Christian Shop Ordered to Duplicate Homosexual Activist Videos

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
Christian Shop Ordered to Duplicate Homosexual Activist Videos (CWA alert)

In a case similar to a Canadian Christian printer´s punishment for declining a job for a homosexual activist group, an Arlington, Virginia, video duplicator has been ordered by the Arlington County Human Rights Commission to do a job for a lesbian activist.


The April 18 order follows a March 9 hearing in which Tim Bono of Bono Film and Video cited constitutional freedom of religion protection in refusing to duplicate two pro-homosexual films for lesbian activist Lillian Vincenz, according to the Family Policy Network (FPN), which is seeking clients for a class-action suit against the county.


Bono, a Christian, said he did not want to violate his Biblical values by assisting the promotion of homosexual behavior. Bono Film & Video informs potential customers that the firm does not duplicate material that the firm deems obscene, could embarrass employees, hurt the company´s reputation, or that runs counter to the company's Christian and ethical values, Bono told FPN.


After Bono rebuffed her request, Vincenz asked Arlington County officials to force Bono to duplicate her videos. The Arlington Human Rights Commission began an investigation and held a public hearing on March 9 to discuss the alleged discrimination.


As of April 25, neither Bono nor Vincenz had responded to the commission´s order, Raul Torres, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, told Concerned Women for America´s Culture & Family Institute (CFI).


If Bono refuses to do the job, "œafter a reasonable amount of time, the commission can reassemble and discuss why the remedy was not done," Raul said. The commission could then forward the case to the full county Board of Commissioners and ask them for permission to file a discrimination complaint in Arlington Circuit Court, he said.


The decision found that:



"œBono Film and Video is a public accommodation as defined by the Arlington County Code."

Bono "œrefused to duplicate two documentaries submitted by the Complainant, entitled: Gay and Proud and Second Largest Minority."

Bono "œdid not review the content of the documentaries."

Bono "œperceived the Complainant to be "˜gay´ and to have a gay agenda when he communicated to her that Bono Film and Video "˜do[es] not partake in any gay agenda no matter what the content.´"

"œChapter 31 [of Arlington County Code] prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation in the provisions of services on the basis of sexual orientation or perception thereof."

The Arlington case is reminiscent of an Ontario human rights panel´s fining of a Christian printer, Scott Brockie, for his refusal to print materials for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.


In February 2000, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Brockie had violated the ban on "œsexual orientation" discrimination in the Ontario Human Rights Code. He was ordered to pay $5,000 in damages to the president of the Archives and to "œhenceforth print materials for any homosexual individual or group on the same basis as all other clients."


Brockie, citing his Christian faith and Canada´s guarantee of religious freedom, appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court, but lost in June 2002. By this time, he had already amassed nearly $100,000 in legal fees and decided against further appeal. But the nightmare was not over. The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed an order with the Ontario Court of Appeal demanding that Brockie pay its legal costs. The commission won, leaving Brockie with an additional legal bill of $40,000. The "œScott Brockie Defense Fund" has been established, and donations can be mailed to: Account #507-721-9, Royal Bank Branch # 3132, 33 City Centre Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L5B 2N5.


FPN´s Glover told CFI that he is looking for Arlington business people who would be willing to act as anonymous plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Arlington County.


"œThe county's involvement in this anti-Christian, pro-homosexual witch-hunt isn't just a crime against one businessman; it's a heavy-handed threat to turn the government against Christians who want to live their lives according to Scripture," Glover said in a press release. "œEven if they can't win a case like this on the merits, they're out to strike fear in the hearts of Christians who want to live according to their faith."
 
Wow, this gets me riled.

I never thought the first case would be in Virginia, but I certainly was expecting these to show up in the US.

Vic
 
I know this will make people angry but this is a very complicated issue. By all rights, someone's religious freedoms doesn't apply to their jobs.

I do stand on the side of the Christian running the business as the people wanting the video duplicated KNOW it is a Christian business. Why would they even be going there in the first place?

I'm glad I read the thread over again because I almost went off on how they have no right to refuse service unless they are designated a Christian company. So my thoughts and eventual post changed.
 
Ppl like this are intentionally looking for a lawsuit to start so they can set a court precedent. Due to there being a precedent in Canada now and the fact that the US judicial courts now take other nations policies into consideration, all they have to do is seek out an obvious business with Christian policies and do what they can to get blatantly rejected...even being a lesbian, if she had brought in something benign, she would have received service. She was intentional in her choice of business, it's service, and what she wanted done.

Therefore, it wasn't that SHE is a lesbian...it was what she wanted done.
 
Yes, I agree. That is the only reason she went to that business. There are many others she could have went to. Now, if there were no others then she may have a case but I'm willing to bet there were others.:detective:
Canada has angered me lately. Very much.
 
Brian, the default common-law rule in the US, up until recently (the past 50 so years) has been that a private business had the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason. That changed as a result of anti-discrimination laws. The logical progression of those laws is to extend their "protection" to any group that can prove it has been "unjustly" discriminated against.

The problem with this trend is that it views rights postively rather than negatively. I'm not talking about positive and negative in terms of social good, but rather what is their effect. A negative right means a person (individual) has the right to not be forced to do something against his will. It is a hedge against coercion by the government representing the majority of the people.

A "positive" right, on the other hand, is coercive. It creates an entitlement to a member of a group. An example might be something called a "right to housing". Under this, a person without a house has the entitlement (positive right) of coercing other people to buy him a house.

When Virginia called this private business a "public accomodation", it made the determination that it is in fact owned by the government. In other words, it is socialism with a fancy name. That is why I am riled up about this.

Vic
 
What makes me angry is what Colleen said. She was not refused service because she was a lesbian, but because the service she wanted involved immorality. If she wanted her vacation video duplicated there probably would have been no issue.
 
Originally posted by SRoper
What makes me angry is what Colleen said. She was not refused service because she was a lesbian, but because the service she wanted involved immorality. If she wanted her vacation video duplicated there probably would have been no issue.

:ditto:
 
Christian Businessman Who Refuses to Reproduce Pro-Homosexual Videos Files Suit

Arlington, VA, June 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Today, Liberty Counsel filed suit in Arlington Circuit Court on behalf of Tim Bono and Bono Film and Video Inc., against the Arlington County Human Rights Commission, Arlington County Board, and Arlington County, Virginia. The suit seeks Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, and Damages, and challenges the authority of the Commission to order Bono Film to duplicate two pro-homosexual videos provided by lesbian activist Lilli M. Vincenz.

Tim Bono was contacted by Lilli Vincenz via e-mail to reproduce two documentaries entitled Gay and Proud and Second Largest Minority. Mr. Bono informed Ms. Vincenz that his company does not duplicate material that is obscene, could embarrass employees, hurt the company's reputation or that runs counter to the company's Core Values and Christian and ethical values.

Ms. Vincenz filed a complaint with the Commission under the County's nondiscrimination ordinance, which was amended to include "sexual orientation." On April 13, 2006, the Commission entered a "Decision" directing Bono Film to "provide the requested duplication service at the complainant's expense or in the alternative to assist the Complainant in locating a suitable facility where this service can be provided at the Bono Film and Video's expense."

The lawsuit filed today challenges the authority of the Commission to enter the order. The so-called "Dillon's Rule," under Virginia law, prohibits local government from passing or enforcing nondiscrimination laws that are not authorized by the state. The state does not list "sexual orientation" as a protected civil right or class. The suit would take away all authority from the Commission to enforce "sexual orientation" nondiscrimination laws. The lawsuit will also affect several other Virginia counties that have illegally passed "sexual orientation" antidiscrimination laws. In addition, the suit alleges violations of Mr. Bono's freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and sections 12 and 16 of the Virginia Constitution.

Erik Stanley, Chief Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: "As a newspaper is not required to run every proposed ad, so a duplicator or printer is not obligated to reproduce every proposed copy. Mr. Bono does not have to reproduce a customer's hate speech, obscenity or p0rnography, nor may a customer hijack Mr. Bono's business and force him to promote a homosexual agenda. Since the state of Virginia does not recognize 'sexual orientation' as a civil right, neither Arlington County nor any other county may enforce such laws. This lawsuit will rein in renegade counties that have intentionally violated state law. Neither Arlington County nor any other local government entity is above the law."

Several years ago, the Virginia Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that local "sexual orientation" laws violated state law.
 
'm glad I read the thread over again because I almost went off on how they have no right to refuse service unless they are designated a Christian company. So my thoughts and eventual post changed.

I'd say any business, regardless of their declared religious affiliation, has the right to refuse any customer at any time for any reason, no matter how arbitrary, capricious or stupid such refusal is.

The customer has a right, at any point, to walk out the door and stop purchasing from the provider for any reason whatsoever. The provider should have the same rights.
 
Originally posted by victorbravo
Wow, this gets me riled.

I never thought the first case would be in Virginia, but I certainly was expecting these to show up in the US.

Vic

Really not so surprising on this end that it would be in Arlington, VA. With the tremendous growth of the federal government over the last half century, many have relocated to N. VA from other parts of the country to work for the government. Naturally they bring their beliefs along with them. I'm sure PB members from VA or are familiar with it can attest to this.
 
Personally, I think Virginia should cede Arlington and Alexandria to Maryland or the District of Corruption. Who needs that place anyway? We real Virginians call it occupied Virginia.
:2cents:
 
Comission Says Its OK for Christian Businessman to Refuse to Duplicate Gay Videos

By John Jalsevac

Arlington, VA, June 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One day after Tim Bono and his company filed a suit against the Arlington County Human Rights Commission, the Commission dismissed the complaint filed by lesbian activist Lilli M. Vincenz, stating there was no valid claim that she had been discriminated against by Mr. Bono.

Ms. Vincenz filed a complaint with the Commission under the county's nondiscrimination ordinance, when Bono Film and Video refused to copy Gay and Proud and Second Largest Minority for Ms. Vincenz due to its content. Mr. Bono's company does not duplicate material that is obscene, could embarrass employees, hurt the company´s reputation or that runs counter to the company´s values.

Initially the Commission sided with Ms. Vincenz and directed Mr. Bono to duplicate the objectionable videos or pay for the duplication at another facility, saying that Bono had discriminated against her based upon her "œsexual orientation". The Commission also defamed Mr. Bono by sending a press release to over 5,000 media outlets, stating that there was evidence Mr. Bono had engaged in discrimination.

The Commission has now rescinded its initial order against Bono and dismissed Ms. Vincenz´s complaint. There is no evidence that Bono ever discriminated against Ms. Vincenz based upon her sexual orientation, since Vincenz admits that she never actually discussed her orientation with Bono, reports ABC 7 News.

Liberty Counsel, Mr. Bono´s legal counsel, will, however, proceed with a suit that challenges the Commission's authority to recognize "sexual orientation" as a civil right. Virginia law prohibits local government from passing or enforcing nondiscrimination laws that are not authorized by the state. The state does not list "sexual orientation" as a protected civil right or class.

The Virginia Attorney General´s Office has already expressed its concern that local governments are stepping over the line by interpreting anti-discrimination laws as including "œsexual orientation," reports ABC 7 News.

Tucker Martin, spokesman for Attorney General Bob McDonnell said, "œThe opinion of this office is absent enabling legislation no locality can include sexual orientation in its nondiscrimination policy."

Erik Stanley, Chief Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: "Although we are pleased the Commission dismissed the frivolous complaint against Mr. Bono, we will continue to challenge Arlington County's attempt to recognize 'sexual orientation' as a civil right. Liberty Counsel's suit will invalidate the county ordinance and other similar ordinances throughout Virginia."
 
I just wouldn't do it... no one can make you do it... It's not like they hold a gun to your head...

and make you dub tapes, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top