Former UK vendor accused of discriminating against organizers of Lexington gay pride festival

By Kayla Phelps 

Organizers of Lexington’s gay pride festival have filed a discrimination complaint against Hands On Originals, a former vendor that UK has paid roughly $200,000 since July 2011.

GLSO signed an official complaint Wednesday with the Human Rights Commission for Hands On Originals’ refusal to print T-shirts for the fifth annual Lexington Pride Festival.

Aaron Baker, president of GLSO, said the group gathered quotes from a variety of local companies and decided Hands On Originals had the best price. Committee members called the company back and gave descriptions of the design. Baker said one of the company’s owners started asking questions about their organization and what it was promoting.

“The Pride Festival T-shirt printing quote would not be honored due to the fact that the T-shirt company is a Christian organization,” GLSO’s official complaint said.

Baker said the T-shirt design never used the word “gay,” and instead said “Lexington Pride Festival” with the number five, representing the number of years the festival has taken place.

He said the company referred GLSO to another company that would honor the quote.

“This is really the first time we have run into this sort of problem,” Baker said. “My reaction was, ‘What does this have to do with anything?’ This has nothing to do with printing T-shirts or not printing T-shirts.”

During this fiscal year, UK has done around $200,000 in business with Hands On Originals. However, UK spokesman Jay Blanton said in an email to the Kernel that the company’s contract with UK expired last week.

UK has contracts with two other companies that do the same sort of business. Within these contracts, a non-discrimination and equal opportunity clause is included.

The clause states that a “contractor is subject to and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations governing equal employment opportunity and affirmative action.”

Sexual orientation and gender identity aren’t specified in UK’s clause but fall under Lexington ordinance 201-99, known as the Fairness Ordinance, which the complaint was filed under.

In 1999, sexual orientation/gender identity was added to the ordinance to protect against discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations, said Raymond Sexton, interim executive director for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Rights Commission.

“Everyone has equal enjoyment of goods and services of businesses operating in Fayette County,” he said.

Few public accommodation cases are filed each year, and they are mostly employment related, Sexton said. He said he couldn’t recall the last time there was a sexual orientation public accommodations case.

“This is still untested after 10 years,” he said. “There haven’t been any big judgments, so it should be interesting to see if and how it plays out.”

Allie Huddleston, director of OUTsource, a campus organization that promotes diversity for GLBTQQA students, said she wants to start a dialogue between community members.

“I hope people gain an understanding of one another,” she said.

Huddleston, who is also a host of OUTLoud! Queer Student Radio on WRFL, said she wants Hands On Originals to understand why people are so offended.

“I think as a business, they have that right,” she said. “But it doesn’t make sense for them to refuse good money.”

Hands On Originals did not return a Kernel’s phone call and message as of Wednesday night, but the company issued the following statement to the Lexington Herald-Leader this week:

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

Catherine Brereton, a junior double major in English and gender and women’s studies, is a Gaines Fellow for 2011-2012 school year. As part of the fellowship, she organized a service project honoring the LGBT community.

She said regardless of whether someone is a member of the LGBT community, she thinks the decision is morally wrong.

“If they have a right to do that, where does it end?” she said.

To discriminate at that level would open the floodgates to many other issues, Brereton said.

“It’s homophobia,” she said. “They can dress it up however they want.”

Blanton said that UK is reviewing the case to determine the future of a third vendor.

Baker, the president of GLSO, said numerous organizations have started to raise awareness about the issue.

A “Boycott Hands On Originals” Facebook page was created and now has more than 1,000 fans.

According to a Herald-Leader article, Fayette County Public Schools Superintendent Tom Shelton said Wednesday that a temporary hold will be placed on Hands On Originals.

The school district and Lexington city government have done $28,548.41 and $53,585.27 in business with the company, respectively, since July 2010, according to the article.

Baker said he is shocked that the company’s decision not to print the T-shirts was based on Christian beliefs.

“At our meeting, I looked around the table and counted the numerous people who go to Christian churches,” he said.

Baker said members are working with the Human Rights Commission on its investigation. He said he hopes that this issue will raise awareness to local community members.

“We aren’t seeking monetary damages, we just want to raise awareness that this type of discrimination is occurring in Lexington,” he said. “We don’t feel it is acceptable. We just want the entire community to be aware it is going on and make their own decisions about doing business with the company.”

Sexton said the case is still in its earliest stages and the target timeline to reach a decision is about 180 days.

Reach Assistant News Editor Kayla Phelps at kphelps@kykernel.com

Jordan says:

Why couldn’t I sue a Jewish or Muslim sandwich shop for discrimination for refusing to serve ham sandwiches?

Would they then be forced to serve ham sandwiches against there religion?

Before you go off all half cocked about how ham sandwiches and the glbt t-shirts are in no ways similar, you had better think about the underlying issues, and then, I’d like to hear exactly HOW it is any different.

Jordan says:

Martin Davis: probably one of the better articulated arguments in support of Hands On.
I think you’re right in that the GLBT should have taken their business elsewhere, supporting a company with their dollars that supports them.
The cries of discrimination, bigotry etc are out of line. The issue isn’t inherently about homosexuality, same as the contraceptive mandate isn’t about providing contraceptives for women.
It’s about the 1st Amendment, Constitutional limits on government power and whether we are truly a free people with rights and freedoms, or slaves.
The rest is all just symptoms of a wider Constitutional and cultural question.

big rick says:

Hey look at me!! I’m Daniel B and I am so cool. get a life dude, people have their own beliefs. now, go back to being a douche sitting on your couch in your mom’s basement being a lard ass thinking youre better than everyone. The sad thing is, at least part of that description is probably right.

Raytheist says:

The organizers of the event were not promoting anything wrong, illegal, immoral, hateful, or in any other sense inappropriate. Under the Fairness Ordinance, the t-shirt shop should honor their quote and print the t-shirts. Same with printing shirts the NAACP. Unless a group is printing shirts that promote bigotry or prejudice, or call for the overthrow of the government or killing someone, there’s no reason NOT to print the t-shirts that promote a group in a positive way or a positive activity.

Martin Davis says:

Have people forgotten that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Many restaurants have signs near the front door that says,

We reserve the RIGH to refuse service to anyone.

Some say no shirt, no shoes, no service….

Would you tell this company that they would have to make shirts for a porn studio or a gentlemen’s club?

As a Christian business owner I know some Christian owned business I would not do busy with because I feel their life style is not Christ Like. And they know I feel this way because I have refused to do work for them and told them why.

The big difference here is they moved on in their life’s and chose to use someone who had no problem whit their lifestyle/morels.

The question I would ask here is why the GLSO did not try to find a company that supports their lifestyle so that they could support that business with their money.

Some Christian businesses look for other Christians to do business with, and so do many groups of cultures, they want to do business with people who think and live like they do. If we can sue a company because they won’t sell us their wares, then we should be able to sue a company because they won’t give us business because of our lifestyle/morels.

If you call what Hands On has done discrimination because they refuse to do business with the GLSO. Then Hands On should have the right to sue the Fayette County public school system and the University of Kentucky if they stop doing business with them. On the same principle these two originations would be discriminating against Hands On because they where exercising their Constructional right to Religious Freedom to live out what they believe.

The Bible tells the Christian to not support lifestyles and morels that our in conflict with the teaching of God.

Where is a verse that show that, but I would encourage everyone to go read the whole book of 2 Corinthians or at least the whole 6 chapter.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Corinthians+6&version=NIV

2 Corinthians 6:17
Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

Fornication?? says:

@terry – No one was ignorant about “gay” – it refers to sexual orientation which ultimately gets into gender of the people having sex. The problem is you and J Grant are uneducated about what fornication means. You are correct though that gay fornication is just as evil as straight fornication. Neither are acceptable to God according to the Bible. You can change though and repent and be converted to Christ and be saved (1cor 6:9-11).

TerryIsNotAnIdiot says:

Why the hell do people keep calling it “homosexual fornication pride day”???
It’s LGBT pride. It has nothing to do with SEX. It’s about being unashamed to love who you were born to love. Not about which hole you choose to stick something into. Grow the eff up people, sheesh.
Being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual… Whatever. Does not automatically mean that someone is sexual and willing to “fornicate”. Get that in your head right now.
And for the record, my straight buddies have FAR more sexual partners, and done far more depraived things than the Gay guys I know.
So just call it what it is. “GAY PRIDE”.
Leave “homosexual fornication pride” for the ignorant who don’t know any better.
And since you’ve just been educated, you’re no longer ignorant. And for you to continue, would just be stupid.

Wacky Guy says:

Does anyone understand that a business does not have to provide their services to you just because you want them. It’s their establishment their rules. If I went somewhere that didn’t want to offer their services to me I might be mad, but I wouldn’t try to sue them. Just go on to store “B”.

J Grant W says:

Again, “GAY pride day” is not equal to “homosexual fornication pride day”… And considering that this all comes from a book that we’ve been playing the telephone game with for 2000-3500 years, I believe it questionable that it is still entirely “God’s Word”…

still mixed says:

@JGrantW – Homosexual acts are fornication which is a sin according to God’s Word. You are correct that different sins impact various parties differently. However, to print any of those tshirts (e.g. “hypocrite pride day”, “homosexual fornication pride day”, “liar pride day”, etc.) would be “promotion of pride to commit sin”. That is wrong to promote pride in sin. All of this is associated with “vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened…uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves…vile affections…men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet…a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient…” (and more in Romans 1:18-32).

J Grant W says:

Whoa. Just hang on for a minute. First of all, HOO is a company that does business with tax-funded entities, such as UK, Fayette County Schools, and LFUCG. That makes this a public issue. The people who are paying taxes to support such purchases have a right to know what kind of companies their money is being spent with. That’s what makes this a newsworthy issue. The fact that there are people on here saying that “most people still find their perspectives as wrong, and disgusting,” is why it is an education issue. Homosexual PEOPLE are constantly alligned with constant sexual sin, or “other fornicators” as one person spouted. Some people on here classify homosexuals the same as liars, hypocrites, baby killers, thieves, and cheaters. Most of these refer to something that affects another person negatively. How does one person’s sexuality affect another person’s when both are together by choice? Apparently some think that all homosexuals do all day is stay home and have sex, but don’t realize that all that other stuff that you heterosexual people do – yeah we do that too. Yet another reason for education. When it comes to what “most people” think, I find it rather humorous that anyone can make a generalized statement about the thoughts of the nation when under 50% of voting age people usually vote. So actually, the MAJORITY of people either didn’t know enough to make an informed decision, or they are so ambivalent towards the issue that they didn’t care enough one way or the other to go out and vote. As far as whether or not HOO broke any local laws, I’m going to need a little clarification. When the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization asks for a quote for T-shirts for the Pride festival, what exactly did they expect the shirts to say that would have been acceptable? They may well have a right to refuse business, but they also have a right to the negative feedback they will get from their actions. Why put in a bid at all if you think you have the right to turn down the business when you are offered the contract? I hardly think printing the shirts is going to condemn them to hell. They wouldn’t have been showing support by printing the shirts because they are being paid for them. Just don’t print the HOO logo on it and no one would have had a clue who printed the shirts, nor would anyone have cared. Bad business sense, plain and simple.

just kidding says:

@DanielB – you made the comment “Let’s hope these bigots go out of business”. That is hoping that HHO loses their business over this. What did they do so wrong to deserve you hoping they’ll go out of business? The only thing they did was the owner respectfully declined to print some tshirts which violated his religious beliefs. HHO did not decline hatefully to the GLSO – HHO even went an extra step for the GLSO by finding another company to honor the original price. It is simply about a tshirt design that HHO could not print with a good conscience to God but they still tried to do as much as they could in a decent way.

You must understand that some people cannot promote homosexuality because to do so is a violation of their relationship with God. Why can’t you respect that? This case with HHO is probably one of the best examples of “tolerance” as far as how HHO handled it. They found a win-win outcome where HHO didn’t violate their conscience by promoting homosexuality on tshirts and also got the GLSO an opportunity to get the print work for the same price. It should have ended there and HHO should not have been drug through the mud.

What seems intolerant, hateful, bullying, and bigoted are comments like your comment “Let’s hope these bigots go out of business” or comments from others who have twisted this like “backwards a$$ owners”, “My white behind, my black wife, and our interracial children aren’t going to shut up until people like you do”, “they’re against gay people having equal rights”, “Hand on Originals are bigoted idiots”, “A bunch of closeted angry self hating homos on here parading as angry straight people”, “bigoted T-shirt company”, or other efforts to put HHO out of business …these comments and actions are just bigotry towards those who refuse to promote homosexuality.

Daniel B says:

@Just Kidding

You made a serious of great points (things no one said ever).

I only equated skin color with sexual choice because that’s what the OP said. He equated a sexuality with a “no shirts no shoes no service” policy, idiot.

How is it “hate, bullying, intolerance and bigotry,” to criticize a t-shirt shop that won’t let gay people print what they want? I call that an opinion, and place it in the realm of freedom of speech. But I forget, you’re the type of person who thinks that doing so constitutes “bigotry.”

You should read aloud what you say and see if you laugh too. I wish this article garnered a more intelligent response.

just kidding says:

@DanielB – Great point to equate skin color with sexual choice. Just kidding. Skin color of a person is totally different than choices people make about where to insert body parts. Regardless, that is not the issue here.

The issue is that HOO has a policy that it will not print all requested tshirt designs. They sometimes decline tshirt print jobs that will promote messages that conflict with the owner’s desire to be faithful to God. In this case, HOO declined to print a shirt that promoted pride in homosexual fornication because that behavior is not accepted by God. Even so, HOO treated the GLSO respectfully by helping find another company that would honor the price.

Your comments are just more hate, bullying, intolerance, and bigotry towards those who refuse to promote homosexuality.

Daniel B says:

@Wacky Guy

Great point on the “No shirts, no shoes, no service” point. Just kidding.

That’s probably what white people said when they denied blacks.

Daniel B says:

@ukfaninfl

Well said. How does a bigoted T-shirt company affect UK? Well I guess they probably get MOST of their business from the university. Other than that, not at all.

How is this “hate” journalism. Because you don’t support gay rights? Get a life. The fact that you are criticizing a school newspaper for “hate journalism” probably means you are a complete idiot.

You are correct, laws don’t force a company to do anything it doesn’t want to. And laws don’t force a company to stay in business. Let’s hope these bigots go out of business.

Wacky Guy says:

@ Norman
Sorry guy, but HOO is a private company. They can choose who or who not to do business with. Haven’t you walked into a store/ restaurant where there was a sign that said “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”? Same thing. The store is refusing to do business with someone because of their dress. You can not force someone to do business with you. End of story.

Sick of this doesn't understand this says:

Fyi for “I’m Sick Of This”, the company sells already-printed shirts to everyone (they don’t care what you are as far as buying a printed shirt).. That is not what is going on here so you don’t really understand what the HOO business is. What is going on here is that they won’t print any and every design on a shirt – some designs they will print and some designs they won’t print. The company does state the grounds for when they will and won’t print a certain design in their statement released in this article and to other media. In this case, they won’t print shirts that promote gay pride because that would be promoting sin against God and God-fearing people try not to willfully promote sinning or practice sinning. The company did treat the gays respectfully in this even though HOO could not with a good conscience print the GLSO shirts. As mentioned in some of the other posts here, it is the GLSO who are doing the bullying and hating in this case!!!!

I'm Sick of This says:

Some of these comments are really sad. If HOO is a Christian company, then it should have restricted its business to only providing promotional items to Christian organizations. They know who eventually buys most of their UK shirts- UK college students, who are routinely seen binge drinking, driving under the influence, burning couches in the middle of the road, all the things that young people do. Un-Christian things. But that doesn’t bother HOO as long as they get money. But I guess being gay is worse than all the other sins according to HOO. Good luck with that…

Gospel is Power of God to Salvation says:

Regarding these questions, we all have to “rightly divide” the Scriptures (2 Timothy 2:15). There is an “old testament” and a “new testament” and the world today is subject to God through the new testament which was brought about by the death of the Savior Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8-10; John 12:48; 2 Corinthians 5). The book of Leviticus is part of the old testament and not where you or I would turn today to learn how to be obedient to God. It is written for our learning (Romans 15:4) but it would not do us any good to try and live according to Leviticus laws which were given to the nation of Israel (Galatians 5).

To learn the truth about homosexual fornication or any other sin and how God regards it, some Scripture to read is Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-23; Hebrews 13:4; and Revelation 21:8. In short what you find in these passages is that homosexual and heterosexual fornicators are not faithful to God and will not inherit eternal life in Heaven. There is no thing as a homosexual Christian – that is a deception for those who do not love truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

There is a way to change this though. Hear and study The Bible (Romans 10:17), put your faith and trust in the Lord (Hebrews 11:6); repent of your sins by changing what you’re doing and do God’s will (Luke 13:3); be baptized into Chist for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Galatians 3:26-27); and then live faithful to God for ever (1 Corinthians 15:58, Revelation 2:10).

Then you won’t be angry joining some church. If you do this, you’ll be added by the Lord to His church (Acts 2:38-47, Acts 20:28, Matthew 16:18). This is possible – you can turn your life around and be a faithful child of God as others have done (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Greg Morgan says:

Um to the folks on here saying things about the gay agenda and telling us that HOO can discriminate because homosexuality is fornication…I want to ask you why its ok to discriminate against gays and then turn around and make tee shirts out of a cotton polyester blend? Furthermore doesnt Leviticus 20:10 demand that adulterers be put to death…If I have to give up having sex with my partner then I want all the laws of the old testament enforced and let me tell you a bunch of angry formerly gay men are gonna be joining your church and were bringing buckets of stones…(but I bet few of you actually go to church let alone read the bible). So whats all that leave us with? A bunch of closeted angry self hating homos on here parading as angry straight people…I see you!

potato chips don't say promote gay pride says:

some products have a “promotional nature” – tshirts, mugs, logos,…

some products do not have a “promotional nature” – hamburgers, potato chips, salads, …

HOO products are of a “promotional nature” and because of that, the owners have convictions that go with what they sell e.g. a design for a “homosexual fornication pride” tshirt would not be in line with their convictions.

Therefore, this issue with promotional tshirts is NOT a matter of “BASIC non discriminatroy principles” as would be the case with food.

Norman says:

sorry, guys-they will lose this one-you cannot discriminate like this-where does it end? can christians refuse to sell gays food because a living gay is a sinner taht will burn in hell? come on-if you choose to do business in the public sphere, you MUST adhere to basic non discriminatroy principles-end of story

mistaken says:

The Kernel must be mistaken then…”He said the company referred GLSO to another company that would honor the quote.”

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

It was the GLSO complaint that says ““The Pride Festival T-shirt printing quote would not be honored due to the fact that the T-shirt company is a Christian organization,” GLSO’s official complaint said.” That may or may not be a direct quote from the owner since it is through the GLSO’s complaint and not from the statement released by HOO.

Still missing the point though…they DISCRIMINATE TSHIRT DESIGNS – some DESIGNS they will print when the “order would endorse positions that DO NOT conflict with the convictions of the ownership” and some DESIGNS they don’t print when the “order would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership.”

D L Royse says:

an FYI to “glso giving no repsect.. HOO DID NOT find antoher company. .that was done through persons within the Pride committee.. it had been stated by the HOO owner that he offered that help but another company had already been found… once again the issue was not over the design or the bid or the price.. it was the owner stating they would not do it because they were a Christian company and it went against their belief…as usual people only read or interpret what they want from an article. NO matter how you want to disguise it with rhetoric and hating the sin, not the sinner bs.. the bottom line is it IS discrimianation.

two different things says:

“jewish pride”, “hindi pride”, “muslim pride” probably fall into t-shirt designs that would not be printed by someone who is a Christian given that all those religions are opposed to the Lord’s church.

Regardless, ScoobsMcDoo is still mixing up issues. Hands On acted respectfully to GLSO as a customer/human by helping get them the service/price originally agreed upon. However, Hands On did not ultimately choose to print the shirts because of religious opposition to the design because of Bible teaching on fornication and Bible teaching on homesexuality (not bigotry or idiocy as claimed).

ScoobsMcDoo says:

I actually don’t believe GLSO or anyone *should* have any legal recourse. However, I do think these kinds of situations should be publicized – widely.

I think it’s just fine and dandy that for a company to reject tshirts from gay organizers because they’re against gay people having equal rights….just just need to be prepared for the negative publicity and the consequences when the public thinks they’re bigoted.

No, HOO did not reject gay *individuals* in the same way that they would not have rejected black individuals. What they did do, though, was reject a very fair and modest message from GLSO. The shirt wasn’t outrageous or “in your face” or anything like that. The message can’t really be compared to KKK or Nazi messages, but it could be compared to “jewish pride” or “hindi pride” or “muslim pride” messages. While I may be mistaken, I suspect HOO would’ve printed such shirts.

Personally, I oppose any legal recourse even if such an avenue exists. Litigation isn’t always the right path. I would stand for the right of an organization to serve whichever customers they prefer. But….the battle should take place in the public arena of market place. The best weapon any group has is getting the word out and letting others know what has transpired. Fortunately, this is happening and in a far bigger way that I would have ever expected.

So no, I’m not twisting issues. I’m all for HOO picking and choosing with whom they’d like to do business. It should be their right to pick and choose business relationships based on who they think is evil and who is godly. I just applaud efforts of GLSO, supporters, and general members of the public in saying Hand on Originals are bigoted idiots.

ScoobsMcDoo response says:

If black people are refused because of skin color that is one issue – it would be distasteful and would need publicized. That is NOT what the Hand’s On case is about.

The GLSO people were not refused here for being gay. Hand’s On refused to print the T-SHIRT DESIGN because of the values the design promoted but instead found a win-win situation where another company assumed the job for the same exact price.

Your comment is no different than the NAACP comment above. If people were refused for skin color or for being gay that is one thing – and a different issue than what is going on here.

If a black person or NAACP as an organization asked HOO to print a bunch of shirts that said “Punk Cracker White People”, would Hand’s On be OK to refuse that design? Or what if a white group wanted Hand’s On to print a bunch of shirts that said “Whites Are God’s Only People”, would Hand’s On be OK to refuse that design? Of course, because both of those designs are against values the company promotes.

Don’t twist the issue at hand to make it something it isn’t – it is about Hands On not wanting to violate their conscience with doing the print job for a particular design (regardless of gay status or skin color of the customer). They however, did honor the commitment and price by finding another company who would do the print job.

ScoobsMcDoo says:

To the above poster, replace the word gay with “negro” in your post and see how it sounds. Distasteful? That’s why “gays and gay supporters” are upset and want to publicize this issue.

glso giving no respect to hands on says:

Hands On ultimately did not refuse the GLSO. Hands On was the one that went out and found another company to print the shirts for the same price.

So who is hating here? Is it Hands On hating who did not want to violate their conscience by creating the gay “pride” t-shirt but who still honored the commitment and price by finding an alternative tshirt company? Or is it all the gays and gay supporters hating who are bashing Hands On despite all the effort that company made to make sure the GLSO was still taken care of in this transaction?

The unfairness, retaliation, and other hate is obviously coming from the gays and gay supporters in this situation!!! Hands On is the only party that has acted respectfully towards the other in this situation. They found a win-win but the gays and gay supporters want to hang them.

still mixed says:

Hands On refused the t-shirt design NOT the gay people. Those are two very different things. If the GLSO would have asked for a t-shirt design that was in-line with the company’s values, the company would have printed it. This has nothing to do with refusing gay PEOPLE – only has to do with refusing their requested T-SHIRT DESIGN!!! The company would also refuse t-shirt designs promoting “hetero-sexual fornication pride day”, “kill some babies pride day”, “go lie and cheat and steal pride day”, “be a hypocrite pride day”…and while they may refuse to design a t-shirt for these causes, they still do business with gays, other fornicators, baby killers, liars, hypocrites, and others with t-shirt designs that are in-line with the company’s values (since Hands On or any of us would have to leave the world to not be around sinners). The issue is that Hands On has a conscience about being a “partaker” in the Gay Pride day – “partaker” being that they don’t feel it would be morally right to design a t-shirt for promoting something that is sinful. The only hate I’m seeing here are those who don’t respect the right for Hands On to be faithful to God and for them to not willfully join in works of darkness like fornication.

Why Refuse the Business of the LBGT? says:

It’s called THE LAW? If you are a business, you are responsible UNDER THE LAW to provide that business to everyone who wants to use real money to buy your product. If I am an atheist and I run a t-shirt company and I will sell t-shirts to anyone except people who believe in God then I am discriminating and according to the law that is wrong. Discrimination is discrimination and there is no way around it.
Equality and fairness to EVERYONE is the law in the United States despite whether they share your views or not. If you don’t like equality and fairness then I suggest you move to North Korea.

D L Royse says:

I am amazed at some of the responses on here; particulary since this happened the same week as the NOH8 campaign was in Lexington. The ISSUE is the owner’s reason for not doing business with GLSO and the Festival. To say that this is not news for our area is crazy; UK (formerly) Fayette Co Public Schools, 4 H and many other local companies utilize HOO. “To please some genre or group” what is that abou?. EVERYONE should have the same rights, or are we now interpreting the Constitution as so many seem fit to do with their interpretation of the Bible. I wonder how anyone can think someone is retaliating against a business when the business is clearly being hateful and disciminatory, no matter how they want to word it.

UKUsesHOO says:

Of course it affects the university. They pay over $200,000 to Hands On Originals every year, and also employee members of the GLSO and have students who are members of the GLSO.

ukfaninfl says:

It’s a business they have the right to choose with whom they do business, as of now the laws have not been distorted to force people into doing things they do not wish to do in order to please some specific genre or group. The real question is why does the Kernel believe this article is newsworthy, it isn’t, it’s an attack by a writer on a business for a decision that involves neither the University of KY, it’s staff, and has no bearing on anything at the university. This is hate journalism, prevalent in today’s society, when journalists have nothing better to contribute they look for items that can stir up people, controversy over quality of reporting. It’s a nothing story written to elicit responses, hits, it is not news worthy, and in fact may be a retaliation against the business for personal reasons.

Anthony Smallwood says:

I suppose I am just blown away by ALL of this. The very basic, simple truth to me is that people, all people, want and deserve to be treated as equal. The LGBT community is not wanting special treatment… just the same consideration that is given to everyone else – “human” rights that were written about by the very people that started our country (at least I didn’t see a clause that said ‘all people except those different from us’). The design of the shirt was published on the front page of the paper and I did not see anything that was at all offensive. We can believe differently… but we must respect each other and keep the dialogue open and civil. I just think that there will be a lot of surprised people when they get to Heaven and see a gay man or lesbian sitting at God’s table and walking on those same golden streets as they are. Maybe they will be so offended by God’s choice to love us ALL that they may want to leave? Worth considering anyway. Let’s all say our prayers tonight and ask God to help make this situation that is so tainted with hate be replaced with the pure joy that only comes from loving one another. Is that asking too much?

jamor1 says:

I would just like to say that sure HOO can refuse the gay community right now. However you say they do business with all types. What if tomorrow they decide to make a stand and say they wont print anything for Jewish, Blacks, people with red hair, etc. With everything going on, people should accept others for who they are and not hate/discriminate because they are not like you. For those who keep thinking that God hates anyone, and people who discriminate are just carrying out His wishes–YOU ARE VERY WRONG. Jesus ate with the lowliest of the low during his time. “Remember to keep the commandments, but the first commandment is this–LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF” Where is the hate in that unless you hate yourself???

J M Y says:

Had Hands On Originals decided that they would not do business with the NAACP because they feel their values do not coincide… Would anybody question that the decision was wrong?

BBTHOM says:

Well, good, I’m glad to read “former vendor,” and i’d like it to go a step further and for UK to end it’s contract with wildcat warehouse, cause they benefit the same backwards a$$ owners. Let’s print “pride” tees and “wildcat” tees somewhere that the money goes into the hands of someone willing to provide public services to the public…. Let’s grow up and get with the times people. The queer community is a part of the greater community… start respecting their relationships and lives like everyone else, and we won’t have to hear news like this or have stupid arguments about wether or not people should exist… they do, deal with it, really

TerryIsNotAnIdiot says:

So… Liberal douche (and all those who think like him)… What about the push for interracial marriage to be legalized?… It was shot down many times before it finally passed. What about women’s right to vote? Segregation? All of these issues were pressed, and pressed hard until fairness won. The LAWS of this nation are not about MORAL and IMMORAL. They are about what is right for its people. Fairness and Equality for ALL. That is what the intelligent people of this nation are fighting for. And contrary to your wishes, we will keep fighting until our voices are heard and respected. So, perhaps it is YOU who should just give up, and give in to equality. My white behind, my black wife, and our interracial children aren’t going to shut up until people like you do. End of story.
Press on, GLSO.

Liberal Douche says:

Amen, Wacky Guy. It’s peculiar how people pushing the homosexual agenda cry for tolerance, yet ironically are the least tolerant of all! They can’t seem to understand that no matter how much they talk or emphasize their perspectives, at the end of the day most people still find their perspectives as wrong, and disgusting. That’s not going to change. In fact, the more advocates push these views on people the more persons with conservative views will dig in their heels. For some reason, advocates of gay rights don’t seem to understand that, and can’t wait to call people “homophobes” or “bigots”, when that is not at all the case. For all you homosexual advocates out there… people are not “afraid” of you (as being homophobic would imply), nor do people hate you. They are indeed educated people, know the facts, have thought carefully about the matter YET STILL CHOOSE to disagree with you. It’s not an issue of “education” or “educating someone”… people already know your arguments and have heard all this. For most people, homosexuality is so clearly wrong that no matter what case in point you mention you will not change their minds! In fact, if you look at each time gay marriage laws have gone through state elections you will find that it has been defeated 39 out of 39 times! To be clear, when people of states vote on whether gay marriage should be allowed, in 100% of these instances, it has been shot down. Yet, you still insist to badger everyone to death with your unpopular views (except among the non-religious and academics) and propaganda.

Wacky Guy says:

Hand’s On can accept or refuse any job brought to them. If they do not want to take the job then go to vendor #2. This is one thing that really makes me mad. Everyone now days is “Litigation Happy”! Just because you don’t get your way you feel like you have to force someone to by taking them to court. Honestly I just think they want to get their name there in the headlines. Sad, really sad.

Welco says:

Sounds like this article and the people quoted here are twisting things. Hands on does business with all kinds of people and they state the article. However, the issue is that they do not print all designs of shirts. For example, they would do business with people who are heterosexual fornicators. However, if a heterosexual fornicator came in and wanted a bunch of t shirts printed for the “hetero-sexual fornicators pride festival”…well Hands-on would not print it.

Also people in this article talk about Hands on refusing good money. Two things. Hands on got a quote price for the gays that met their original quote. Also, the owners would probably rather go broke and be OK with God than be loaded with money while promoting pride in fornication.