Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands-On Originals, 592 S.W.3d 291

Hands On Originals, a Lexington printing business owned by three Christians, refused a GLSO order to print shirts for the 2012 Lexington Pride Festival citing owners' religious objections and a site "right of refusal" policy.
GLSO (Gay and Lesbian Services Organization), an LGBTQ+ nonprofit, filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission under the local Fairness Ordinance (LFUCG §2-33), alleging denial of equal enjoyment of a public accommodation based on sexual orientation.
The Commission/Hearing Officer found probable cause, granted summary judgment for GLSO, enjoined Hands On from discriminating, and ordered mandatory diversity training; the Commission adopted that order.
Hands On appealed; the Fayette Circuit Court reversed and instructed dismissal for lack of standing; the Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision; the Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court, holding GLSO lacked statutory standing because the ordinance permits complaints only by an "individual," which the court interpreted to mean a single human being, not an organization; the court did not reach the First Amendment or discrimination merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statutory standing under LFUCG §2-33 / KRS incorporation	GLSO/Commission: an organization may file; associational/statutory standing allows organizational complaints	Hands On: ordinance permits only an "individual" complainant; GLSO (an entity) lacks statutory standing	Court: GLSO lacked statutory standing; "individual" means a single human; complaint properly dismissed
Whether refusal constituted unlawful public-accommodation discrimination	GLSO: Hands On denied GLSO the full and equal enjoyment of services because of LGBTQ+ message/status	Hands On: refusal was to the message requested (expressive content) not to individuals; no individual alleged discrimination	Not decided on merits — disposition based on standing made merits analysis impracticable
Whether t-shirt printing is expressive (First Amendment/compelled-speech)	Commission: ordinance regulates conduct (business practice), not speech, and is neutral/protects access	Hands On: creating custom shirts is expressive; compelling printing would be forced speech and burden religious/expression rights	Majority did not reach; concurring justice emphasized strong compelled-speech and expressive-association protections and indicated the law likely conflicts with the First Amendment in an as-applied challenge

Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (private organizers have First Amendment right to exclude messages inconsistent with their expression)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (antidiscrimination laws generally enforce access but must account for religious and free-speech claims in particular contexts)
Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (freedom of speech includes the right not to speak; compelled speech principles)
Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (government cannot compel a publisher to print responses; compelled-printing penalties are constitutionally problematic)
West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (government may not compel affirmation of beliefs; compelled speech doctrine)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (content-based speech regulation is presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny)
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (upholding government power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations)
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (distinguishing conduct and expressive activity; limits of compelled association and speech)