If I own a printing service

that of other businesses that have been in our news. I'll post this example link

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/office-depot-defends-employees-refusal-to-make-copies-of-anti-abortion-hate-material/

to a story that was recently discussed in this forum. If you look at the articles title and then research the truth about what was requested to be printed, you should find nothing that fits the title.

We've had other businesses lately that have been under attack for their refusal of some custom services. This isn't like not letting a person through your front door because of their race or national origin or because you wouldn't sell them a generic item. It was because, for it's own reasons, the business wouldn't provide some special services per customer specifications. For custom services, I've come out on the side of the business.

In the case of printing and other services, I can find a lot of reasons someone might be hesitant, unable or unwilling to provide them. I would say that anything deemed to be injurious to their own reputation is acceptable for automatic refusal. An activity of questionable legality, morality, or that was potentially harmful to people or property, could be refused at their own discretion. This would allow them the opportunity to abstain from "hot button" issues if desired.

Difficult.

I think any company should retain the right to refuse to take on work. But difficulties arise, I imagine, on the when, why and how such refusal is done.

For example, if contracts are signed then the company reneges, are they liable to a law suit for breach of contract?

Or, as in the example you gave, I read the proposed flier and saw no specific threat of violence against abortionists. So was the company line that the flier advocates “the persecution of certain groups of people,” supported by fact?

Such things are bread and butter issues for law companies and the courts of course.

Mark

can distort the truth and bend public opinion. People will read or listen to the point in which their emotions are stirred. At that point they'll pass judgment and read/listen no further. One of our current presidential hopefuls has, in so many words, pointed that out an I believe he is absolutely correct. But that's a completely different topic from that of my intention.

In the case of a business, I believe the owner has a right to protect the reputation or safety of that business and to use his/her own best judgement in doing so. This does not mean that an individual employee can take it upon themselves to make any and all judgements on their own which seems to be the case of Office Depot for this one incident. Why the media grabbed it, spun it and created more mess than need be also another topic but we need to be aware of how they conduct their business as well. But, if the store owner or manager thought that the local climate made it risky to print certain materials at the time, I believe that needs to be respected. We've gotten to where people have a habit of erupting violently in an almost predictable way and, IMO, our media is partly responsible for sparking such eruptions.