Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Not really. Nothing's going to happen if you don't.

How sure are you of that?

Absolutely I would print your banner even though yo are mixing everything up and once again demonstrating an inability to read.You do understand that a "Kill all homos" cake was one example where I specifically said their is a question whether I would provide such service.

I'm not sure what you mean.How do I know nothing would happen?

There are some stock phrases that should be banned from EVC - this is one of them. If you think that there's a morally defensible position in either of those two statements you've got some work to do. The moral position is that both are wrong and should be resisted in any way possible. The minimum is not helping the bigots propogate their message.

A noble distinction, but clear & present danger is kind of fuzzy.One the major problems with homo sapiens is that they are so susceptable to stupid advertising.Damn it all to hell. Commercials actually WORK!

I know that is your position. You've got some work to do.Free Speech is important. Morality does not enter into the issue.Whether or I not I feel any speech is moral or immoral is totally irrelevant. I have no more right to try to impose my morality on others than they have to try to impose their morality on me.I can see no possible justification for suppressing speech whether moral or immoral. In fact, speech I consider immoral is the speech I need to support.One of those statements recommends illegal activities while the other only supports a perhaps immoral thought.

I certainly agree and tried to point out just that issue. And that is where the exact wording of the speech as well as the particular details of the incident need to be known.

And? You cannot seem to make a call that I find quite clear. That's an appropriate distinction for me to make.So I read just fine.You have taken the position that the more odious the message, the more bound to help you would feel as owner of a print shop. You apply some limits regarding incitement, but they are fairly fuzzy. I feel a bit differently. I feel that the more odious messengers require a more vigorous defense of their rights, but as for spreading the message, the messenger has to pay his own freight which might include buying his own printing press.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not exactly. It is not a matter of bound to help but rather the fact that the business is printing or cake making or space rental and the business is not censorship.And yes, the boundaries are fuzzy and mutable and will depend on the total conditions of the particular incident when it comes to where the legal/illegal line lies. The function of a print shop or bakery or meeting hall rental is not to make the judgements beyond what is reasonable based on the available knowledge at the time.I understand many will feel differently about this but I have tried to express my opinion of where to draw the line. Hopefully it will not be a straight or uniform line but laws seldom consider anything except straight, uniform lines.But I do find the idea that there could be prohibited hate speech odious, repulsive, revolting.

Failing to let you use my printer is not the same thing as my prohibiting your speech. Your definition of "free speech", which seems to include such a thing is peculiar enough so that your impression of what is odious isn't very informative.Besides that though, even you have acknowledged that there is inciting hate speech that you would not help with. Apparently you find your own position odious and repulsive using your own petard.Edited by NoNukes, : grammar tweakin' point makin'

Too funny. You still seem unable to read.I imagine you can point out where I said that there is hate speech I think should be prohibited other then the very limited case of clear incitement to violence or illegal activity which is speech that might be prohibited whether it involved hate or not.I cannot think of any hate speech or speech that was intended to engender hatred that should be prohibited right off hand. There might be such speech but I cannot think of any at the moment. That depends I believe on whether you print for a business. If it is your personal non-business printer then I believe you are well within your rights. If though you are a business, a printer by trade, and nothing in the request is illegal or incites violence or illegal activity, then I believe your personal opinion about the morality or rightness or content should be irrelevant.What for me is odious is censorship, not the speech.

The thing is, being an asshole isn't a class. You're not allowed to refuse service based on their "class". You ought to be, and are, allowed to refuse service to people for just being crappy customers. Members of the KKK are not a protected class, and you can just tell them to take their cake idea and shove it.

You may be confusing your responsibilities with those of the government.Edit after reading farther in the thread: I think you are seriously confused about the concept of free speech. You are not the government. You have no obligation to facilitate the speech of others beyond discouraging the government from impeding it. Acting on your own opinions by withdrawing your consent and cooperation from the actions of others is not censorship, nor does it impinge on their free speech. I am baffled by your reasoning.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

Or perhaps you do not write clearly.Given that you have acknowledged that there are messages that you might not print, then your mindset contains exactly the position that you have called odious. Messages such as "kill all homos" are apparently pretty close to being within that mindset depending on the context or whatever.