A Lexington, KY-based apparel decorating company is set for a clash in the Kentucky Supreme Court on Friday in a case that pits arguments for freedom of conscience, speech and religion against accusations of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

The court is expected to hear oral arguments from Hands On Originals (HOO; asi/219413) and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission in a running legal battle whose roots stretch back to 2012.

Blaine Adamson, Hands On Originals

It was then that Hands On Originals declined to print T-shirts for the Lexington-based Gay and Lesbian Services Organization’s (GLSO) pride festival. HOO Owner Blaine Adamson, whose business is marketed as “Christian Outfitters” that cater to Christian schools, organizations, camps and more, said that printing shirts that bear certain messaging would conflict with his conscience and religious beliefs.

Adamson has said that he offered up another print shop that would produce the order for the same price. The shirts were to feature the words “Lexington Pride Festival” and a large number “5” colored with rainbow dots – a nod to it being the city’s fifth pride festival.

“I’ve happily served and employed people of all backgrounds, of all walks of life.... I have gay customers and employ gay people,” Adamson has said in an online commentary. “We’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages.”

In reaction to Adamson’s refusal, the GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. As a result, HOO was charged with violating Lexington’s fairness ordinance. In part, the ordinance prohibits businesses open in a public forum from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.

The human rights commission prevailed in an initial ruling, but subsequent legal battling led to HOO winning in the Fayette County Circuit Court. In 2017, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HOO in a split 2-1 vote, with a dissenting judge effectively saying that HOO was guilty of discrimination. The appeals panel majority, however, upheld Judge James D. Ishmael’s 2015 circuit court ruling, which cited Kentucky’s religious freedom statute and stated that Adamson was not refusing the GLSO as would-be customers because of their sexual orientation, but because he objected to the message on the T-shirt.

“It is clear beyond dispute that HOO and its owners declined to print the T-shirts in question because of the message advocating sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman,” Ishmael wrote. “The well-established Constitutional rights of HOO and its owners on this issue are well settled.” In 2017, the appeals court ruled that HOO’s right to free speech supersedes Lexington’s fairness ordinance.

Things didn’t end there, though.

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission appealed to the state’s Supreme Court. And now, that case is poised to come to a head on Friday. Whether or not the eventual ruling will establish a precedent that will be applied in similar cases remains to be seen.

Ray Sexton, the director of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that arguments over “messaging” obfuscate what at its core is a clear-cut case of discrimination.

“It seems like the bare-bones allegations are getting lost in the freedom of speech and message of the shirt issue,” Sexton told the newspaper. “If this case was truly about the message on the shirt, they would’ve rejected it from the beginning … it wasn’t until they found out who the shirt was for that they denied the service.”

HOO’s attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit with a stated goal of protecting religious freedom, have argued that the apparel decorating company’s essential service is promoting messages through imprinted clothing, thereby putting Adamson’s decision solidly within the realm of freedom of speech.

HOO lead attorney Jim Campbell told the Lexington Herald-Leader that HOO shouldn’t have to print a shirt that conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs, just as an apparel decorator who is part of the LGBTQ community shouldn’t be compelled to produce T-shirts bearing messages that articulate religious beliefs that advocate against gay marriage. “This cuts across ideological lines,” Campbell said.

Adamson has declined other orders. The ADF pointed out that HOO refused to print at least 13 orders between 2010 and 2012 because the messages promoted things Adamson didn’t support because of his religious beliefs, including shirts with a violent message, shirts hyping a strip club and pens advertising a sexually explicit video. Adamson has said that he also opted against printing “a simple black shirt with white text that read, ‘Homosexuality is a sin.’…I don’t think that’s how Jesus would have handled the issue; Jesus would have balanced grace and truth.”