Updated 7:08 a.m. ET, November 2, 2019:

The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Lexington, KY apparel decorating company that declined to print T-shirts for a local LGBTQ pride festival.

The controversial case involving Hands On Originals (HOO; asi/219413) pitted claims of anti-LGBTQ discrimination against assertions of freedom of speech and conscience/religion. However, in a ruling issued Thursday, justices for the Bluegrass State’s highest court didn’t take a definitive stand on those hot button issues.

Blaine Adamson, owner, Hands On Originals

Rather, the court sided with HOO on the grounds that the Lexington-based Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) didn’t have standing to make a claim against HOO owner Blaine Adamson because Lexington’s equal rights law is designed to protect individuals. That means only an individual can file such a claim, not an organization.

In an opinion written by Justice Laurance B. VanMeter, the court said the “wrong party” had filed the complaint. That made it impossible to determine whether discrimination had occurred, or if Adamson’s religious liberty was being infringed upon, the court ruled.

While the court rooted its ruling in the “wrong party filed” argument, Justice David Buckingham expressed the opinion that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, which charged HOO with violating Lexington’s fairness ordinance after receiving a complaint from the GLSO, had “went beyond its charge of preventing discrimination” and tried to “compel Hands On to engage in expression with which it disagreed,” according to a report from the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The controversy began back in 2012. That’s when HOO declined to print T-shirts for the GLSO’s pride festival. Adamson, whose business is marketed as “Christian Outfitters” that cater to Christian schools, organizations, camps and more, said 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 the 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. HOO didn’t receive any fines.

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 sexual orientation, but because he objected to the message on the T-shirt. The human rights commission then took the case to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Carmen Wampler-Collins, the Lexington Pride Center’s executive director, told Lex18 that the Supreme Court’s ruling “sends a really negative message to our community. It’s hard, it’s disappointing. Will there be other businesses that feel like they can deny services because of this, because of this ruling? That could mean, not just not printing T-shirts for pride festival, but LGBTQ not having access to healthcare or housing.”

An attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative nonprofit group that works to protect religious freedom, said such claims are overblown given the legal reality of the ruling. “This case simply made clear that this lawsuit against Hands On Originals was not a legitimate lawsuit. And so it leaves for another day [other] issues to be decided … many of those issues are before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Jim Campbell said.

Campbell had previously argued: “The First Amendment in this case cuts in Hands On Originals’ favor because the First Amendment ensures that the government can’t use a law to force someone to print or convey a message that they find objectionable. The one thing that matters to [HOO] is the message that they’re asked to print, not the person who’s requesting it from them.”