Office Depot's Version of the "Gay Wedding Cake"

[ChocolateReignRemix]

To the extent that teaching about it is a faith issue, it can fall under the freedom of religious expression rights.  

 

Again, though, it seems to me to that if a company prints political flyers at all, then they can hardly object to this without being discriminatory, in that it's the specific position rather than the specific wording that is in question, pretty clearly.  If that were not so, then almost no political printing could ever be undertaken, if the policy was applied evenly.  

 

Which makes me very curious as to whether this company does political printing.  I'd be very surprised if they didn't, but maybe they refuse that, too.

 

Again, you don't understand what public accommodation laws actually say, and I have clearly explained the difference.  Something being a "religious belief" does not mean that a company must print it.  It just doesn't.  You would need to demonstrate that the company is discriminating against Christians as a class.

 

And again, political beliefs are not protected under public accommodation laws.

 

Finally, Office Depot can refuse to print what they believe is inflammatory in the same way a Christian baker can refuse to put political statements on their products.

[Carol in Cal.]

  You would need to demonstrate that the company is discriminating against Christians as a class.

 

And again, political beliefs are not protected under public accommodation laws.

 

You're actually not following what I'm saying.

 

What I am saying is that the umbrella term 'Christian' is not necessarily the term in question.  Rather, the term could be denominational.  It could be 'Reformed' in the Jewish faith.  It could be 'Shia' in the Muslim faith.  The constitutional proviso does not require that all Christians hold to something for it to be a religious teaching subject to freedom of religious expression.  

 

Secondly, when a moral issue has a political aspect, that doesn't remove it as if by magic from also being a teaching of a particular faith, which is part of that faith's freedom of religious expression.  If you go back and read this flyer, you will see that it is not political but rather moral.  The fact that there is political discourse over this issue does not mean that every allusion to it is political.  

[Crimson Wife]

Surely if the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press means anything, it means that a printer can refuse to print speech they disagree with.

 

Yes, but the First Amendment should also cover the baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian couple's union. Freedom of speech and religion of the business owner should trump the inconvenience of the customer who has to go elsewhere.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

If so, perhaps you can start a thread. 

Let me know when you've watched the videos and I'll do that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You're actually not following what I'm saying.

 

What I am saying is that the umbrella term 'Christian' is not necessarily the term in question.  Rather, the term could be denominational.  It could be 'Reformed' in the Jewish faith.  It could be 'Shia' in the Muslim faith.  The constitutional proviso does not require that all Christians hold to something for it to be a religious teaching subject to freedom of religious expression.  

 

Secondly, when a moral issue has a political aspect, that doesn't remove it as if by magic from also being a teaching of a particular faith, which is part of that faith's freedom of religious expression.  If you go back and read this flyer, you will see that it is not political but rather moral.  The fact that there is political discourse over this issue does not mean that every allusion to it is political.  

 

I follow what you are saying.  What you are missing is Office Depot refused because of specific wording they felt was inflammatory, which has nothing to do with the religion of the person who wanted to print the flyer.

 

You are also confusing freedom of expression/speech with public accommodation laws, and they are not closely related.  Political (and religious) beliefs are protected speech under the 1st Amendment, but they are not covered under public accommodations laws in the way you seem to think.

 

Example:

Office depot cannot ban a Muslim woman from wearing her hijab in the store, even though not all Muslim women wear one.

However, they could refuse to allow a Muslim to print inflammatory anti-Israeli material in their store.  Why?  Because they would refuse to allow anyone to print that material.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, but the First Amendment should also cover the baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian couple's union. Freedom of speech and religion of the business owner should trump the inconvenience of the customer who has to go elsewhere.

 

 

Not when operating a public accommodation, as per various federal (starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964), state and local laws, and as upheld in USSC decisions (Katzenbach v McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel inc v United States)

 

.

[mamajag]

It all makes sense now. Office Depot is a major corporate contributor to Planned Parenthood.

 

They did post an apology on FB to stem the uproar but in the process called the prayer hate speech and pretty much made things even worse.

[Carol in Cal.]

I follow what you are saying.  What you are missing is Office Depot refused because of specific wording they felt was inflammatory, which has nothing to do with the religion of the person who wanted to print the flyer.

 

You are also confusing freedom of expression/speech with public accommodation laws, and they are not closely related.  Political (and religious) beliefs are protected speech under the 1st Amendment, but they are not covered under public accommodations laws in the way you seem to think.

 

Example:

Office depot cannot ban a Muslim woman from wearing her hijab in the store, even though not all Muslim women wear one.

However, they could refuse to allow a Muslim to print inflammatory anti-Israeli material in their store.  Why?  Because they would refuse to allow anyone to print that material.

Nope, what I'm saying is that firstly, the wording was not all that inflammatory and so I very much doubt that it was denied for that reason rather than because of disagreement with the content.  I raised the question of whether anything political is ever printed at this place, because if so, their argument does not hold up, since this flyer is arguably less inflammatory than most political flyers.  As it turns out, since OD has reversed themselves on this, they seem to agree that the original position was either wrong or indefensible.

 

And secondly, what I'm saying is that when you keep coming back over and over to the argument that if all Christians don't believe something, it's not discriminatory against religious expression to turn it away, and that is simply not factual.

 

I'm not citing freedom of speech at all.  I can't imagine where you got that from.

 

Public accommodations guard access to public services to most.  This was a flyer about a religious issue, not a political one.  And apparently now OD does not feel that it was inflammatory.  So interesting.  

[Violet Crown]

Yes, but the First Amendment should also cover the baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian couple's union. Freedom of speech and religion of the business owner should trump the inconvenience of the customer who has to go elsewhere.

 

It's not clear that the creation of a cake falls under the freedom of speech protection (artistic expression in this case) in the straightforward way that a printer choosing not to print something does. A court certainly could find that the cake is an artistic product and so its creation cannot be compelled; but it's not hard to see a court refusing that argument; certainly it's been refused in the case of wedding photography, which seems to me to be much more clearly artistic expression. It's impossible to see a court agreeing that a printer can be compelled to print speech which it doesn't wish to. That's what freedom of the press is.

 

Personally, I wouldn't want a court to find that antidiscrimination law somehow trumped the First Amendment protection against compelled expression. It's too easy to imagine the shoe on the other foot.

 

Nor does it seem to me that the right thing is to join a boycott and try to get the company to back down, if the refusal was genuinely a matter of conscience. Why would I prefer to do business with someone whose motto is "We'll print anything, no matter how vile, as long as your money is green"? Why should it surprise me that, in a diverse country, there are people with whose views I strongly disagree, or even find repellent? Or that they should think some of my views repellent? If it doesn't surprise me, why would I want to force them to go against their conscience, whether by state mandate or economic pressure? I would rather live in a country where people's consciences aren't burdened by the fear of being put out of business by the howling twittermob.

[Spy Car]

It all makes sense now. Office Depot is a major corporate contributor to Planned Parenthood.

 

They did post an apology on FB to stem the uproar but in the process called the prayer hate speech and pretty much made things even worse.

It is hate speech, so they called it correctly. That was why they refused to print it in the first place.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

I think in general that pro-choice rhetoric is defensible in many respects, but that it rests strongly on 'don't make me look', and that that's not good.  That cognitive dissonance has now been stretched to the breaking point.  It is interesting to me to observe elsewhere that people will talk about these videos a great deal without actually watching them.  I think that as people who are classically educating, and who focus on primary source materials, we, at least, would be a group who would go ahead and watch them and then determine what our views are on them.  

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

It is hate speech, so they called it correctly. That was why they refused to print it in the first place.

 

Bill

Seriously, Bill?  Hate speech?  No, not this one.  I've seen hate speech, and I think you have too.  This is 'disagreement speech'.  It's not hate speech.  Come on.  Read it again.

[abcmommy]

The gross rhetoric is really not ok.

 

I think it is awfully odd that people have this idea that everyone should cater to their agenda.

[Joker]

It all makes sense now. Office Depot is a major corporate contributor to Planned Parenthood.

 

They did post an apology on FB to stem the uproar but in the process called the prayer hate speech and pretty much made things even worse.

 

Do you really think some random store employee working making copies that day knew about a connection to Planned Parenthood and refused to print of copies in opposition to them? I find it much more likely the store has a company wide policy about copying and the employee saw language he was worried was offensive or hateful so he was careful and said no. The corporate side has now said they would make the copies. I really feel some are reading way more into this than there is.

[Spy Car]

Seriously, Bill? Hate speech? No, not this one. I've seen hate speech, and I think you have too. This is 'disagreement speech'. It's not hate speech. Come on. Read it again.

I've read it multiple times. I'm not surprised the author has been suspended by his superiors and seen as insubordinate. Beyond this he is under an ethical cloud for his handling of this groups finances. Fine fellow.

 

Bill

[StephanieZ]

Even though I disagree with the content and purpose of the flyer, I believe that Office Depot should have printed it. If I managed a print shop, and my employee refused service on that flyer, I'd have given one fair warning, and then fired upon next offense. If my business were printing, I'd print anything that was not illegal or obscene or dangerous. I would likely refuse to print something that I believed might incite violence or was HATEFUL, but something I disagreed with for political or personal reasons -- it's none of my beeswax unless it is truly dangerous or otherwise illegal. I WOULD refuse to print a "come to the rally at Dr. Joe's personal residence because he is a baby-murderer" because I believe that is dangerous. 

 

People should do their jobs. People should not take a job that will put them in a position to violate their religious or moral convictions. If you abhor alcohol, don't work somewhere it is served. If you abhor God-talk, don't work in a church. If you're a religiously convicted vegan, don't take a job in meat processing plant. Etc. 

 

I'm an atheist and think religion is generally both harmful and mostly evil, but I let my nice housekeeper use my printer all the time to print her church flyers, God-promoting stuff. That's my personal printer and just a favor -- not even part of my JOB. 

 

People have a right to the religious freedom, but they do NOT have a right to accept one job and then pick and choose what parts of it they feel like doing. 

[goldberry]

So... can they really refuse to print something for the Klan??  When the Klan was protesting during the confederate flag debacle, I did some research about why they were allowed to do what they do and say what they say.  Basically it came down to them knowing the exact boundaries where free speech became speech that was inciting persecution or harmful action against others, and stayed just inside those boundaries. 

 

There are very specific guidelines about what is considered "beyond the boundaries" and what it not.  If each business owner decides that for themselves, then naturally some will decide one way, and others will decide another way, in accord with what they personally agree.  Which I can agree, could create chaos.

 

I just wonder if we will get to the point where we will have that strict of boundaries for what are valid reasons to refuse service to someone.  Not saying I would agree with that, but if more and more people start making individual judgments about who gets to be served, where does it end?  And how do you stop it?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nope, what I'm saying is that firstly, the wording was not all that inflammatory and so I very much doubt that it was denied for that reason rather than because of disagreement with the content.  I raised the question of whether anything political is ever printed at this place, because if so, their argument does not hold up, since this flyer is arguably less inflammatory than most political flyers.  As it turns out, since OD has reversed themselves on this, they seem to agree that the original position was either wrong or indefensible.

 

And secondly, what I'm saying is that when you keep coming back over and over to the argument that if all Christians don't believe something, it's not discriminatory against religious expression to turn it away, and that is simply not factual.

 

I'm not citing freedom of speech at all.  I can't imagine where you got that from.

 

Public accommodations guard access to public services to most.  This was a flyer about a religious issue, not a political one.  And apparently now OD does not feel that it was inflammatory.  So interesting.  

 

Office Depot has a right to set its own policy, and as written, the policy does not discriminate against any protected class.

 

You are falsely assuming political = inflammatory,  Even if it did, as political speech is not protected under public accommodation laws, it simply doesn't matter.

 

Frankly, I have explained this as simply as I can - repeatedly.  Members of a protected class holding a belied /= an obligation to provide a service related to the belief.

 

I will try one more time.

Let's say there was a baker who just bakes muffins and donuts.  A Christian family comes in and requests a cake for their child's baptism.  The baker says, sorry, but we don't bake cakes.  The family cannot claim religious discrimination because a cake was not provided for the baptism, because the baker doesn't bake cakes for anyone.

Now if the baker sold baptism cakes to Baptists, but then refused Methodists because he didn't think their baptisms were legitimate, that would be discrimination.

 

Now extend this to Office Depot.  It is slightly more complex due to the company policy being more vague, but the company is entitled to say they don't print what they define as inflammatory material for *anyone*.  As political beliefs are not protected under the public accommodation laws (and they aren't), Office Depot can interpret this as they choose.  Even when religion and politics collide, Office Depot can still fall back on their own policy as refusing anything they consider inflammatory.  In this case, they would only have an issue if they refused because the flyers had a Christian message.  And note they clearly cited what they felt was inflammatory in their letter and there was no mention of Christianity.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I've read it multiple times. I'm not surprised the author has been suspended by his superiors and seen as insubordinate. Beyond this he is under an ethical cloud for his handling of this groups finances. Fine fellow.

 

Bill

He's a jerk, alright.

 

To me this is partially one of those 'I dislike what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' kinds of things.  

 

And really, it's interesting to see what we are fighting about and what we aren't.  For instance, the corporatization of American (and actually worldwide media), that pretty much takes away the function of the fourth estate is pretty alarming, and it's related though somewhat tangentially to the issues here.  

[shinyhappypeople]

It is hate speech, so they called it correctly. That was why they refused to print it in the first place.

 

Bill

 

No, it's not.  They provide descriptions of uncomfortable material and a very strong point of view, but there is no call to harm Planned Parenthood.  The opposite is true.  A call for God to "convert" Planned Parenthood suggests that God extend mercy and soften the hearts of the people who work in PP.  Whether or not you believe prayer is an effective tool, praying for mercy and softened hearts is pretty much the polar opposite of intending harm.

 

I'm on the fence as to whether a company should be allowed to refuse to print the flyer.  I have a strong point of view about compelling creative expression (short answer: I don't think it's right).  But I think comparing running a copy machine with "creative expression" is a stretch*.  So, in my mind, I think OD should print the flyers.  

 

Whether it's legal or not is another thing entirely.  I'm not sure.  This is going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

* I realize that the "creative expression" argument isn't being made by OD or anyone here.  But, it's one of the lines in the sand I draw that informs my personal opinions about what should/shouldn't be legal.  YMMV.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So... can they really refuse to print something for the Klan??  When the Klan was protesting during the confederate flag debacle, I did some research about why they were allowed to do what they do and say what they say.  Basically it came down to them knowing the exact boundaries where free speech became speech that was inciting persecution or harmful action against others, and stayed just inside those boundaries. 

 

There are very specific guidelines about what is considered "beyond the boundaries" and what it not.  If each business owner decides that for themselves, then naturally some will decide one way, and others will decide another way, in accord with what they personally agree.  Which I can agree, could create chaos.

 

I just wonder if we will get to the point where we will have that strict of boundaries for what are valid reasons to refuse service to someone.  Not saying I would agree with that, but if more and more people start making individual judgments about who gets to be served, where does it end?  And how do you stop it?

 

Correct, no business is required to print materials for the Klan.  In fact, most material distributed by the Klukkers is self published.

 

Regarding the bolded, what you read refers to the laws the Klan skirts to avoid charges of inciting public violence.  General statements of implied violence are legal (example: (group X) is a plaque on society and should be scourged from the earth!), but direct threats or incitements to violence (Go out and kill (group X)!) are not.

 

Businesses have always made individual decisions about what they will and won't do.  Some small print shops will accept any business that doesn't violate the law, while others operate under stricter ethical guidelines.  That doesn't lead to chaos in any way, and lets the free market operate.

[Carol in Cal.]

Office Depot has a right to set its own policy, and as written, the policy does not discriminate against any protected class.

 

You are falsely assuming political = inflammatory,  Even if it did, as political speech is not protected under public accommodation laws, it simply doesn't matter.

 

 

Actually, I'm not.  And I believe that I have demonstrated understanding of your points, but they are somewhat orthogonal to mine.  What I'm assuming is that OD, if they print political stuff at all, almost certainly prints stuff that is more inflammatory than this flyer is.  Presumably that is one of the reasons that they reversed themselves.  

 

I've described this several times, and several ways, but I have not condescended to you.  I would appreciate the same courtesy.

[Carol in Cal.]

.

 

* I realize that the "creative expression" argument isn't being made by OD or anyone here.  But, it's one of the lines in the sand I draw that informs my personal opinions about what should/shouldn't be legal.  YMMV.

Me, too.  It requires a certain type of emotional commitment that shouldn't be coerced, IMO.  It's too active to require.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually, I'm not.  And I believe that I have demonstrated understanding of your points, but they are somewhat orthogonal to mine.  What I'm assuming is that OD, if they print political stuff at all, almost certainly prints stuff that is more inflammatory than this flyer is.  Presumably that is one of the reasons that they reversed themselves.  

 

I've described this several times, and several ways, but I have not condescended to you.  I would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence!

 

1.) Inflammatory is not an objective standard.  It doesn't matter if you or I think something is more inflammatory, as OD has the right to set their policy as they choose.

 

2.)  I would wager the reversal has more to with PR and not finding this to be a battle worth fighting.  I personally don't find the flyer particularly inflammatory but I defend the right of OD to set their own policy.

[Joker]

Actually, I'm not.  And I believe that I have demonstrated understanding of your points, but they are somewhat orthogonal to mine.  What I'm assuming is that OD, if they print political stuff at all, almost certainly prints stuff that is more inflammatory than this flyer is.  Presumably that is one of the reasons that they reversed themselves.  

 

I've described this several times, and several ways, but I have not condescended to you.  I would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

It seems more likely to me that they don't really wish to be involved in the politics of flyers and backed off because of the media backlash. I don't think it points to anything they might have printed in the past. They have a written policy that is not clear. I don't get why it's so hard to believe one employee wasn't certain of the flyer considering the language and that at a glance it seems very politically motivated.

[Spy Car]

He's a jerk, alright.

 

To me this is partially one of those 'I dislike what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' kinds of things.

 

And really, it's interesting to see what we are fighting about and what we aren't. For instance, the corporatization of American (and actually worldwide media), that pretty much takes away the function of the fourth estate is pretty alarming, and it's related though somewhat tangentially to the issues here.

I'd defend his right to say it too, but not necessarily to use *my printing press* if I were in ODs position.

 

That's the difference.

 

I suspected I'd be on the other side of this to be honest, but the inflammatory language is over the top.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence!

 

No, I've speculated on this and clearly identified it as such.  As I've said repeatedly, I'm curious about whether they have printed political flyers.  

 

1.) Inflammatory is not an objective standard.  It doesn't matter if you or I think something is more inflammatory, as OD has the right to set their policy as they choose.

 

They need to set an objective criterion, and it's hard to imagine one that would disallow this flyer while allowing political ones that wouldn't end up being discriminatory against religion or against certain religious views. That's why I'm so curious about what their other work is like.

 

2.)  I would wager the reversal has more to with PR and not finding this to be a battle worth fighting.  I personally don't find the flyer particularly inflammatory but I defend the right of OD to set their own policy.

I think that their policy should be clearer and more public.  I don't remember seeing it posted when I have used OD in the past.  The rub always comes when something is a surprise, not when it's understood in advance.  That's very poor corporate planning.  Then additionally they need to train their employees on it more effectively, or it won't be applied uniformly, which can get them into trouble, both from a public relations and legal standpoint.

[albeto.]

Let me know when you've watched the videos and I'll do that.

 

I just finished watching the one linked in this article. 

 

ETA: Watched it with a couple of my kids. Learned some new things (ie, the kinds and purpose of the research, the effects of research, etc), and that was interesting. 

[Reefgazer]

Without even looking at the flyer, I believe that all private businesses should be able to refuse to do business with anyone or any organization they want, regardless of the reason or how despicable that reason. The issue should not matter, the reason should not matter; they are a private business. Before anyone jumps on me for that stance, I understand that is not the law for protected classes, but I do not agree with the law. I have also noticed that there are ways to get around such laws (such as a private club membership, for example) and I think those work arounds will be used far more often in the future for people who want to avoid such entanglements.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think that their policy should be clearer and more public.  I don't remember seeing it posted when I have used OD in the past.  The rub always comes when something is a surprise, not when it's understood in advance.  That's very poor corporate planning.  Then additionally they need to train their employees on it more effectively, or it won't be applied uniformly, which can get them into trouble, both from a public relations and legal standpoint.

 

 

There really is no legal issue here, as I have explained time and time again.  And they don't really need an objective standard as long as they don't start singling out protected classes.

 

Ever see the signs that say "we refuse the right to serve anyone"?  As long as a business doesn't violate state law doing so (and I have explained why rejecting political/inflammatory speech doesn't), then in general a business can do just that.

 

[happi duck]

...

 

People should do their jobs. People should not take a job that will put them in a position to violate their religious or moral convictions. If you abhor alcohol, don't work somewhere it is served. If you abhor God-talk, don't work in a church. If you're a religiously convicted vegan, don't take a job in meat processing plant. Etc.

 

...

 

People have a right to the religious freedom, but they do NOT have a right to accept one job and then pick and choose what parts of it they feel like doing.

In this case the person seemed to be doing their job. Their employer has a policy that the clerk thought came into play. From what I've read they were not making a decision based on their own beliefs but on their job description.

[justasque]

 

What would the reaction be if we learned that the employee had had an abortion herself?

 

 

I wonder if the company policy against "inflammatory rhetoric" is in part to protect employees from having to print things which are inflammatory against themselves?  Example - Employee of color being asked to print white supremacy flyers.  That would put the company in an awkward position in terms of potentially creating a hostile work environment for the employee.  (Not saying that was the case here, just that it must be quite difficult to anticipate all of the different things people might want to print, and the ramifications of them in a corporate environment.)  The practice of asking the customer to make their own copies in such cases may actually be a good solution.

 

 

Refusing over content is very different than refusing due to the group to which a customer belongs - the plaintiff would have to show they were refused because they were a Christian. If Office Depot provides other services to Christians (example: church flyers which I know they will print) then it is a tough case to win.

 

Example: a print shop owned by African Americans cannot refuse to serve white customers. They can refuse to print flyers for the Klan.

 

I just wanted to say thanks for all of your explanations of public accommodation laws.  They are not always easy for folks to understand, and you've done a nice job of explaining the nuances.  

 

[mamiof5]

I think Office Depot is totally wrong. There is nothing in that flyer that attacks groups who support abortion. That was a very poor call.

[Spy Car]

I think Office Depot is totally wrong. There is nothing in that flyer that attacks groups who support abortion. That was a very poor call.

If you don't consider calling people evil dealers in the grisly trade of body parts who are staining the land with the blood of innocents an attack.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

If you don't consider calling people evil dealers in the grisly trade of body parts who are staining the land with the blood of innocents an attack.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

I think that the substance of what is happening, just a few miles from me, should be considered here. 

 

Bill, have you watched the videos?  They remind me so much of books by Leon Uris about the Nazis.  It's horrendous.

[mamiof5]

If you don't consider calling people evil dealers in the grisly trade of body parts who are staining the land with the blood of innocents an attack.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

What is wrong about stating the facts?? I'm sorry, but if the glove fits...

[MarinesWife]

If you don't consider calling people evil dealers in the grisly trade of body parts who are staining the land with the blood of innocents an attack.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

 

He's only speaking truth.  I thought his prayer was spot on and actually quite thoughtful. 

 

I realize some people don't think the abortion industry is "evil."  However, you cannot deny that the abortion industry exists and that the dealings are happening. 

 

So just disagree with him instead of getting up in arms about it being an attack.   

[Cindy in FL.]

 

It specifically spoke of the evil in the abortion industry and the evil in Planned Parenthood. That's way different than calling people evil.

 

Calling people evil was only the starting point of the inflammatory scree. This is not the way to have reasoned discourse. This so-called "prayer" was designed to inflame the situation. Attempting to dodge that obvious fact under the false pretense that is about religious beliefs is unconscionable.

 

Bill

[albeto.]

I think that the substance of what is happening, just a few miles from me, should be considered here. 

 

Bill, have you watched the videos?  They remind me so much of books by Leon Uris about the Nazis.  It's horrendous.

 

That video was pretty interesting. It amused me and my kids in many ways. It was like Alex Jones in it's style; over the top fear tactics, melodramatic language, and all kinds of false correlations thrown throughout. From the very first scene (filmed 15 years ago, and so we can assume has nothing to do with this particular lunch meeting, so....?) to misleading and unrelated information to the neglecting of contextual information, that video is useless as far as exposing any scandal or horrifying discovery. For those who really dislike the fact that women do get abortions, and that public funds support medical care, including abortions, this kind of thing must be very upsetting. For those who understand the process of getting tissue to the research facilities, and the kinds and reasons for the research, it's really nothing alarming. It's not nearly as dastardly as you make it sound, imo, regardless of your proximity to this lunch meeting.  

[EmseB]

After reading three pages, I still cannot get why this is so complicated.  OD doesn't want to print it, don't force them to.  Go somewhere else.  Put it on blast on FB that they wouldn't print your flyer.  Why force people into doing things so that you don't have to be inconvenienced or feel bad?  Why???  Just move on with your life and dust the dirt off of your sandals.

 

On the other hand, someone wants to make a flyer with rhetoric you find offensive, or untrue, or inflammatory and it is now hate speech.  Can we please not clutch our pearls over every single thing that happens in this world?  A flyer?  Even if it said the most awful thing in the world, could we just admit that some people are awful and not give them power over our lives?

 

It's like the new sacred cow is not getting our feelings hurt by anyone for any reason.

[Carol in Cal.]

Albeto--

The one I referred to specifically was Episode 3 of the Documentary web series at this website.  http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/human-capital/documentary-web-series/

 

And I don't appreciate your snark about 'your proximity to this lunch meeting'. 

[Cindy in FL.]

nm

 

If you don't consider calling people evil dealers in the grisly trade of body parts who are staining the land with the blood of innocents an attack.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

[albeto.]

Albeto--

 

The one I referred to specifically was Episode 3 of the Documentary web series at this website.  http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/human-capital/documentary-web-series/

 

And I don't appreciate your snark about 'your proximity to this lunch meeting'. 

 

Okay, thanks. I watched that, too. It doesn't change what I said, although personal testimony made up the bulk of the video. Personal testimony is of course irrelevant to the legal misinformation and contextual misrepresentation being spread about Planned Parenthood. For another angle, you might find this video interesting. It's

 who filmed her abortion to show other women it's not necessarily scary or traumatizing to artificially terminate a pregnancy. 

 

I'm not being snarky with regard to your proximity. You keep referencing it as if it should hold some extra value. I reject that. I think it's irrelevant, and said so. That's all. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think Office Depot is wrong.  I wouldn't even look at what is on anything as a worker/owner of Office Depot.  It's a print job.  I didn't create the document, and it does not represent my views.  It's just a print job.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think Office Depot is wrong. I wouldn't even look at what is on anything as a worker/owner of Office Depot. It's a print job. I didn't create the document, and it does not represent my views. It's just a print job.

Well they have to look to avoid copyright violations.

[Carol in Cal.]

What it is is horrifying personal testimony of someone who, in a Planned Parenthood facility, was trained to take an intact, aborted baby born alive, and cut open through the face to extract his brain, while his heart was still beating.. 

 

If that description is not horrifying, then we have lost our way utterly.

 

I remember when I first read about the Nazi torturers of babies.  The story of the officer who would throw them up into the air, and see whether he could shoot them before they fell to the ground was one that sticks in my mind, after all these years.  The one of the officer who would line them up in a row so he could see how many his bullet would go through before it was finally stopped by their living flesh, is another.

 

This personal testimony is comparable in every way to that, and this treatment to the worst of what the Nazis did.  And their rationale was the same.  'They are going to be killed anyway, so what difference does it make?  They are subhuman anyway.  Not really people, per se.' 

 

I shudder to think that the next generation will read those books about the Nazis and not see how horrendously wrong they were.  And this kind of personal testimony, this thing that happens every day in our country, is why.

 

 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well they have to look to avoid copyright violations.

 

Except for someone handing over a bound book, how would they even know that?  If this is the case, that they must determine if it violates copyright, then so be it.  But the refusal was not based on that reason.  I don't agree with their reason for refusing.

[SparklyUnicorn]

What it is is horrifying personal testimony of someone who, in a Planned Parenthood facility, was trained to take an intact, aborted baby born alive, and cut open through the face to extract his brain, while his heart was still beating.. 

 

If that description is not horrifying, then we have lost our way utterly.

 

I remember when I first read about the Nazi torturers of babies.  The story of the officer who would throw them up into the air, and see whether he could shoot them before they fell to the ground was one that sticks in my mind, after all these years.  The one of the officer who would line them up in a row so he could see how many his bullet would go through before it was finally stopped by their living flesh, is another.

 

This personal testimony is comparable in every way to that, and this treatment to the worst of what the Nazis did.  And their rationale was the same.  'They are going to be killed anyway, so what difference does it make?  They are subhuman anyway.  Not really people, per se.' 

 

I shudder to think that the next generation will read those books about the Nazis and not see how horrendously wrong they were.  And this kind of personal testimony, this thing that happens every day in our country, is why.

 

Is that really true?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Except for someone handing over a bound book, how would they even know that? If this is the case, that they must determine if it violates copyright, then so be it. But the refusal was not based on that reason. I don't agree with their reason for refusing.

You don't have to agree - it is their policy. :)

[Carol in Cal.]

Is that really true?

Yes, that's what is on that video.   Eyewitness, participatory testimony.