In the window itself it says gluten free but when you go to order something gluten-free they already warn you that THERE IS cross contamination, yes, it is appreciated that they warn you because if you are celiac you cannot consume those products. But advertising gluten free just because it looks good doesn't seem ethical to me, celiac disease is a disease and not an economic boon. There were only some uncontaminated cookies, the rest were all listed as gluten-free options and that is not true. If there is contamination it is not gluten free and at least it is not to be published in the window itself and much less on the menu. On the other hand, the service was charming and pleasant. But I am outraged by this abuse of "gluten free" to attract customers when you can't offer it.
................Reply to the establishment's comment
It's clear that you know my name.
If you publish in your menu that you have gluten-free options, but at the same time you admit that there is cross contamination, you are not offering anything gluten-free, it does not matter if the person is celiac or by free choice, you are offering them gluten-free products and that is not the case. And yes, it is appreciated that you warn them as there may be gluten as it would make them sick.
But can you imagine that a product labeled "gluten free" will contain gluten? What would happen there? Do you think that company could call those who do not want or cannot consume gluten unempathetic? The reason for the review is to warn celiacs that this is not their place. The answer makes me want to give 1 star