to be corrected. And it mainly was corrected. At least on paper, the Government does not support White supremacism.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        May 1, 2018, 12:25 pm

        RoHa,

        Both Mill’s marriage license example (in fact, that is in another shape a limitation strictly enforced in the US where the marriage license is required) and the restriction on philosophers are quite clear, thanks. No contest there.

        I am questioning the right of the law to force me into helping my political enemy.

        The obligation to sell bread to any customer* is not the same at all as a legal compulsion to assist my enemy in performing his despicable propaganda or destroy some treasured historical building. I am not the public transportation authority –that one clearly has to advertise both for me and for the lying bastards (if it advertises: it’s not clear at all that it should do any advertising.)

        *the obligation to sell bread to the indigent is not so real in the US, as the client has to afford it.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 1, 2018, 1:00 pm

        “I am questioning the right of the law to force me into helping my political enemy.”

        It’s an outrageous demand. After you’ve done your political enemy the undeserved favor of not destroying him utterly with a snap of your fingers, they want more from you?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 1, 2018, 9:33 pm

        “I am questioning the right of the law to force me into helping my political enemy.”

        And it should be questioned. My point is that there is a disputable area.

        Should the law force me to even sell bread to people who misuse commas? As far as I am concerned, that is just engaging in “conduct that assists by any means whatever … an enemy” (Australian), or, if you prefer, “providing aid and comfort to the enemy” (US).

        “Let the buggers starve”, say I.

        But then the possibility arises that the illiterati could feel as strongly about pedants, and proceed to deny us the necessities of life, in the manner the Negro motorists were denied the necessities for travel.

        I would then be rather glad of laws that prevented this.

        But I still would not want to be forced to publish a comma after a subject clause.

        So although I want to draw a line somewhere, I find it awfully difficult to decide just where.

        (I have removed the qualifier “with intent to assist”. It could be argued that I sell the bread to them solely with the intent to make money. But I suspect that, if I sold Australian official secrets to the San Marino Secret Intelligence Service solely with the intent to make money, an Australian court would not absolve me of treason.)

      • gamal
        gamal
        May 1, 2018, 10:12 pm

        “Should the law force me to even sell bread to people who misuse commas?”

        Could we not have cake?

  6. echinococcus
    echinococcus
    April 27, 2018, 5:23 pm

    Valley Press was recommended as a union shop that did excellent work for progressive causes at fair prices, so I asked them to print our banner

    “Progressive” means jack. JVP itself thinks it is “progressive” and does only talk to self-appointed “progressives”, while it seems very able to perform character assassination and harassment of stout anti-Zionists.

  7. echinococcus
    echinococcus
    April 27, 2018, 6:36 pm

    Hey Mondoweiss,

    Once again, how about contributing to boycott at home?

    Starbucks, the committed Zionist b&^%$, have chosen the ADL to give lessons of “antiracist sensitivity”!

    Read this again:
    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/starbucks-scandal-epic-fail-180423075741891.html

    • Keith
      Keith
      April 29, 2018, 5:05 pm

      ECHINOCOCCUS- “Starbucks, the committed Zionist b&^%$, have chosen the ADL to give lessons of “antiracist sensitivity”!”

      In response to community outrage at this latest insensitivity, the ADL has been demoted to a consulting role. Does JVP support the ADL? Some quotes and a link.

      “Community outrage at ADL’s central role in the training was swift and strong. Starbucks demoted ADL to a consulting role, and named representatives of three prominent African-American-led civil rights organizations to lead the training.
      ….
      Tamika Mallory, co-chair of the Women’s March and Black Lives Matter, called for a boycott of Starbucks. Mallory, a nationally prominent organizer for gun control and women’s rights, and against police violence, is the 2018 recipient of the Coretta Scott King Legacy Award.

      Mallory tweeted that Starbucks “is NOT serious about doing right by BLACK people!” because of the prominent role it gave ADL, which “is CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people.”
      ….
      Linda Sarsour, also co-chair of the Women’s March, wrote on Facebook that ADL is “an anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian organization that peddles Islamophobia and attacks America’s prominent Muslim orgs and activists and supports/sponsors US law enforcement agents to travel and get trained by Israeli military.”

      Palestinian-American comedian, activist and professor Amer Zahr grew up in Philadelphia. Zahr told this reporter that ADL and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) “were the architects of the anti-Arab and anti-Islamic industry in America for the last 50 to 60 years.” (Marjorie Cohn) https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/protests-force-starbucks-to-ditch-adl-from-leading-anti-racism-training/

    • Keith
      Keith
      April 29, 2018, 5:19 pm

      ” Does JVP support the ADL?

      My attempt to edit above failed. The answer is that, to it’s credit, JVP was involved in the demotion of the ADL.

      “JVP circulated a petition against inclusion of ADL, which garnered 11,000 signatures in 72 hours. According to Vilkomerson, the “enormous outpouring” on Twitter of opposition to ADL’s initial central role in the training and the “week-long pushback,” including JVP’s petition, led Starbucks to back down.” (Marjorie Cohn) https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/protests-force-starbucks-to-ditch-adl-from-leading-anti-racism-training/

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 29, 2018, 7:24 pm

        Thanks for the relatively good news.

  8. RoHa
    RoHa
    April 28, 2018, 4:21 am

    I can’t see this as an infringement of freedom of speech. Sheila is not preventing you from speaking. She is just refusing to help you to say it.

    • annie
      annie
      April 28, 2018, 3:59 pm

      RoHa, it could run afoul of states’ public accommodations laws which are not designed to protect a business owners free speech, they are designed to protect the customer. now a private club is different (from my understanding) but a public business isn’t supposed to discriminate based on race, national origin, gender… and i think political beliefs. although i could be wrong. not sure you could have a restaurant with a sign that said “democrats not allowed”. if she’s in the business of helping people say what they want to say, then i don’t think she can say “only if i agree with you”.

      this reminds me of the muni buses dispute over pamela gellar’s posters. muni decided not to either not post any political ads on their buses or else all of them. and she threatened to sue public transit companies in many cities unless they ran her racist ads. iow, it’s not the public transit’s freedom of speech that’s protected, it’s the publics.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        April 28, 2018, 4:34 pm

        Annie,
        Governmental entities such as muni transit or public universities have different obligations than private business.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 28, 2018, 4:59 pm

        Annie, aren’t you confusing private and public/subsidized business?

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 5:22 pm

        as far as i know, the bakery case currently before the supreme court pertains to a private business. so although they may have different obligations (i’m not a lawyer and unfamiliar w/the specifics) basic constitutional principles likely apply.

        echi, no i am not confused. it reminds me of the muni dispute.

      • annie
        annie
        April 28, 2018, 5:35 pm

        another thing, my understanding (or lack of) what this situation pertains to, isn’t the same as agreeing or disagreeing with the principle of a private business owner’s obligation.

        but as far as this particular case, i think it’s very smart to challenge it through the ACLU. i think it’s important enough that even if i knew very well the shop owner was an ardent zionist, it would be worth initiating this transaction for the very purpose of challenging it through the courts — because palestinian-americans and palestinians deserve the same respect, dignity and human rights as anyone else. and contrary to other claims made here, what the shop owner stated in her letter, it wasn’t only jvp’s website she objected to, it was the content of the banner once she knew who wanted it made, iow, her interpretation of “palestinian human rights” via jvp. so that places the content of “palestinian human rights” in the center of the complaint. yes, i hope it sees its day in court. not sure that challenge could be made after a scotus decision if they rule in favor of the bakery owners (vs a state’s right to legislate “public accommodations discriminations”?).

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        April 28, 2018, 11:58 pm

        Annie,
        If I walked into a Palestinian sympathetic bakery and asked for a cake decorated to explicitly celebrate the Balfour declaration would they be obligated to make me one?

      • annie
        annie
        April 29, 2018, 8:00 am

        i’m not sure jon. but i bet pal legal would know.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 29, 2018, 2:03 am

        I don’t know what laws the US has in place. I’m simply looking at it as a moral argument.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        April 29, 2018, 9:22 am

        Roha,
        The problem with your “moral” argument about non-service are the practical effects. Prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act a business could refuse service in most states to anyone they chose. Atter the passage of the Act with Johnson’s pressure it became illegal to refuse service based upon a number of characteristics, e.g, race, religion. The libertarian position that patrons may go elsewhere is a minority view here.
        Here is an example of some of the difficulties inherent in your position.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 30, 2018, 12:05 am

        Jon66, I was simply looking at the “freedom of speech” issue. On the broader “denial of service” issue, I think you have a strong point.

        If Sheila was part of a cartel of print shops which all refused to print the banner, then I think there would be a stronger case to call this infringement of freedom of speech.

        (I don’t know why you put scare quotes around “moral”. I’m certainly not making an economic or legal argument.)

        On the one hand, we have the principle that it is wrong to compel people to act against their conscience*, as well as general principles of personal freedom. On the other, we have the social benefit that the legislation brings.

        This is the sort of thing that can keep philosophers off the streets for years. (And what a social benefit that is!)

        *I declare an interest. In 1966 the Australian government offered me an all-expenses paid trip to Vietnam. I appealed to conscience in declining the offer. Totally uninfluenced by the fact that the return was not guaranteed.

    • Tuyzentfloot
      Tuyzentfloot
      April 30, 2018, 8:05 am

      Roha, I think you are using a ‘prototype situation’ to understand free speech , that of many independent players who are free to do their own thing. If one player refuses to print your stuff there is another one next door who will. In such a case I wouldn’t be eager to intervene either.

      But as soon as there is coherent behaviour on a large scale , which can take the form of pseudomonopolies , Facebook, Twitter and Google refusing to post your content, or dominant mentality ‘we don’t serve blacks here’ then you can start to think seriously about enforcing rules, either to enforce a change against people’s will or because nobody really objects but they don’t want to stick their necks out and be the first one.

      You can’t bluntly allow private persons/companies to ignore free speech , otherwise you open the door for a strategy which shuts down free speech by privatizing it.

      We have a massive censorship operation coming up to speed right now so I think the issue has some urgency.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 30, 2018, 6:51 pm

        “But as soon as there is coherent behaviour on a large scale …”

        That’s why I mentioned the cartel case.

        I have seen a lot of privatisation, and heard and read the justifications for it, so I can assure you that, if privatised, speech might not be free, but competition will make it a lot cheaper and more efficient.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 1, 2018, 11:54 am

        “so I can assure you that, if privatised, speech might not be free, but competition will make it a lot cheaper and more efficient.”

        Beat me, socialist daddy, eight to the bar!

  9. Kay24
    Kay24
    April 28, 2018, 6:17 am

    While Americans worry about Russian influence, they seems unaware that the zionist influence has corrupted our country, and has been detrimental to our foreign policies. They are also unaware that from the Congress to the media, Israel’s toxic influence here, have prevented the American people from knowing the truth. Our no.1 charitable cause has been shielded, protected, and armed by us. The Palestinians have suffered as a result of that unwavering support.
    Or do the American people really care?

    • Keith
      Keith
      April 28, 2018, 10:52 am

      KAY24- “While Americans worry about Russian influence….”

      Do they? Or is it just the warmongering “liberal” Democrats creating a pretext to pick a fight?

  10. Jon66
    Jon66
    April 28, 2018, 10:59 am

    In the US, freedom of speech means a restriction that applies to the government not private businesses. The author is completely misinformed in trying to apply the concept to a private business.
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    If the State of Nevada tried to ban the banner that would be a free speech issue.

    The Colorado bakery case in completely different. The case is not about free speech, but rather public accomadations. Colorado has a state law that bars discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The baker refused a service he normally provides, making wedding cakes, to this couple based upon their sexual orientation. He would have been well within his rights to refuse them service based upon some non-protected status, for example pro-NRA, pro-choice, Communist, etc. https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
    For the author to mix the two issues shows a fundemnental misunderstanding of our civil rights.
    If you want to address freedom of speech, perhaps a good place to start would be with someone like Nada Elia, a frequent contributor here. She believes, “There is no such thing as “non-violent hate speech.””
    She has trumpeted the suppression of speech as laudatory, “The other significant victory was the shutting down of the scheduled Milo Yiannopolous talk at the University of California in Berkeley. ”
    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/02/cannot-protect-ourselves/
    Because UCB is a public institution it is required not to restrict free speech. Regardless of the hideousness of Mr. Yiannopolous’s speech, shutting him down is wrong. It is the ideas we hate the most that we must take care to protect.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      April 28, 2018, 2:31 pm

      Fully agreed re Ms. Elia.
      The amusing thing is that we never heard your loud engagement for free speech regarding the criminal anti-BDS legislation or the hounding of activists, John 66.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        April 28, 2018, 4:32 pm

        Echi,
        I am opposed to government restrictions on free speech, whether it is activists I agree with or not. My positions have always been consistent.
        With regards to BDS, it depends upon whether or not you view it as a political free speech act or discrimination based upon national origin.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 29, 2018, 2:22 pm

        “With regards to BDS, it depends upon whether or not you view it as a political free speech act or discrimination based upon national origin.” “Jon66”

        It’s the Dr. Ronny Jackson of Zionism, “husband, father and surgeon” handing out the pilpuls for whatever ails ya.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        April 29, 2018, 3:07 pm

        BDS is love for Israel. It’s beautiful.
        Nobody (!) wants to see Israel collapse. Nobody wants Israel to ignore justice.

      • eljay
        eljay
        April 29, 2018, 3:17 pm

        || Jon66: … With regards to BDS, it depends upon whether or not you view it as a political free speech act or discrimination based upon national origin. ||

        Y’know, Jon66 has a point: Subjecting Israel to BDS does seem like discrimination. I agree with him that Israel should face severe economic sanctions, political destabilization, aerial bombardment, military occupation and/or regime change just like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

        Your co-collectivists may not appreciate your good work, Jon66, but I thank you for it.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 30, 2018, 9:56 am

        John 66, reliably the same piece of “depends what I view it as”.

        The thing we should worry most about in our lives is what his particular “Ziew” is. Yeah.

  11. CigarGod
    CigarGod
    April 28, 2018, 11:34 am

    From the single statement on the JVP home page:

    (Jewish Voice for Peace) members are serious about making change. We work with diverse communities across the U.S. to achieve a lasting peace for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis based on equality, human rights, and freedom.

    This is what the printer objected to.
    “…equality, human rights and freedom.”

    Move on, Seth.
    Sheila is not worthy of your business or any more of your time.

  12. April 28, 2018, 1:42 pm

    If Valley Press is a privately owned, small business, the owner has the right to “serve” anyone he or she wants. This has been standard business-law for many years and going to the ACLU won’t necessarily change anything.

    Stop wasting your time and money and move on to a different company like Staples or UPS that provide all sorts of printing services. If they deny you such services than you will have a substantial case…

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      April 28, 2018, 2:28 pm

      Stop wasting your time and money…

      JVP is not wasting its time and money here, it is just establishing its liberaloid cred, sticking together with Zionist tribals provided they are “Liberal” and at the same time making a big stink to impose “progressive” restrictions on free speech –while denying free speech to real, principled anti-Zionists.

    • annie
      annie
      April 28, 2018, 4:08 pm

      a privately owned, small business, the owner has the right to “serve” anyone he or she wants.

      not really. it depends on the circumstance https://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/news/when-is-refusing-service-legal-and-when-is-it-discrimination/article_305de452-a55b-11e3-8245-001a4bcf887a.html

      business owners can refuse to serve customers, but must be careful that the denial of service is based on customer behavior, decorum or the health and safety of patrons and employees.

      “Normally, (refusal of service) would only be warranted where the customer’s presence would somehow be distracting to the wellbeing, to the safety, to the welfare of the other people in the business and the business itself. They can’t arbitrarily refuse service to some because they don’t like the way that they look,” Meynard said.

  13. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    April 28, 2018, 3:52 pm

    Seth found a bot printer. Nothing to do with Vegas. Sounds like the AsheRs gay wedding cake fiasco from Northern Ireland . Ashers are evangelical and were asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. They refused . Cue huge scene .

    Go find a normal printer.

  14. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    April 29, 2018, 7:01 am

    I’d be glad to hear that another printer who will take the business has been found – or is an informal boycott spreading through the area?

  15. Qualtrough
    Qualtrough
    April 29, 2018, 7:01 am

    She did you and like-minded friends a favor by coming out that way. Now you no longer have to give them any money and you can patronize a shop that will print your banner.

  16. jsinton
    jsinton
    April 29, 2018, 7:37 pm

    In the Colorado wedding cake case, it was a form of sexual discrimination as the court saw it, IMHO. This JVP ad refusal would qualify as a form of “political” discrimination, clearly a “free speech” issue. Can a printer refuse to print something it finds politically hostile? Has the NY Times ever refused to print a controversial ad on political grounds? Seems to me this is old ground someone must have covered before someplace. Me being the knucklehead I am cannot answer these questions, however my money is on a private company may decline to print material it finds objectionable on political grounds. A company may not refuse service based on sexual, racial, or religious grounds, IMHO.

  17. Tzvia
    Tzvia
    April 30, 2018, 11:08 am

    I didn’t read the comments yet. I was too furious. I emailed them what I think about them, hopefully more people did too. PEP, ha!

    • annie
      annie
      April 30, 2018, 11:23 am

      tzvia — long time, good to hear your voice as always.

  18. Katie Miranda
    Katie Miranda
    April 30, 2018, 11:45 pm

    Reminds me of when I tried to get a voice actor to do the voiceover for the Palbox video at: http://www.palbox.org

    After I sent him the script, he said he couldn’t do it on political grounds.

    The printer isn’t discriminating against her customer on the basis of his protected class status, she’s choosing not to print political speech she doesn’t agree with so I don’t think it’s the same situation as a gay wedding cake.

    If someone asked me to draw a poster in support Trump 2020, I’d refuse and I don’t think there’d be a legal way to compel me to do so.

    If the printer refused to print something because the customer was Palestinian and she didn’t want to serve Palestinians, that would be a different story.

  19. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    May 2, 2018, 1:04 pm

    Has the poster been printed yet?

Leave a Reply