Civil Rights Complaint With A Twist-- Baker Refuses To Add Anti-Gay Message To Cake

AP today reports on a complaint filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Division against bakery owner Marjorie Silva by a customer who wanted her to create a cake with an anti-gay marriage message on it.  Silva agreed to bake a Bible-shaped cake for customer Bill Jack, but refused his request to put hateful anti-gay words on the cake along with two men holding hands with an X over them. Silva told Jack that she would give him icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words himself.  This did not satisfy Jack, and he filed a complaint alleging that he was discriminated against based on his creed. The complaint comes as Republicans in the Colorado legislature are looking at legislative changes to protect business owners who refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Colorado Supreme Court Hears Arguments On School Vouchers

The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District.  In the case, the state court of appeals upheld  Douglas County, Colorado's "Choice Scholarship Program" under which parents of eligible students can obtain vouchers covering a  portion of the tuition costs of sending their children to certain private schools, a majority of which have religious affiliations. (See prior posting.)  AP reports on the oral arguments.

Suit Says Schools Promoted Christian Activities

The American Humanist Association and several parents of school children filed suit this week against the Douglas County, Colorado school district and its officials over the schools' alleged endorsement of Christian religious organizations.  The complaint (full text) in  American Humanist Association, Inc. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, (D CO, filed 10/22/2014), contends that by extensively promoting Operation Christmas Child and two mission trips, the school district has violated the Establishment Clause and the Equal Access Act.  Huffington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Colorado Same-Sex Marriage Laws Invalidated With Only Limited Stay

A Colorado federal district court yesterday issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Colorado's state constitutional and statutory provisions that deny same-sex couples the right to marry in Colorado and deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  In Burns v. Hickenlooper, (D CO, July 23, 2014), the defendants (the governor, the attorney general and a county clerk) did not oppose entry of the injunction since the 10th Circuit in a case from Utah had already held same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. (See prior posting,) Subsequently the 10th Circuit also invalidated Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Much of yesterday's opinion focused on the question of whether the court should stay its order while the Utah case moves forward on appeal.  The court refused, but instead merely granted a one-month stay in order for defendants to seek relief from the 10th Circuit.  In refusing a broader stay, the court the rejected the argument that U.S Supreme Court action summarily granting stays in other same-sex marriage litigation requires a similar stay here:

Based on the most recent stay, it appears to the Court that it may well be that a message is being sent by the Supreme Court. But this Court is not some modern day haruspex skilled in the art of divination. This Court cannot – and, more importantly, it will not – tell the people of Colorado that the access to this or any other fundamental right will be delayed because it “thinks” or “perceives” the subtle – or not so subtle – content of a message not directed to this case. The rule of law demands more.

Scotus Blog and AP report on the decision.  According to the Denver Post, Colorado attorney general John Suthers filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit an hour after the district court decision was handed down.

Marijuana DUI Law Does Not Injure Religious User of Cannabis

In Baker v. State of Colorado, (D CO, Feb. 18, 2014), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (Feb. 7, 2014) and dismissed for lack of standing a free exercise challenge to Colorado's marijuana DUI statute. The magistrate's conclusion, adopted by the district court, was:

Plaintiff alleges that Colorado's marijuana DUI statute violates his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion because it infringes on his right to (1) personally use cannabis for medical and sacramental purposes and (2) run a church that uses cannabis in its religious practices.... Plaintiff does not allege facts indicating that his religion specifically necessitates marijuana use resulting in five ngs or more of Delta 9-THC in his bloodstream while driving a car. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that Colorado's marijuana DUI statute has unconstitutionally burdened his religious practices.... Accordingly, he fails to allege an injury in fact in connection with his First Amendment claim.