The Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop

There’s a good discussion going on over at Samizdata regarding the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop which is currently before the Surpreme Court. A summary of the case is as follows.

A gay couple approached Masterpiece Cakeshop and asked the proprietor to make them a wedding cake with a unique message for their upcoming nuptials. The baker, who is a devout Christian, refused to do so on the grounds that his religious beliefs forbade him from participating in such a ceremony, and that making a cake and decorating it in the manner requested would constitute doing so. He was happy to sell them an existing cake off the shelf, but not make one and decorate it specially. At this point I should mention that the gay couple could have gone to any one of hundreds of other bakers, but instead they deliberately sought out a Christian one in the hope he would refuse and they could run around screaming about how oppressed they are. As such, they took the baker to court which found him guilty of discrimination on grounds of sexuality, and dismissed his defence that in refusing to comply with the couple’s request he was exercising his right to free speech. The matter has now reached the Supreme Court and they are busy tying themselves in knots over it.

The reason they’re tying themselves in knots is because Americans, like so many other advanced nations, have spent decades writing ever-more detailed and prescriptive laws attempting to control what people do, say, and think. A feature of modern governments is they believe there is absolutely nothing on Earth which cannot be subject to legislation, and the more the better. Unsurprisingly, these laws have started contradicting one another. If freedom of association is a right guaranteed in law, it logically follows that freedom to not associate is similarly protected. The Founding Fathers, being sensible folk and not the cretins which pass for modern-day politicians, didn’t see the need to actually write this down because it is so bleeding obvious, but our current ruling class blithely assume these guys would be progressives and hence fully supportive of the idiocy we see today. Personally I think the Founding Fathers, were they permitted to see contemporary America, would wonder why they didn’t just take up beaver trapping and fishing and give nation-founding a wide berth.

Some at Samizdata are arguing that it is a free speech issue, others that it is one of property rights, in the sense that the baker’s labour is his property. Both are undoubtedly true in the abstract sense, but in the context of US law I don’t think either is true. Fraser Orr sums it up well in this comment:

In regards to the baker himself, let us be clear on what the case says. It does not force him to use his labor to make a cake, or force his store to support something which he doesn’t believe in. In fact what it says is that to engage in the business of cake making in Colorado you have to meet certain standards, such as hygiene, treat your workers fairly, provide for disabled customers and, yes, provide your services without discrimination.

And again here:

The bakers are not required to make the cake, only they may not sell any cakes unless they do so without discrimination. So there is no involuntary servitude here, only involuntary non servitude.

Note that Fraser isn’t saying that this should be happening, he’s simply stating what the case is. What it boils down to is whether the baker’s personal beliefs extend to how he makes cakes and for what purposes, and whether they override any customer’s right to be served regardless. Frankly, any society that struggles over this question for more than twenty seconds is probably in its last century of existence, at least in its current form. There may be some genuine instances where society needs to get  their heads together to work out a compromise, e.g. if a group of people are going without vital goods and services due to wholly artificial restrictions on supply, but I remain to be convinced that gays being denied bespoke wedding cakes from a single bakery is one of them.

But here we are, with the Supreme Court trying to decide what happens when an irresistible force meets and immovable object. I have no doubt they will rule against the baker, because to do otherwise would drive a coach and horses through decades of progressive legislation which, however you cut it, most of the population seems to endorse (if you disagree, kindly point out that last time American conservatives voted in enough numbers to install a government which conserved anything). When the ruling is handed down, progressives will cheer heartily about how bigoted bakers have no place in American society and make lots of noises about how decency prevailed over hate and other such nonsense. The decision will be presented as evidence that society is moving forward, inching towards progressive utopia, as they did when the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was in fact enshrined in the constitution even though its authors neglected to mention it. Not for one moment will they think the societal arrangements that, in defiance of most of human history, prevents people massacring each other for fun have just had another pillar kicked from under them.

Where they think this is heading is anyone’s guess. Where gay men like the ones persecuting this baker think they’re going to hide when Daddy Government takes a turn for the worse or doesn’t show up to protect them I don’t know. I’ve mentioned this before, but if I was a minority in any society I’d probably not go around deliberately antagonising people, and I certainly wouldn’t put my future well-being in the hands of people who shit themselves because Trump said “pussy”.

I suspect this case will become an amusing footnote of history, along with so much else that progressives think is inevitable and will therefore last forever. The rate we’re going, we’re going to make the Incas look sane.

Share

39 thoughts on “The Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop

  1. Too much dancing on the head of pins at Samizdata for my liking.

    This is a good take on the case:

    In Obergefell v. Hodges , the Supreme Court extended constitutional protections to same-sex marriage and created one of those cultural moments that feels like part of a Hollywood production. People wept on the steps of the Court and I, having contributed to a brief in the case arguing against marriage discrimination, wept with them. I later had the stirring pleasure of attending a same-sex wedding in the National Cathedral and wept while watching two good friends celebrate both their love and their civil rights. I’ve been fighting for gay rights since seventh grade.

    After the Obergefell celebrating was over, my next thought was this: please don’t immediately start forcing Christians to serve same-sex weddings. Please. This is the greatest civil rights victory of my lifetime, please don’t spoil it by attacking the rights of religious conscience. Please don’t treat 21st-century America, where 89% of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination on sexual orientation even though they aren’t required to by federal law, as if it were the Jim Crow South.

    Please don’t act as if not getting a cake made by a single baker is a commensurate harm to the pervasive and systematic discrimination faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow, when traveling through required using the Negro Motorist Green Book to figure out which businesses would serve them and which towns would run them out at sundown.

    Please allow some time for adjustment, and allow those who are conflicted on these issues some space and understanding. Tolerance needs to be mutual, not one-sided.

    For me the freedom not to associate and conscience are the key here, And if you’ve got Peter Tatchell on your side you’re on to something.

  2. Let’s imagine I wanted to persuade people that homosexuals were dangerous weirdos to be hated and feared, rather than just another rather ordinary example of the way humans differ from each other. I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better demonstration of the former than one of these cake-shop stunts.

    Surely these scams are actually run by anti-gay nut-jobs, trying to make the gays look unreasonable? Even if they’re not, I’m amazed that their more moderate brethren don’t shout them down for the damage they do to the cause.

    Let’s face it, who would *want* to eat the cake at a gay wedding now?

  3. Not only are there gay marriage friendly bakers, its say less than 1% of the population that wants to have a gay wedding. Whats the odds on this situation arising.

  4. It is the deliberate seeking out of an overtly Christan bakery that disgusts me. This is a wholly artificial and deliberate Kulturkampf against a currently disfavoured group.

    In any case, why would you want your cake to be made by people you clearly think are knuckle-dragging bigots anyway? I wouldn’t want my heathen wedding cake to be made e.g. by Islamists, so why would I seek them out and then take them to court over them not making my cake?

  5. …progressive legislation which, however you cut it, most of the population seems to endorse (if you disagree, kindly point out that last time American conservatives voted in enough numbers to install a government which conserved anything).

    I disagree. I will also point out that at this point in time, it is no longer about conserving, but rather about reversing – and that was precisely what many conservatives, independents, and even some nominal Democrats voted for about a year ago.

  6. “The rate we’re going, we’re going to make the Incas look sane.”

    Ah, well, the football games will at least get a lot more interesting….

  7. Brilliant piece.

    I think the US Supreme Court is a terrible institution, and one of those things I changed my mind about over time, because of their law-making. I’m in favour of both gay marriage and abortion, but I’m much more in favour of them being passed by politicians hinting we should change the law, having a public debate on the subject, then politicians risking political capital with hardcore religious types in rural areas or sophisticated urban liberals or whoever (both of whom are citizens), MPs receiving postbags full of mail, having to walk through a lobby and risk getting fired, and later, politicians raising amendments, getting a load of mail, votes etc.

    I think the alternative, a supreme court that can make up laws on the fly, if they so wish, leaves the losers angry. I don’t think a lot of US attitudes to abortion stem from actually being opposed to abortion. I think they stem from not even getting a fair shot at deciding it. It creates huge division between the people who own the USC and the people who don’t.

    And it was funny to hear some US liberals I know complaining that Trump would now appoint a USC justice, and how catastrophic that would be, and how this could lead to doom for their ideas, as this would now mean the USA becoming like The Handmaid’s Tale. And I have no sympathy. They didn’t once consider how their countrymen would feel about how Hilary would appoint a judge as a means to push her agenda.

  8. Catholic adoption agencies in the UK were hounded and ultimately forced to close by the same kind of agit-prop gay phalanx.

  9. This is one of the reasons why I keep my membership of the Friends of Dorothy Appreciation Society a closely guarded secret in real life.

    As for the Supreme Court, the conversation should have gone somewhat along the lines of…

    Judge: “Could you have bought your cake at another cake shop?”
    SJWFag: “Errm, yes, we could”.
    Judge: “Case dismissed with prejudice. Costs to be paid by the claimants.”

    It won’t of course, instead some tortured narrative will be found to persecute a baker for refusing to be involved in what amounts to entrapment disguised as LBGT+ propaganda.

    God help us all when the Interregnum comes…

  10. The solutions are simple and two fold:
    1. Yes, we will make your cake but since it is against my creed and that of my employees to do so, we will need to hire in a crew with their own gear to do so. This will cost XXXX thousand dollars which we will expect you to pay up front, like right now thank you.
    2. Here’s the cake you forced us to make for you, go on, take a bite, I dare you.

  11. Let’s imagine I wanted to persuade people that homosexuals were dangerous weirdos to be hated and feared

    There’s a Canadian pundit here who has a one-line response to these kinds of stories: “Dear Gays: This is why people hate you.”

  12. Tim,

    You wrote: “The decision will be presented as evidence that society is moving forward, inching towards progressive utopia… Not for one moment will they think the societal arrangements that, in defiance of most of human history, prevents people massacring each other for fun have just had another pillar kicked from under them.”

    Presumably progressives are counting on being able to keep the nominally Christian majority cowed and silent. What’s more, I think they’ll succeed. Governments across the world have been eroding liberties for decades with very little opposition. By contrast, people care very deeply indeed about their government benefits, i.e., cash and services. Even a hint of cutting them provokes an absolutely furious backlash. In consequence, governments are accumulating huge, unpayable debts. So long as people are entertained and enjoy at least a modicum of material comfort, it seems governments can otherwise do pretty much what they like. As one commentator once said: “Societies that have reality television do not have revolutions,” – or words to that effect.

  13. In the future nobody will offer an open ended service. Here is a menu of what we offer, this and no more. Wouldn’t that work? You can’t sue a burger bar for not selling you a pizza.

  14. John Galt on December 17, 2017 at 6:09 pm said:

    Judge: “Could you have bought your cake at another cake shop?”
    SJWFag: “Errm, yes, we could”.
    Judge: “Case dismissed with prejudice. Costs to be paid by the claimants.”

    So, what happens when those excluding cake shops (or landlords) manage to cover all of Manhattan? Or Chicago? Or the Midwest?

    Does the legal test need to change when some threshold of non-access is passed? When the FOD’s can no longer find any available living quarters? Or when 50% can’t?

    The legal test needs to be as viable now – today – at whatever levels we are at – as it might be then. Which means your Laissez-faire idea, which decidedly won’t work later, by definition doesn’t work today.

    The USSC has determined, over the course of decades, that immutable characteristics cannot be counted like you would count credit, or criminal history. This means that, on a first level basis, you CANNOT say no to someone because of certain facts like gender preference or race. (Yeah, they decided that preference is immutable. So go argue that.)

    Do libertarian impulses need to automatically reject all social impulses? Personally, I can see the need – temporarily – to make people stop being homophobic or racist. (Yeah, “temporarily” is the most misused word in English history.)

    It’s a huge change in social construct, but I think it’s a profitable one, because I think the phobias die with slight pressure. Why not? Libertarians interfere with the liberty of thieves and rapists all the time.

  15. Maybe the government should get out of the job of policing the private sphere.

    Was it a government run or owned cakeshop? Nope? Not are problem then matey.

    Not every form of discrimination (in the very general sense of choosing one course of action over another) is the reintroduction of Jim Crow through the back door.

  16. Let’s imagine I wanted to persuade people that homosexuals were dangerous weirdos to be hated and feared, rather than just another rather ordinary example of the way humans differ from each other. I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better demonstration of the former than one of these cake-shop stunts.

    Indeed, and how they think this behaviour will work out well for them in the long run is anyone’s guess. A while back ZMan said something on his podcast about how the BLM movement is behaving like a victorious army, tearing down monuments erected by the conquered people. This is an incredibly dangerous way to behave unless you are absolutely, 100% sure that you have indeed won and you will stay on top forever. I don’t think it will take much to flip the situation back around again.

  17. As one commentator once said: “Societies that have reality television do not have revolutions,” – or words to that effect.

    The thing about revolutions is:

    1. Nobody sees them coming, usually around the time the ruling classes are such a thing cannot happen.
    2. They happen in ways you don’t expect, triggered by some seemingly innocuous and often wholly unrelated event which galvanises local support and quickly transforms into a nation-wide movement to overthrow the government.

  18. bobby b,

    So, what happens when those excluding cake shops (or landlords) manage to cover all of Manhattan? Or Chicago? Or the Midwest?

    I covered this when I said:

    There may be some genuine instances where society needs to get their heads together to work out a compromise, e.g. if a group of people are going without vital goods and services due to wholly artificial restrictions on supply

    If we’re going to pass laws in which one person’s liberty is traded off in in favour of another’s, I believe there must be a real and demonstrable problem to address – not a hypothetical one. I haven’t done much research into this but I am not sure there have been too many instances of what you describe happening in a developed country, let alone a democracy. This is why everyone always points to the Jim Crow laws, because they don’t really have any other concrete examples.

    The problem with pointing to the Jim Crow laws is that it it ignores a crucial factor: blacks weren’t being excluded from accessing goods and services by the market, it was imposed by the government of the day. Absent Jim Crow *laws*, would the situation have been an awful lot better? Almost certainly.

    The other problem with pointing to the Jim Crow laws is that the exclusion of blacks did represent a real and demonstrable problem. But as I said:

    I remain to be convinced that gays being denied bespoke wedding cakes from a single bakery is one of them.

    Pointing to the government-imposed anomaly that was Jim Crow and dreaming up hypothetical situations justifying new laws which are tying the Supreme Court up in knots is not the action of a well society, IMO.

    For what it’s worth, I’m not even approaching this from a libertarian angle. I’m just looking at it with common sense and reckoning what they are doing cannot possibly occur in a peaceful society for very long.

  19. So, what happens when those excluding cake shops (or landlords) manage to cover all of Manhattan? Or Chicago? Or the Midwest?

    There is a huuuge number of products and services I’d like to see offered by the market that are nonetheless not on offer. So, what happens? Simple: I go without (a wedding cake without a specific inscription – the horror!), or make up my own solutions, inferior and time consuming as they may be. Or I might look into whether there are other potential consumers of said product, and start my own business offering them. Or are gays known to be born without the baking gene?

  20. Not every form of discrimination (in the very general sense of choosing one course of action over another) is the reintroduction of Jim Crow through the back door.

    Indeed, and the fact that it is usually presented as such demonstrates those who want the new laws are not acting in good faith.

  21. This case also demonstrates that there is a real need for severe punishments to be dished out for abuse of the legal system. Arguably, the cake shop should have all of its legal costs reimbursed, and given compensation for loss of business and stress. They did not choose to be picked as a precedent setting case.

  22. @ Tim “The thing about revolutions is:”

    If we look back at most of the documented ones and certainly the American, French, Russian including various Civil Wars, 1848 revolutions, Young Turks, Colour Revolutions, Arab Springs (I haven’t read about the English revolution so haven’t included it) they are not spontaneous and are in fact well planned, properly organised, well funded and inevitable in their conclusion, this includes the failed ones which still achieved significant progress. Yes there are some elements of revolution that were quite secretive and they practiced evolution instead of revolution such as say homosexual Fabians corrupting the British Labour Party who in turn converted US progressives, who in turn bang on about the kind of subversion decribed in your OP.

    They take years to form and planning is continuously underway to progress their cause. I think HG Wells best described his and their Internationalist Utopian Dream back in 1940 here:

    “Nor does it alter the fact that even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by the frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”

  23. they are not spontaneous and are in fact well planned, properly organised, well funded and inevitable in their conclusion

    I disagree with that. The Arab Spring grew out of protests about the government removing subsidies on flour, pushing up the price of bread. The Syrian civil war started after protests over the treatement of a bunch of teenagers who’d been arrested and tortured by the secret police. The Russian Revolution was more of a coup d’etat followed by a long and bloody civil war: there was nothing inevitable about the Bolshevik’s seizure of power, nor their ability to hold onto it.

  24. This case also demonstrates that there is a real need for severe punishments to be dished out for abuse of the legal system.

    Yes.

  25. I think the US Supreme Court is a terrible institution, and one of those things I changed my mind about over time, because of their law-making.

    I fully agree.

    I’m in favour of both gay marriage and abortion, but I’m much more in favour of them being passed by politicians hinting we should change the law, having a public debate on the subject, then politicians risking political capital with hardcore religious types in rural areas or sophisticated urban liberals or whoever (both of whom are citizens), MPs receiving postbags full of mail, having to walk through a lobby and risk getting fired, and later, politicians raising amendments, getting a load of mail, votes etc.

    Oh, they tried this but couldn’t get the public on board. In fact, they barely even tried it because they knew it would be a complete vote-loser: Obama even came out against gay marriage in his first term because he wanted the support of religious blacks in the south. So they railroaded it through the Supreme Court instead.

    I don’t think a lot of US attitudes to abortion stem from actually being opposed to abortion. I think they stem from not even getting a fair shot at deciding it. It creates huge division between the people who own the USC and the people who don’t.

    Exactly right.

  26. They happen in ways you don’t expect, triggered by some seemingly innocuous and often wholly unrelated event which galvanises local support and quickly transforms into a nation-wide movement to overthrow the government.

    Indeed, Mr. Khadafi wound up with a stick shoved up his fundament because a market inspector tried to shake down a vegetable vendor who’d had enough, and if I recall correctly, lit himself on fire, subsequently starting the revolt in Libya.

  27. I will also point out that at this point in time, it is no longer about conserving, but rather about reversing – and that was precisely what many conservatives, independents, and even some nominal Democrats voted for about a year ago.

    True, but this sort of supports my point: supposed conservatives have conserved nothing and over the course of decades lost every single battle in the culture wars. That people are now having to fight an enormous rearguard action shows that they are not happy with where they find themselves, but I’m tempted to ask why they did nothing about it for the past 30 years. I can only assume they were happy with it.

  28. I can only assume they were happy with it.

    I wouldn’t necessarily say they were happy with it, just that they weren’t unhappy enough to fight back. Which is what makes the situation dangerous. Societies tend to be like milquetoast-like, you can crap on them, as a ruling class, and think they’ll just take it because they always have. Then one day the ruling class presses the wrong button and a red curtain of blood descends across the eyes of the milquetoast society and all hell breaks loose.

    If you thought the first American Civil War was bloody, and it was, very much so, you’ll be horrified by Mark II. I’m not hoping for it, and I hope it won’t occur in my or my children’s lifetimes, but if serious changes aren’t made it will come.

    Re: your comments on the founders staying out of the nation building business if they knew what they had wrought. I agree but the alternative isn’t much better. The U.K. has devolved to the point where the police, at least some forces, have stated they don’t have the funding to fight some levels of crime, burglary, muggings, etc… but have no problem finding the funds to troll twitter and arrest people for bad thoughts.

  29. “There was nothing inevitable about the Bolshevik’s seizure of power, nor their ability to hold onto it.”

    1848 Karl Marx publishes the Communist manifesto.
    1866 First attempted assassination of Russian Czar Alexander II by a Red revolutionary.
    1879-1810 Three more failed assassination attempt on the Czar by Reds.
    1881 The Reds succeed in assassinating the Czar. The Reds during this period of time are busily assassinating and attempting to assassinate just about all of the leadership of all of the Christian monarchies around Europe.
    1905 The Reds launched a failed attempt during the first Russian Revolution and the Tsar shows mercy on their ringleaders and allows them to flee, Lenin to Switzerland and Trotsky to New York. Reds assassinate the Grand Duke of Russia.
    1911 Reds assassinate Russian Prime Minister in front of the Czar.
    1917 Revolutionaries overthrow the Romanov dynasty. Exiled Reds start returning to Russia with backing. Reds seize power from socilaists and Kerensky flees Russsia following the October revolution (red October).
    1918 Reds murder the captured Romanov family.
    1918-1921 ST Petersburg falls to the Reds and the Red White war is waged for three years, Comiterm, Red Terror and Cheka are established.
    1920 Winston Churchill warns of a worldwide communist conspiracy that has been active since the French revolution and every one since that is now actively trying to take over the world.
    1921-1922 First famine kills 10 million and attempts to starve out any folek with sympathies to the whites.
    1922 The Reds win and establish the USSR and announce their plans to take over the world.
    1928 Stalin brutally seizes the last of any nonaligned farms or people.
    1931 Cathedral of Christ the Saviour destroyed.
    1932 Reds execute the Holdomor.
    1933 Welsh Journalist Gareth Jones exposes the truth about the Red Terror to the West. I am sure we would have heard more from him had he lived. His interviews with Hitler and others are up there with the best.
    Many other writers expose the Wests planning and financing of the Bolshevik revolution.

    “The Arab Spring grew out of protests about the government removing subsidies on flour, pushing up the price of bread”

    As for the Arab Spring, well I can’t be bothered doing a timeline for each of them and will just settle for the infamous memo that Wesley Clark seen a few months after 9/11.

    “‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

  30. I hope the cake included the warning, clearly visible, that it is healthy. For example it may contain nuts, is Gluten-free, only uses vegan foodstuffs and of course, is not packed with fudge as excess sugar is bad for you.

  31. P.J. O’Rourke makes the point that there are two kinds of rights; “gimme” and “gertchya”. ie “give me stuff” vs. “leave me alone”.

    Of these, the latter are only the real natural rights. The former require imposing my will on others to some degree or other.

  32. There are no “real natural rights”. Your rights are a feature of the society of which you are part, and accordingly vary in time and place.

  33. Agreed, but he wasn’t Libyan, he was Tunisian:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi

    Tarek el-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi (Arabic: محمد البوعزيزي‎; 29 March 1984 – 4 January 2011) was a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire on 17 December 2010, which became a catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution and the wider Arab Spring against autocratic regimes. His self-immolation was in response to the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides.

  34. @Dearime

    “There are no “real natural rights”.”

    Yes, quite. But the point I believe he’s making is that, at this particular point in time, culture and “location” (western democracies), the best agreement we can get to amongst ourselves are for the Gertchya rights and we will constantly disagree about the Gimme rights.

  35. “Agreed, but he wasn’t Libyan, he was Tunisian”

    So what was it then that sparked (excuse the pun) the uprising in Libya, was it “spontaneous” or had it been planned for some time as mentioned by Mahmoud Jibril the Libyan Interim President to the Bookings Institute in 2011.

    “I would argue at the beginning that what’s taking place is a
    natural product of the globalization process that started in the mid-1980s. We have witnessed some results from the financial and economic scene and now we are witnessing the new global cultural paradigm paying off some real concrete results in the Middle East. I would say that what happened in Libya cannot be separated from what’s happening in Egypt, from what’s happening in Tunisia, what’s taking place in Yemen and what’s taking place in Syria.”

    https://www.brookings.edu/events/the-future-of-libya-a-view-from-the-opposition/

  36. “They did not choose to be picked as a precedent setting case.”

    Yes they did – the minute they appealed the ruling of the lowest court that found against them, rather than complying with the order to bake a damn cake. In so doing they are doing exactly what the opposition wants them to.

    Without caring to look up the details I imagine both sides are heavily backed by interest groups funding the legal bills.

Comments are closed.