In its order upholding HOO’s right not to speak — its right not to assist in spreading a message endorsing an unbiblical view of sexuality — the court relied on the Supreme Court’s clear statement in Wooley v. Maynard: We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.

Amidst the unrelenting bad news regarding freedom of conscience (see, for example, this report of an Oregon hearing officer imposing a ruinous $135,000 judgment on a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding), it’s refreshing to read a bit of constitutional sanity. My good friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom (full disclosure: I worked for ADF for a number of years and continue to speak at ADF events) just won a key decision in a Lexington, Kentucky trial court on behalf of “Hands On Originals,” a custom printing company. Hands On Originals (HOO) refused to print t-shirts for a 2012 gay pride parade, and the organizers filed a complaint before the local human rights commission. HOO was one of three t-shirt companies the gay pride parade organizers contacted, and when HOO refused the order, the group was easily able to find an alternative vendor. The commission, however, ruled against the company, and the company appealed to the circuit court.

HOO is owned and operated by Christians who attempt to operate “consistently with the teachings of the Bible.” In fact, the owners put in place a clear policy against printing messages that conflicted with their beliefs. The policy stated:

Hands On Originals both employs and conducts business with people of all genders, races, religions, sexual preferences, and national origins. However, due to the promotional nature of our products, it is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any order that would endorse positions that would conflict with the convictions of the ownership.

In its order upholding HOO’s right not to speak — its right not to assist in spreading a message endorsing an unbiblical view of sexuality — the court relied on the Supreme Court’s clear statement in Wooley v. Maynard:

We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.

Read More