Kentucky

Kentucky Court Rules Printer Can't Be Forced to Produce Pro-Gay Messages

It's a fairly pure example of compelled speech.

|

Clothes guaranteed to go to heaven with you when you die.
Hands On Originals

Speech is speech! At least we have the settled for the moment, anyway, for this one case. The circuit court for Fayette County in Kentucky has ruled that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission erred when it determined that a Christian T-shirt company discriminated when it refused to print shirts for a gay pride event.

In 2012 a Lexington, Kentucky, gay organization filed a complaint against Hands On Originals, a shirt company who wears its Christianity right on its site, if not on its sleeves (sorry, couldn't resist). The organization asked for Hands On Originals to make shirts for their 2012 gay pride festival. The shirt company declined, because they didn't support the message the group wanted printed. The group then accused the company of violating the county's public accommodation laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The response from Hands On was that they weren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. They were refusing to print a message with which they disagreed. This is a case that sounds familiar. In Colorado, a Christian man tried to show some sort of bakery hypocrisy when he tried to get a Colorado bakery to make a cake for him with an anti-gay message. The bakery refused. He complained, clearly trying to draw a similarity to those bakeries who were being cited and fined for refusing to make wedding cakes for gay customers.

But the mistake he made was demanding the cakes say something particular. Colorado dismissed his complaint. He was not being discriminated against just for being a Christian. Rather, the bakery could not be compelled to say something it found offensive.

And so it goes with Hands On Originals. They were not discriminating against gay customers. They were declining to publish statements with which the company disagreed, something they've done several times in the past, according to court documents.

Originally the county Human Rights Commission actually ruled against the shirt company, stating that forcing Hands On Originals to print the shirts "does not violate the Respondent's (HOO) right to free speech, does not compel it to speak, and does not burden the Respondent's (HOO) right to the free expression of religion."

Judge James Ishmael Jr.'s response is to simply point out that the Human Rights Commission is completely and utterly wrong. He does start by saying "With all due respect," which I assume is the circuit court judicial opinion equivalent of getting kicked directly in the teeth. He says the conclusions are "factually incorrect" with respect to both Supreme Court interpretations of the federal law and the state's own laws. Kentucky does have a religious freedom regulation, and the judge invokes it, along with the precedent recently set by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling.

Ishmael then ordered the decision reversed and all charges against Hands On Originals dismissed. Read the full ruling here (pdf).

NEXT: Printing business has First Amendment and RFRA right to refuse to print gay pride festival T-shirts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Time to divest from Kentucky.

  2. “There are no comments” just about covers it

  3. The organization asked for Hands On Originals to make shirts for their 2012 gay pride festival.

    They just randomly picked Hands On Originals to do business with?

    1. Calling a second printer would have imposed an impossible burden on their organization, thus violating their civil rights. They only budgeted for one phone call.

    2. Yeah, right. it was “lets poke the christians for a lawsuit” time.

    3. WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING, FIST

    4. Apparently they had received quotes from three different companies.

      1. but they went ahead and tried to sued them for refusing their business anyway.

      2. Without telling the quoters exactly what they wanted.

  4. Remind me what’s the difference between refusing to express something one finds offensive vs. refusing to serve a function one finds repugnant?

    1. The difference is Fuck You, That’s Why. I guess they figure it’s okay to compel labor, but not speech. Because speech and religion are specifically called out in the Bill of Rights, but baking cakes is not.

    2. There isn’t one. It is like saying the government could force you to wear, oh I don’t know say a yellow star, and that wouldn’t violate your freedom of speech or religion since you are only being asked to do something not say something.

      1. You know who else forced people to wear yellow stars??

        1. Carl’s Junior restaurants?

          1. *narrows gaze*

            1. *offers cheeseburger*

              1. *widens mouth*

                1. *swoops in and replaces with Wendy’s ghost pepper chicken sammich*

                  1. *shakes fist and shouts “You Bastard!!”*

                    1. *disappointed face*

        2. The creators of Super Mario Bros?

        3. The Minnesota Northstars?

          1. I thought their stars were WHITE??

        4. 2nd grade teachers?

        5. Approx. 50% of Sneetches?

      2. Lucky the Leprechaun?

      3. Well, that wouldn’t have been necessary if the Jews had just worn enough pieces of flare to begin with.

    3. Something like running a business is a privilege the state affords you and not a right so shut up and play by the rules.

    4. Because of specific enumerated rights (speech) vs unenumerated powers given to the states

    5. Remind me what’s the difference between refusing to express something one finds offensive vs. refusing to serve a function one finds repugnant?

      Absolutely nothing.

      This case exposes the insanity of anti-discrimination laws and rubs the rational person’s face in them like a puppy having its face rubbed in its mess as part of housebreaking it.

      Furthermore consider this…

      If the owner had said “I don’t print any messages for gay people” he would be liable.

      The owner saying “I don’t print a particular class of messages for anyone” was what saved his ass.

      But the two excuses would apply to the same act, turning down an order. And so it is his thoughts that change a non-crime to a crime.

      Fucking insanity!!!!

  5. So let me understand this correctly.

    The government cannot compel you to convey a message however they can compel you to perform an action (other than transmitting information).

    1. SHUT THE FUCK UP AND BUY YOUR GODDAMNED HEALTH INSURANCE, RIGHT THE FUCK NOW!!!

      1. I’ve decided that buying health insurance is a form of speech, so FUCK YOU RIGHT BACK.

        1. You are gonna be SO PWND when the IRS gets done assraping you, Scruffy!!!

          1. I’m going to WIN.

            *whistles off into the distance*

            1. You’re gonna win an assraping, is what.

            2. Well, if you wanted an assrapin’, then, yes, you are correct.

    2. That does question the consistancy on symbolic speech like nude dancing and flag burning.

      1. What if you danced nekkid, whilst burnin’ a flag?

        *resumes whittling*

        1. If symbolic speech is protected then there is no problem. If it is not, then there is a problem. Is decorating a cake symbolic speech, such that o.e cannot be forced to decorate a cake with two groom figures?~

  6. Well what can we expect from these toothless rednecks in fly over country? After all, they sent that awful RuPaul to the senate, twice! Rat fucking flea taggers!

    1. THIS ^^^

  7. “In 2012 a Lexington, Kentucky, gay organization filed a complaint against Hands On Originals, a shirt company who wears its Christianity right on its site, if not on its sleeves (sorry, couldn’t resist). The organization asked for Hands On Originals to make shirts for their 2012 gay pride festival.”

    Is there some reason for not actually naming the complaining organization?

    And also, “gay”? really? I mean, i’m not even like what. So reductive! What about the L&BTQ;, hello?

    1. don’t forget S.

      1. ….

        ….

        ….

        S?

        I’m sad. My imagination fails.

        1. Hope it’s ‘sapiosexual’. That needs to be a thing.

          1. It wasn’t… but it is NOW!

      2. and sometimes Y

        1. and sometimes “Y not!” Heyyyyooooo

    2. It is something called “The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington”. Besides being appalling homocentric and utterly dismissive of the Trans and cis community, they seem to be a service organization that runs counseling services and puts on the yearly gay pride parade.

    3. Volokh bothers to actually name the organization AND the actual person who filed the complaint.

      I’m not sure what the point is of maintaining the anonymity of a group going out of its way to search for discrimination and file punitive lawsuits. If that’s their steez, they should be ‘proud’ of it, i’d think

    4. So this organization prefers to have sex with organizations of the same gender?

  8. One solution is to have Ted Cruz meet with the owners and staff of Hands On Originals.

    1. HIYO!

      YESSS!!!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      /Ed McMahon

    2. Oh, very well done, sir.

    3. Start selling “I met with Ted Cruz” stickers. You can wear them on your shirt or put them on the front door of your business.

  9. One or two isolated incidents like this would seem normal to me. But this is slowly becoming a monthly thing – if not weekly. I’d say for 90% of these, I highly highly doubt that the event organizers truly and honestly believed that the Christian owned businesses had a superior product. It’s not about pursuing quality. It’s all about the message – pulling that Jon Stewart “gotcha!” on unsuspecting business owners. You have to be a special kind of stupid (or more likely, a malicious asshole) to think, “Ya know… This business probably doesn’t want to make shirts for this. But I’m going to pursue them anyways because if they say no, then I can raise a stink and show what stupid bigots they are. Yeah! It’s fail proof!”

    If you’re intentionally poking beehives just to show how “morally superior” you are, then you’re not that morally sound to begin with.

    principals principles

    1. So when are they going to start going to Muslim bakers and asking for a bacon topped gay cake?

      1. its not possible for a victim class to be oppressed by another victim class, sorry.

        1. I’m betting that it’s totally possible for one victim class to start beheading the other victim classes once all the non-victim classes have been eliminated.

          1. They’ll use the same excuse they use when a woman rapes or beats another woman: “the perpetrator was just recapitulating social roles instilled in her by the patriarchy.” In other words, the moment a woman hurts another woman, she momentarily becomes an ‘honorary man’ just to soak up the moral responsibility.

            So if a Muslim beheads a gay guy, it will really be the heteronormativity within him that’s to blame. And the solution will be to make more pizzerias cater gay weddings and send more fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.

        2. what if it’s a white convert… like Cat Stevens?

      2. I live in the area and I can’t say I know of any Muslim owned bakeries. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist…

        Regardless, they won’t do that because Muslims are oppressed too. Straight, white, hetero Christians can’t be the victims because… I don’t know… Republicans? This is actual progressive logic and I can’t shove my head up my own ass far enough to make any sense of it.

        1. Never mind that societies built and dominated by straight white men are the most prosperous, tolerant, and inclusive societies in human history. So tolerant in fact that they accept as a matter of inevitability, that every conceivable class of humans in society is taught to deal with straight white men in bad faith and regard them as slavers and destroyers.

        2. No, no, the correct response when referring to Muslim discrimination against Christians is “Because Crusades!” with as many exclamation marks as necessary.

          Looks like someone needs to go back for more classes at Alinskyland, “The Radicalest Place on Earth(tm)”…

      3. More like a sausage-topped gay cake, I would presume.

    2. “You have to be a special kind of stupid (or more likely, a malicious asshole) to think, “Ya know… “

      the term you were looking for above is, “Lawyer”

  10. “With all due respect”

    Seems like that’s the judicial equivalent to, “Well – bless his heart…..”

    1. Insulting people is so much more fun when they’re not in on the joke.

  11. It doesn’t really matter. The business got drug before the commission for a self criticism session. The owners no doubt have incurred all kinds of legal expenses, which are likely not recoverable and have undergone all kinds of stress over this case hanging over their head. The message has been sent. Either get with the program and abandon your views and celebrate gays or face the consequences.

    1. All true…. but wasn’t the fine against the original bakery something like $135k? That’s a crazy sum of money for running afoul of a brand new standard for the first time.

      So while pain was inflicted and purposes served, it could have been worse.

      1. If the bakers refused to pay the fine what then? If they refused to acknowledge the liens on their property then what? If they use all means necessary to resist arrest, what then? Yes it could have been worse, the bakers could have steadfastly refused this abridgment of their natural rights and been killed for it.

        Any criminalization of free association is effectively a commuted death sentence.

        1. Exactly that. Fines are only “fines” because the come with the threat of imprisonment or if you resist enough death if you refuse to pay them.

    2. As always, the process IS the punishment.

    3. DRAGGED.

      Do people not realized “-ed” is the regular past tense suffix? Or are all verbs in English now irregular?

      You sneaked out, not snuck out.
      You dived in, not dove in.

      You brang shitty English into the thread John, and that is something up with which I will not put.

      1. Okay. Sorry.

      2. They may realize[not -d] that there are competing variants of several ‘regular past tense verbs.

        Both ‘sneak’ and ‘dive’ have competing forms, with ‘dove’ being pretty much standard and ‘snuck’ being jocular and colloquial. Not all verbs are treated this way–nobody says ‘poke’ as the past tense of ‘peek’, for example. Although you can find ‘throve’…

        Also you violated somebody-or-other’s law [can’t remember whose]. It’s strongly recommended not to correct others English because chances are good you’ll make your own (unrelated) error and grammar nerds like myself will then jump on you.

  12. No local coverage of this at all. This is the first I’ve heard of it.

    The gay pride parade is some big business here; couldn’t the economic pain of forgoing a lucrative be enough? I guess not. [eyeroll]

  13. In addition to the raised eyebrows above, participation in a wedding ceremony has a significant public communication in all societies. If you attend a wedding you are publicly proclaiming your support of the union.

    This is why Jewish mothers refuse to attend the weddings of their dear sons to their Catholic brides. The level of speech involved in attending such a wedding is such that people will take the uncomfortable step of declining to attend when they would not otherwise have any conflict with the couple.

    I have been involved in such a scenario myself. A set of relatives politely declined to attend my wedding, yet my bride and I were perfectly welcome in their homes and stayed the week during Christmas holidays. Not one unkind word was ever spoken to either of us – or about either of us as far as I know. But making a public statement of support for an interracial marriage was more than they could do.

    Forcing someone to cater a wedding with which they have fundamental religious objections to is very different from requiring a barber to cut their hair or even to have the same catering company do a birthday celebration for the same person. There is a fundamental “I approve of this union” message implicit in merely being present at the wedding.

    1. I tried to make this same point to Matt Welch when he claimed that the Fox News woman was being “intolerant” for refusing to attend her friend’s wedding. No, if anyone was being intolerant it was the friend, assuming she insisted on the woman’s attendance.

      1. That is a fundamental and dare I say dangerous misuse of the word “intolerant” on his part. She is being disapproving, not intolerant. She tolerates her friend just fine.

        How can anyone not see this as a slow march to totalitarianism when even a self-proclaimed libertarian writer habitually conflatea tolerating someone’s actions with having to actively participate in someone’s actions?

    2. Maybe if you had decided to marry within your species they’d have had less of a problem. You sicken me!

      1. I will confess that she was more than a little out of my league. I suppose that should have been a clue – that she chose me over future NBA all-stars and NFL all-pro’s. Still, we had a 15 year run. Not too bad in today’s world.

        1. That being said, I’m not such a troglodyte as to be of a completely separate species…..

    3. This is why Jewish mothers refuse to attend the weddings of their dear sons to their Catholic brides. The level of speech involved in attending such a wedding is such that people will take the uncomfortable step of declining to attend when they would not otherwise have any conflict with the couple.

      I have been involved in such a scenario myself. A set of relatives politely declined to attend my wedding, yet my bride and I were perfectly welcome in their homes and stayed the week during Christmas holidays. Not one unkind word was ever spoken to either of us – or about either of us as far as I know. But making a public statement of support for an interracial marriage was more than they could do.

      This is what put me firmly in the ‘anti-gay’ camp from the beginning. A sob story (NPR, I think) about how a gay kid was disowned by his father and how many of his extended family, who helped support him, refused to attend his gay wedding. The tone was obviously, condescension, with regard to the bigots who wouldn’t publicly embrace this poor soul.

      It largely ignored the fact that, in my experience; (Jewish, Christian, farming, fishing, ranching…) parents have been disowning their kids for choosing the wrong career/life path for centuries, let alone just not attending their wedding.

      It very much struck me as; “Their minds *must* be changed, not just behaviors or attitudes.”

      1. I sympathize with the gay guy’s story. You have no idea how much it destroyed me that my atheist friend refused to convert to my religion, go through seminary to become a priest in it, so that he could be the minister at my wedding. Oh, it would’ve been so special if only he had done this, but no, he refused, because he “doesn’t believe in it.” Fucking bigot ruined my big day, and clearly belongs in jail.

    4. “You mean you’re not black? Then how are we an interracial couple?”
      “I thought you were Mexican.”

  14. Hands on Originals refuses to participate == free association heros
    New York Gay Mans Chorus refuses to participate == evil Stalinists

    Again it seems oddly like the free association argument is just a rationalization and the actual deciding factor as to which the Johns of the world support is something else entirely.

    1. I know you are smarter than Bo, so you must really be this dishonest on the issue. No one is calling Hands on Originals anything. They are merely applauding the court stopping the government from stomping on them. If you think Hands on Originals are a bunch of assholes, that is your right to think that way. And from your prospective they no doubt are. Whatever one’s opinion about that, it has nothing to do with the rightness of this court decision. The state of Kentucky was dead wrong to try and force them to associate with the gay pride committee. If you don’t like their refusal to do that, that is your right. But even if they are the biggest assholes ever, the state has no business violating their right to be that way.

      As far as the people boycotting the hotel, they have course have every right to do that just like these guys have every right to boycott the gay pride parade. The government should no more be forcing them to go to the hotel anymore than it should be forcing these people to supply the gay pride parade. If both parties’ refusal to do business makes them assholes, everyone else of course is free to do that. In the case of the hotel, the government wasn’t doing anything, so there wasn’t any government action to talk about, only the fact that they are assholes.

      Do yourself a favor and stop being such a butt hurt lying sack of shit.

      1. Whether its a wedding cake or a banner for your queer pride parade, nobody’s livelihood is threatened by one business entity out of dozens saying no for religious reasons.

        On the other hand with the gay hoteliers and Memories Pizza you had an internet mob attempt the equivalent of burning it all down.

      2. I am really impressed how bravely Stormy is embracing her role as one of the site’s mendacious fucks.

        It’s like watching someone in India proudly taking on the role of a night-soil removal engineer defiantly embracing the untouchable status that comes with the job.

    2. One of those is not like the other. The equivalent would be a third party attempting to compel the printer to not interact with the gay organization or they would withdraw their business. An act for which they would rightly be called assholes.

    3. Did the NY Gay Man’s Chorus get sued? First I heard of it

  15. He says the conclusions are “factually incorrect” with respect to both Supreme Court interpretations of the federal law and the state’s own laws. Kentucky does have a religious freedom regulation, and the judge invokes it, along with the precedent recently set by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling.

    And, just like that, the Nazgul awaken. It’s like someone just put on the One Ring. Celebrate now, we will, and drink deeply until the time that they come for our souls reverse the ruling on appeal.

  16. When I worked at Honeywell I was the president of the Pride Council. We had a small budget, which we used to develope and purchase flyers about gay stuff. This is like 20-years ago and for the record, I am not gay (NTTAWWT).

    Anyway, because we were supportive of gays, we contracted a fucking gay print shop. When I read shit like this I know that John is right that this is just in-your-face-you-fucking-christian bullshit.

    1. “Honeywell”? Sounds like a lesbian bar.

      1. Not just any lesbian bar, but the best named lesbian bar ever.

      2. And would you call it ‘Honeywell” or “The Honeywell”? I think it needs the “the” to have its full effect.

        1. The Honeywell, definitely.

    2. I’m actually familiar with this company and their products….

      ….and I am insanely jealous

      1. It was a very sweet gig.

  17. I like this judge.

    /raises glass of Bourbon.

  18. Just read the order. I think the judge was making every effort he could to not type, “the order of the commission is reversed, YOU DUMBASSES”

  19. Kentucky Court Rules Printer Can’t Be Forced to Produce Pro-Gay Messages

    God damn Epson printer! Why are you redacting Scott Shackford’s name?

    1. Don’t they make salt, too?

      My feet are KILLING me…

      *hunts for large pan*

      1. I’m trying to lose weight…

        *sobs uncontrollably*

  20. Just think of it this way, folks, When all of these evil Christian businesses are eliminated, then we can all be served by gay businesses, which will not doubt have impeccable taste.

    And don’t forget that maybe, Shreek will finally be safe from the roaming hordes of jihadist Chistians in his home town of Dogdick, Georgia.

    1. CHRISTFAG!! BUSHPIG!!

    2. And when all of the Christian businessmen are eliminated, the impulse to shut people’s businesses down for holding objectionable views will of course magically go away. This kind of thing will only happen to evil Christians, never anyone else. And when Christians realize they need to stop doing business and being in public, the Progressives will leave them alone. The taste of power will never lead to Progs doing more. Never!!

      1. Yup, seems legit.

        Of course, there will be a need for vigilance to make sure Christians don’t return, or spawn some neo-Christian businesses, but that can easily be prevented. Good men and women and intergendered and suchlike of good character will be on hand to ensure proper corrections are applied as soon as needed.

      2. When they came for the Christians…

  21. To elaborate on a point by John above, I understand this case has been going on since 2012. I can only imagine the legal expenses they’ve incurred in that time. Does your average Christian small business really have the resources to run a business and at the same time set aside money for legal fees, and set aside time for depositions and consultations with lawyers?

    Unless they extend the SLAPP statutes to cases like this, the “human rights and fairness” committees will be able to either drive small companies out of business or force them into a “settlement.”

    1. And I’m guessing the case isn’t over yet, since the gay group could always appeal to a higher court.

  22. I’m going to make sure my bakery products are labelled “Edible Art”.

    1. “Tasty Signs: We’ll make you love to eat your words!”

  23. This entire issue is nothing but a artificially created club to beat people the left doesn’t like. The number of gay people and gay organization is in comparison to the country at large very small. The number of people who own businesses that would refuse to serve gays or refuse to participate in a gay wedding or print pro gay materials is equally small. So the chances of either group actually running into each other is pretty damned small. This is the perfect case of both sides being able to solve any issues by leaving the other alone. They only are not leaving each other alone because the left has figured out they can sue Christians into bankruptcy over the issue. That is the reason why it should bother people. This isn’t about gays or gay rights or Christians. This is about the left being able to go after people and control what is publicly acceptable thinking. When they are done with this, they will find other excuses and do the same thing to everyone else who disagrees with them about anything.

    1. “they *will* find other excuses and do the same thing to everyone else who disagrees with them about anything.” [emphasis added]

      I notice you used the future tense. What’s up with that? Haven’t they been trying to grind their enemies into the dirt for some time now?

      1. The perpetually aggrieved must continue to be aggrieved about … something, there has to be something that’s unfair…

        1. You’d think that at least on the gay issue, the activists are carrying all before them, winning triumph after triumph. Yet they’re just as angry and aggrieved at the behavior of some small businesses as they were at AIDS and the sodomy laws.

          If I were winning 90% of what I wanted, I’d be more cheerful.

          1. The opposite happens: the more you get, the angrier you get. Every identity movement in the US illustrates this, but the best case in point: what feminists are the angriest, most aggrieved feminists in the world? Arab feminists? Nooo, it’s the Swedish feminists. Sweden has the most radical, insane, bitter (and most politically influential on a national level) feminists in the world. Women enjoy more privilege in Sweden than anywhere else, and yet, they have the angriest most discontent feminists making the most outrageous demands.

            The lesson I get from it: a movement’s appetite is boundless; not only does it not stop at equality, but the more you give it, the more emboldened it gets to demand even more, more, more.

            1. Have you factored in the fact that most arab feminists licve in places where it is not exactly safe to express their anger?

  24. But the mistake he made was demanding the cakes say something particular.

    In other words, there’s a wrong way, and there’s a right way, to compel a business to engage in trade with you against the business’ wishes.

    Originally the county Human Rights Commission actually ruled against the shirt company, stating that forcing Hands On Originals to print the shirts “does not violate the Respondent’s (HOO) right to free speech, does not compel it to speak, and does not burden the Respondent’s (HOO) right to the free expression of religion.”

    In other words, “We say what speech is and what ain’t. And that, ain’t.”

    The judge disagreed with them. This time.

  25. I am gay, and I live next to the district courthouse here in Lexington, KY. And let me say, I’m a happy camper about this! Freedom of association wins one battle. Now ssshhhhhh! Don’t tell anybody I said this. I’ll be (even more) ostracized (which may explain why I more prefer perusing Reason articles than going to bath houses).

    1. You may very well suffer the same fate as those two guys who hosted Ted Cruz in NY.

    2. Your secret is safe with me, but you better erase your web history. And consider Tor.

  26. I’m getting a little tired of faggots running around trying to find companies that don’t want to do business with them.

    Maybe it’s time to put the faggots out of business.

    1. troll is trolling

    2. Says a man named Bambi, lol.

  27. And, Yet, a baker can be compelled to create a cake, and a florist can be compelled to create floral arrangements, because those creations aren’t speech.
    There is something very wrong in the law if these contradictions are allowed to stand.
    A nude dancer is engaging in “speech”, so her dancing is protected;
    a protester is engaging in “speech” when he burns the flag;
    but the baker and florist aren’t in their creation,
    so are compelled to a servitude that violates their morality.
    That’s a true acceptance and tolerance of diversity.

    1. Unless of course the baker puts words on the cake…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.