Christian bigot may face probe for refusing to print a gay brochure

Christian bigot may face probe for refusing to print a gay brochure January 30, 2019

THE owner of a print shop in Chicago may face an investigation by the Illinois Department of Human Rights for refusing to produce a brochure for the city’s LGBT Community Fund.

Screenshot via Facebook

The proprietor of the Yorke Printe Shoppe, Brad Scull, above, explained his refusal in this report:

I’m a Christian, I believe in Scripture, and my faith is really important to me. I have nothing against any of those people. I have an issue when stuff gets into the promotion of the lifestyle.

Heaven forbid we should leap to the conclusion that Mr (Numb) Scull is homophobic. He claims to have has LGBT family, friends, and business acquaintances – and then, as these bigots always do, painted himself as the victim.

I don’t think people really understand that I can love the people and maybe not agree with them But people don’t do the same for me.

The community fund raises money to distribute as grants to LGBTQ charities. They have distributed over $1,000,000 in grants to date.

Adnaan Hamid, co-chair of the LGBT Community Fund, said:

You think in this day and age it doesn’t happen, but it does.

The fund worked with Deborah Schneider of the marketing communications firm Kineo Group to produce the brochure. Schneider, in turn, went to Scull’s shop, was given a quote, and she then sent the files over to be produced.

But when Scull saw the contents, he refused to do the job. However, he did find Schneider another establishment that would print the brochure for the same price and on time, but she says she will never work with the company again.

He made a decision as a businessman, and I made a decision as a businesswoman.

The fund plans to file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights over Scull’s refusal to provide service.

Illinois law does not include a religious exemption to the state’s non-discrimination law and sexual orientation is specifically included as a protected class. So Scull might soon be calling on the services of someone like Southern Baptist lawyer Matthew Staver. Staver heads the Liberty Counsel law firm that specialises in defending “persecuted” Christians like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Davis, by the way, could now be personally held liable for legal fees totalling almost $225,000.

"Eh, if there's a market for it, and nobody's harmed by it, I got no ..."

Rabbi’s daughter opens a kosher sex ..."
"LOL. You are something else. I didn't spell anything out, not that I care about ..."

Montreal church slammed over ‘a graphic ..."
"What is "male dress" and "female dress"? It varies from culture to culture and from ..."

Preacher abused a drag queen and ..."
"Maybe now they've convicted enough Catholic clergy members and they start dealing with the much ..."

Elated crowds cheer as Cardinal Pell ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    He has a First Amendment right not to print the brochure. Illinois non-discrimination law does not supersede the First Amendment.The LGBT Community Fund should try to follow Scull’s example when it comes to tolerance.

  • Anne Fenwick

    So in Illinois, it’s legal to put a sign up on your shop saying ‘No Christians served here’ ?

  • Michael Neville

    So you’re saying that the GLBTQ community should be bigots like Scull. Christian “love” at its finest.

  • WallofSleep

    By now I would think American xtians would get wise and realize that if they are approached by Liberty Counsel with an offer to take on their case, that’s a huge red flag signalling they’re in the wrong.

  • ephemerol

    Whether it’s over that Masterpiece dipshit in Colorado, this dipshit in Illinois, or some other dipshit, what are the odds that this SC, crocodile tears from Roberts notwithstanding, is going to go down in history as the dipshit SC that re-enshrined “separate but equal” back into law again, only this time under the thinly-veiled guise of a christian only privilege to discriminate against LGBTQ “religious freedom”?

  • Raging Bee

    He has a First Amendment right to impede other people’s exercise of their First Amendment rights? I don’t think so.

    Lemme guess…you probably think white merchants have “First Amendment rights” to refuse to do business with black people too, right? Newsflash: action =/= speech.

  • some bastard on the internet

    The First Amendment does not apply here. No one has said that he has to personally say that he likes gay people. This is purely about his business practices, which are regulated by the same business rules that state companies can’t refuse service to people who are black, or Christian, or Nickelback fans.

    Have you ever tried not being a dumbass?

  • Raging Bee

    The LGBT Community Fund should try to follow Scull’s example when it comes to tolerance.

    Pretend they love him while looking for any opportunity to harass him?

  • NORMAN DOSTAL

    can we please just get a rope and string these bigots up? enough is enough

  • NORMAN DOSTAL

    wrong, stupid-its an actual law that he cannot discriminate against blacks, women, gays., etc-now shutup

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    The First Amendment applies to government. The brochure is speech.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Scull doesn’t refuse service to homosexuals. He refused to disseminate speech he disagrees with, something the government cannot compel him to do because of the First Amendment. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    He generously went to the trouble to find them another printer, despite not having to, the homosexuals responded by trying to get bureaucrats to illegally punish him.

  • otrame

    No. No violence. That is their schtick.

  • Bubblecar

    Yes, but it’s not his speech. He hasn’t been asked to speak it, he’s been asked to print it, because he provides printing services as a business, and like other lines of business, this is covered by anti-discrimination laws.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Printing done for money has the same First Amendment protections as any other printing. The state can’t force persons to use private property to become a courier for a particular message.

  • Rann

    you really are a stubborn stupid idiot. you do not understand that verbs and nouns are different.

  • Rann

    actually….he is NOT disseminating anything.He in fact can NOT stop them from saying things. He DOES have the right not to listen…….. Listening is NOT the same as printing. English, funny language that you have no clue how to use.

  • Bubblecar

    Nobody’s forcing him to do anything. He is in business of his own free choice. Going into business means abiding by the laws that apply to running a business, or facing the appropriate legal penalty for failing to do so. Again, that’s his choice – nobody’s forcing him to be a bigot.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    The First Amendment applies to his business, which is why he can’t be penalized for not printing the brochure.

  • Bubblecar

    Well that’s for the judge to decide. But since no-one’s preventing him from saying whatever he likes, he’s going to fail to demonstrate that his rights are being violated.

  • Anri

    Quick practical question: were I to hand over a document for photocopying, does the every person behind the counter get to pass/fail it before they will copy it, or just one? Is there a time limit to this if it’s, say, a thesis?

    If the person running the copier is willing, but the cashier doesn’t care for something I wrote, does anyone have to pay for the wasted copies?

    In a more general vein, would you say it was a reasonable assumption, upon starting a public printing business, that you might be called upon to print things you do not wholeheartedly endorse?

  • Raging Bee

    No, the First Amendment UPHOLDS A RIGHT; and government exists to enforce those rights, against all infringement, public, private, foreign or domestic.

  • Lurker111

    Bigot or not, forcing someone to print something they disagree with is also a tricky thing. First, is this a sole prop or a corp or LLC? If a sole prop, his stand may be more solid than if a corp or LLC (though, per SCOTUS, corporations are persons who can express their political opinions with money, so there’s that). In any case, does the business have a general policy regarding the types of things they won’t print? E.g., I’m sure many printers would not print porn, or posters picking on Jews, e.g. Note that I’m not equating porn or hate posters with the printing of this brochure, only that the topic of forcing printers to print is more slippery than first appearances may indicate.

    And for those who have reading comprehension problems: I’m talking about general philosophy and legalities here, not about the particular subject of the brochure in this instance.

    Second note: Philosophically, I think it also depends on the amount of personal interaction here. If you go to Kinko’s, say, and get 200 copies of a brochure printed by a staffer just going through the motions, that’s much less interaction than having a mock-up of a brochure created, edited, approved, and printed. And the less the interaction, the less the right of the printer (or any artisan or professional) to b*tch about content, IMO, or to say, “I’m not doing this job.”

  • Raging Bee

    I suppose turning away black customers is okay in your eyes too, as long as they’re “generously” directed to some other vendor?

  • Raging Bee

    So you’re saying vendors have a SPECIAL RIGHT to discriminate that other people don’t have? Because that’s what your libertardian legal philosophy amounts to: vendors have “religious freedom,” paying customers don’t.

  • Raging Bee

    And it doesn’t apply to the paying customer, who’s PAYING the business to express what HE wants? Sorry, your legal philosophy is pure hypocritical bullshit.

  • Raging Bee

    It might sound more coherent in German. Or Russian…

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Judges have decided similar cases, and they’ve ruled printers have a First Amendment protected right to refuse to print speech they disagree with.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    That’s up to the owner of the business. Expecting printers to print things they don’t endorse isn’t reasonable at all, it’s unconstitutional.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Private actors are free to censor.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Scull doesn’t “turn away” homosexual customers.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    The First Amendment right to free speech is not a “special right”.

  • Cali Ron

    Sadly that’s where the court is heading. The court is loaded with RW idealist who want to rewrite the law, not just interpet it. The court is typically a bunch of old out of touch intellectuals who are 25 years behind the rest of society so it will take decades to undo the damage to our personal freedom and rights.

  • Cali Ron

    The question is how is refusing to provide a service free speech? You can say whatever you want, but state and local laws can still regulate how you do business, like nondescrimination laws.

  • Cali Ron

    Copying isn’t printing technically.

  • Cali Ron

    That’s exactly what he did.

  • Cali Ron

    No it doesn’t. You are definitely not a law scholar.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    No, he refused to print particular materials.

  • Cali Ron

    Amusing string here. I think the ‘goat’s” goat has been got.

  • Cali Ron

    Still flailing away. Everyone on this site disagrees based on our understanding of the law. You can agree to disagree, but you are now just repeating yourself. You are now just an annoying troll. Go away.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group of Boston:

    “Since all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid,” Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 11 (1986) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original), one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide “what not to say,” id., at 16. Although the State may at times “prescribe what shall be orthodox in commercial [ HURLEY v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY GROUP OF BOSTON, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 16] advertising” by requiring the dissemination of “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985); see Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 386 -387 (1973), outside that context it may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees, see Barnette, 319 U.S., at 642 . Indeed this general rule, that the speaker has the right to tailor the speech, applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. ___, ___ (1995) (slip op., at 6-7); Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 797 -798 (1988), subject, perhaps, to the permissive law of defamation, New York Times, 376 U.S. 254 ; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347 -349 (1974); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Nor is the rule’s benefit restricted to the press, being enjoyed by business corporations generally and by ordinary people engaged in unsophisticated expression as well as by professional publishers. Its point is simply the point of all speech protection, which is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Everyone on this site disagrees with what courts, including the Supreme Court, have determined the law is.

  • Cali Ron

    LOL, printers print millions of things and the printers don’t care what it says. You pay them, they print it. Extremely rare for a printer to refuse to print based on content. Usually only evangelical Christians.

  • Cali Ron

    Many here are well versed fool. You are just wrong and now if you don’t go away I shall block you.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    State and local laws don’t supersede the First Amendment. Weird someone who claims to be “well versed” in the law doesn’t know something that basic.

  • Cali Ron

    Done with annoying goat troll. Goodday to you.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Clearly you people aren’t.

  • Vanity Unfair

    A very similar case has recently been decided by the UK Supreme Court.

    Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd & Ors (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 49 (10 October 2018)
    Reported as: [2018] UKSC 49, [2018] WLR(D) 648, [2018] 3 WLR 1294
    available as: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/49.html

    A truly breathtaking simplification of Lady Hale’s judgment would seem to be that it is illegal to discriminate against a person but not necessarily to discriminate against a political viewpoint. But please read the whole judgment and make your own decision.

  • Raging Bee

    In your interpretation, it is.

  • Raging Bee

    You just admitted he did.

  • Raging Bee

    So you admit that’s what this printer is doing. Got it. So if it’s wrong for government to censor, why is it okay for a private business to do the same thing, when the effect on others is the same?

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    What dumb questions. Besides one being unconstitutional, it should be obvious the effect of government censorship is not remotely the same as a private actors doing so.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    It’s a fact he doesn’t turn away homosexual customers.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    It’s noteworthy how much freedom of speech bothers you people.

  • Raging Bee

    It is noteworthy how eager you people are to pretend discrimination is “speech.” How about fraud? Is that “speech” too?

  • Raging Bee

    It’s a fact that he did, you lying moron. Refusing to do business with them is turning them away.

  • Raging Bee

    Yeah, that’s what the segregationists said too. Real-world experience proved they were lying.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    The right not to print a message is a free speech right.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    He doesn’t refuse to do business with homosexuals, he exercised his First Amendment right not to print a particular brochure.

  • Raging Bee

    Yes, that’s refusing to do business.

  • Raging Bee

    Arbitrary discrimination against paying customers is NOT a free speech right.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    No, that’s refusing to print a particular brochure.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    The Hurley decision is very relevant, try reading what it says.

  • Raging Bee

    Yes, his business was printing things, and he refused to do that bit of business with a paying customer because he’s a bigot. That’s refusing to do business, however many times you may want to say “nuh-uh.”

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    His stated reason was he disagreed with the message of the brochure, and no evidence that would lead one to doubt his sincerity has been provided by anyone. You are entitled to your opinion his refusal is “bigotry”, just as he’s entitled to his opinions.

  • Raging Bee

    Sincerity does not justify bigotry or discrimination.

  • Raging Bee

    And yes, he’s entitled to his opinion — but not to inflict it on others.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    He hasn’t “inflicted” his beliefs on anyone, in contrast to those seeking to force him to print materials he objects to.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    He doesn’t have to justify his refusal to you or anyone else.

  • Raging Bee

    “Force?” Since when was that a synonym for “pay?”

  • Raging Bee

    Seig heil!

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    The LGBT Community Fund (and most commenters here, and you) wants the state of Illinois to punish him for refusing to print their homosexual propaganda, which has the effect of forcing printers to print materials they don’t wish to.

  • cosMIC jester

    If some religious nut doesn’t want your business go find someone who does. The guy doesn’t want to be involved w/ something that promotes what he thinks is amoral aberrant behavior that is against his beliefs. Why the heck would u want to give the fanatic a profit or do business w/ that person in the first place?? Vile leftist totalitarians are even more fanatical then religious kooks.

  • Raging Bee

    Poor guy, that makes him just like all the other snowflakes who chafe so terribly at being forced to treat people they hate with basic respect. Cry us a river, emo kid.

  • Raging Bee

    Exactly: he’s claiming a special right to burden and piss on other people without having to take any responsibility for his actions.

  • Bubblecar

    “forcing someone to print something they disagree with is also a tricky thing”

    Actually, no “force” is involved here. A printing business can legitimately refuse this or that job on any number of grounds. The trouble with religious bigots like this individual is that they seem to deliberately choose grounds that will bring them into conflict with anti-discrimination laws, so they can then score a load of publicity and claim to be “persecuted”.

    Politics, for example, is not protected by anti-discrimination laws. So without mentioning homosexuality at all, he could have refused to print this brochure on the grounds that it promotes left-wing politics and his business only prints right-wing or neutral material.

    That might still have provoked a boycott by the marketing firm and other consumers, but that’s his problem – he can’t blame anyone else.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    He’s not claiming any “special right”, he’s exercising his fundamental right to free speech.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    You were saying there wasn’t an attempt to force him, now you say forcing him is a good thing.

  • Raging Bee

    He’s claiming a special right — one that only merchants are allowed to exercise — that overrides the rights of paying customers. So yeah, that’s a special right.

  • Raging Bee

    PS: action =/= speech. You can’t just call any action “speech” and then say the First Amendment gives you the right to do it.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Freedom of speech includes printed material, and the right not to speak. You can’t wave away the First Amendment.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    He’s exercising his First Amendment rights. Neither you, nor the government, have any right to compel speech from others.

  • Lurker111

    I never said he approached the matter in a smart way. 🙂

  • Raging Bee

    Actions =/= speech.

  • Raging Bee

    Acts =/= speech.

  • Raging Bee

    Actions=/=speech.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Wooley v. Maynard:

    “…the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624”] 319 U.S. 624, 633-634 (1943); id. at 645 (Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of “individual freedom of mind.” Id. at 637. This is illustrated by the recent case of 319 U.S. 624, 633-634 (1943); id. at 645 (Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of “individual freedom of mind.” Id. at 637. This is illustrated by the recent case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), where we held unconstitutional a Florida statute placing an affirmative duty upon newspapers to publish the replies of political candidates whom they had criticized. We concluded that such a requirement deprived a newspaper of the fundamental right to decide what to print or omit…”

  • Raging Bee

    None of that refutes the fact that action =/= speech. Nor does it acknowledge that merchants aren’t the only people who have a right to free speech.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Learn how to read.

  • Raging Bee

    Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about.

  • Anri

    I’m not disagreeing with your main point (I’m not agreeing with it either, mind you), I’m just asking about the practicalities of it.

    For example, if I were an employee of a printing company and didn’t vet something the owner ended up objecting to, should I face disciplinary action? In your opinion, I mean. Presumably in doing so, I have violated the owner’s First Amendment rights and should therefore be the target of a lawsuit, yes?
    Likewise, were I to refuse something on the assumption that the owner would object to, but I presumed incorrectly, I should also face disciplinary action, as I would be unduly costing the owner business, yes?

    If a company is publicly traded, what percentage of the stockholders would have to agree on the content of an item to be published? A simple majority? What about the constitutional rights of the minority stockholders that objected?
    What’s a reasonable time frame for review of material, in your opinion? A day? A week?
    I’m highly interested in how you see this being implemented in the real world.

    Allow me to make a prediction: you have no idea how to rectify these issues and will either ignore them (as you appeared to ignore the specific instances I mentioned in the post above) or will just hand-wave it with “let the courts decide” – which is, ironically, exactly what’s happening in this case you are objecting to – a suit has been brought and the court will decide.
    So, how about it?
    Anything constructive?

  • rupi capra

    It’s disappointing that their so many atheists against First Amendment rights. A printer can’t discriminate against a protected group by refusing to sell them something he has in stock, but he can refuse to print whats dictated to him. A t shirt printer just won a court case that he had the right to not print “gay pride” shirts .”https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/05/kentucky-court-rules-christian-printer-religious-right-discriminate/”. Looking at it another way, a printer has the right to refuse to print one of those “kill the gays” bible verses because religious discrimination is prohibited. Aside from the legal aspects, why force a printer to print something that is repugnant to him? Is there some satisfaction to be got out of that? It’s not as if they can’t find another printer, although in this case they didn’t even have to do that.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Your hypotheticals are weird. An employee does what the boss wants. Stockholders don’t control firms day to day operations. The examples you bring up are not real issues, and they are not things that involve courts.

  • Anri

    Your hypotheticals are weird.

    They are extrapolations from your argument that the owner of a printing service has the right to refuse printing jobs based on content. Weird =/= invalid.

    An employee does what the boss wants.

    And I am asking what responsibility an employee has to enforce the owner’s preferences on the content of printed material they accept, per your argument.

    None? If no-one had told Mr. Scull about the content of the brochures his company was printing, would his constitutional rights have been violated, per you?

    Stockholders don’t control firms day to day operations.

    Does only owning partial share in a company make their constitutional rights about the conduct of that company less important? At what point does a partial owner give up their rights to control their company’s output, if it is their constitutional right to do so?

    The examples you bring up are not real issues, and they are not things that involve courts.

    How are they “not real issues”? This sounds a lot like hand-waving.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    Your “extrapolations” are confused and irrelevant. An employee does what his employer wants. An employee not following instructions does not violate Scull’s constitutional rights. Why would it? The state of Illinois punishing Scull for refusing to print the brochure would violate his constitutional right to free speech.

    Owning shares in company doesn’t mean you get control the company. How can you not know that? The government forcing a publisher to print something would violate the corporation’s First Amendment rights.

  • Raging Bee

    Its disappointing that their so many Christians desperately looking for opportunities and excuses to piss all over people they know nothing about. (And who claim access to God’s wisdom while never learning how to use words like “their.”)

    Aside from the legal aspects, why force a printer to print something that is repugnant to him?

    Aside from the religious-bigotry aspects, why should a printer have any problem printing things he’s paid to print? Out here in the real world people of all trades take money from people they find repugnant every day. If you think those Christian snowflake printers have it bad, just ask yourself what waitresses have to go through, without a single word of complaint.

  • Anri

    An employee not following instructions does not violate Scull’s constitutional rights. Why would it?

    Because it might result in his company publishing concent he does not approve of, which you claim is at his discretion, constitutionally.

    How is the government causing him to publish content he does not approve of materially different from having an employee cause him to publish material he does not approve of?

    Owning shares in company doesn’t mean you get control the company.

    Please explain the concept of a hostile takeover if this is not the case. Seriously, I’d like to hear how you think this works.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    How is the government censoring what you see materially different than your mom taking away your TV privileges? It’s a mystery.

  • Anri

    As there are legitimate reasons for government censorship (such as military secrets) that apply to adults, and a mother has no legal authority do censor what their adult child watches on TV, there’s a substantial material difference.

    I answered yours, howabout you answer mine:

    Please explain the concept of a hostile takeover if this (stock ownership equaling control) is not the case.

    Or are we just ignoring that awkward bit?

  • Sophotroph

    There’s no satisfaction involved. You want several hundred copies of something, you go to a print shop.

    If we start letting print shops refuse to print things they personally don’t like, things get ugly fast. That’s why, in America, we all know we can just hop on down to the print shop for copies of anything we have the money to pay for (and copyright to use, I guess, but that’s another forum discussion).

  • Sophotroph

    Thankfully, operating a machine that makes copies of somebody elses’ speech isn’t, in and of itself, speech.

    It’s just pressing the buttons on a machine that makes copies.

    It’s quite bizarre that you’d think the First Amendment has anything to do with it.

  • TheBookOfDavid

    Only if it includes “No Dogs”, and a passive aggressive ” have a nice day”.

  • Otto T. Goat Jr.

    It’s being forced to use your private property to convey and foster a message you disagree with, something the Supreme Court has held violates the First Amendment.