Bakery's Refusal To Place Anti-Gay Messages on Cakes Is Not Religious Discrimination

Scripps Media reported Friday that the Colorado Civil Rights Division has recently ruled in a Letter of Determination finding No Probable Cause that a Denver bakery did not engage in religious discrimination when it refused to bake and decorate two cakes with anti-gay-marriage messages.  William Jack, a Christian, asked the Azucar Bakery to furnish cakes shaped like a Bible decorated with two groomsmen, a cross with red X over it, and with Biblical verses that deal with sin and homosexuality. The bakery owner told Jack that she would bake the cakes, but not decorate them as requested. Instead she would furnish him with a pastry bag and icing so he could decorate it as he wished.  The Division Director's decision concluded that the bakery owner refused to decorate the cakes because Jack had requested "derogatory language and imagery," and not because of Jack's Christian creed. Jack is filing an appeal with the Civil Rights Division. (See prior related posting.)

Injunction, Civil Penalty Imposed On Florist That Refused To Sell For Same-Sex Wedding

As previously reported, last month a Washington state trial court held that a florist shop and its owner violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the state's Consumer Protection Act when the shop's owner advised a customer that for religious reasons she could not provide flower arrangements for his same-sex wedding ceremony. Now in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers Inc., (WA Super. Ct., March 27, 2015), the trial court entered an injunction against defendants prohibiting them from discriminating against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation in the furnishing of goods, merchandise and services.  In addition, the court imposed a civil penalty of $1000 and a nominal $1 for costs and attorneys' fees. Washington's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Arkansas Law Barring Cities From Expanding LGBT Protections Becomes Law Without Governor's Signature

AP reports that yesterday, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson allowed SB 202 to become law without his signature. The legislation bars local governments from adopting or enforcing anti-discrimination laws that protect classes not covered by the state civil rights law.  The bill is aimed at preventing cities from expanding their anti-discrimination laws to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The bill's sponsor, Sen. Bart Hester, said: "To think we could have different civil rights laws in every city is not realistic and not conducive to a good business environment."  The bill does not bar local governments from expanding non-discrimination policies applicable only to their own employees.

Suit Against Gym Alleges Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Athlete

A suit alleging religious discrimination in a place of public accommodation was brought in an Ohio federal district court yesterday against an LA Fitness facility in Cincinnati.  The complaint (full text) in Fall v. LA Fitness, (SD OH, filed 2/23/2015), filed by Mohamed Fall, a 28-year old former college basketball star and a practicing Muslim who regularly works out at LA Fitness, alleges that for over a year, after exercising, Fall "customarily retreats to an empty, obscure corner of the men's locker room, next to an empty coat rack, faces the wall and conducts Salat, or prayer, quietly to himself for approximately 5 to 10 minutes." On January 29, while in the middle of prayer, Fall, an immigrant from Senegal, was surrounded by three LA Fitness employees and told management had decided that he could no longer pray anywhere at the gym.  Fall claims he was singled out because he is a Muslim, saying that he has seen non-Muslims at the gym engage in religious prayer and related activities such as making the sign of the cross. WCPO News reports on the lawsuit.

Court Says Florist Violated Washington Public Accommodation Law In Refusing Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding

In State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc., (WA Super. Ct., Feb. 18, 2015), a Washington state trial court held that a florist shop violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the state's Consumer Protection Act when the shop's owner advised a customer that for religious reasons she could not provide flower arrangements for his same-sex wedding ceremony. (See prior related posting.) The court rejected defendants' argument that application of the law to require the shop to provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding violates their free expression and free exercise rights.  Addressing the 1st Amendment speech claim, the court said:

Defendants offer no persuasive authority in support of a free speech exception (be it creative, artistic, or otherwise) to anti-discrimination laws applied to public accommodations.

Defendants' strongest constitutional argument turned on the Washington state constitution's free exercise clause, which gives greater protection than the 1st Amendment.  However the court rejected defendants' claims, concluding that even if the laws impose a substantial burden on defendants' religious exercise, the state has a compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations. The court went on to reject defendants' argument that a more narrowly tailored approach would allow defendants to deny goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation and merely refer the customer to a non-discriminating business.  The court said: "This rule would, of course, defeat the purpose of combatting discrimination...."

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson welcomed the decision, saying: "The law is clear: If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples."

Administrative Law Judge Finds Bakery's Refusal To Furnish Same-Sex Wedding Cake Violates Anti-Discrimination Law

In In re Melissa Klein, (OR BOLI, Jan. 29, 2015), an Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Administrative Law Judge, in a 52-page opinion, held that Aaron Klein, a co-owner of the bakery "Sweetcakes by Melissa", discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the public accommodation provisions of ORS 695A.403.  The case grew out of the refusal on religious grounds to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The court held that co-owner Melissa Klein will be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded. The ALJ rejected free exercise and compelled speech defenses put forward by respondents, concluding that the state's anti-discrimination law is a neutral law of general applicability.

The administrative agency issued a press release announcing the Interim Order, saying:

The Interim Order finds that the undisputed material facts support charges of unlawful discrimination under the Oregon Equality Act. An administrative hearing scheduled for March will focus on damages for the same-sex couple.

The Oregonian reports on the decision. [Thanks to Joel Sogol via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Mennonite Couple Stops Hosting All Weddings To Settle Sexual Orientation Discrimination Complaint

As previously reported, last year a Mennonite couple filed suit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to prevent it from moving ahead on a complaint that the couple refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony in their art gallery in violation of the ban on discrimination in public accommodations. AP reported yesterday that the couple-- Betty and Richard Odgaard-- have settled the complaint filed with the Civil Rights Commission by the two men whose wedding was refused.  The Odgaards paid $5000 in damages, dropped their suit against the Commission and agreed not to discriminate in the future on the basis of sexual orientation.  In order to comply with that agreement, the Odgaards have totally stopped hosting wedding ceremonies of any kind at their gallery even though that has been a major part of their business.

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.]

Fayetteville Anti-Discrimination Law Repeal Applauded By Group As Victory For Religious Values

According to KNWA News, voters in a special election in Fayetteville, Arkansas on Tuesday voted 52% to 48% to repeal an extensive anti-discrimination law (full text) enacted by city council last August. At least one major conservative Christian group applauded the repeal as a victory for religious liberty.  Liberty Counsel in a press release yesterday said:

... Fayetteville voters repealed a law ... that required churches, Christian schools, and other para-church ministries to hire homosexuals for "secular" jobs (such as school teachers), allowed men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms, and required Christian business owners to service "same-sex weddings."....  Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said "... This ordinance sought to criminalize Judeo-Christian values."

Israeli Court Rules Messianics' Commercial Guest House Cannot Reject Same-Sex Wedding Reception

In Israel, a Jerusalem district court has held that the Messianic Jewish village of Yad Hashmonah violated Israel's anti-discrimination laws when it refused to rent out their guest house facilities to a lesbian couple for a wedding reception.  According to yesterday's Israel Today, the court concluded that the guest house was operated as a secular commercial establishment open to the public and is thus subject to Israel's public accommodation anti-discrimination laws. It is completely separate from the village's religious meeting room.  The court, affirming a damage award equivalent to $15,000 (US), rejected the village's argument that "the laws regulating freedom of religion must protect us from allowing a ceremony in our backyard which is in complete contradiction to our faith."

Houston Withdraws Controversial Subpoenas Issued To Pastors

Houston (TX) Mayor Annnise Parker announced yesterday the complete withdrawal of subpoenas the city had issued to 5 pastors seeking information about their support of a petition drive to obtain a referendum on the city's recently enacted Equal Rights Ordinance. (See prior posting.) According to Click2 Houston, while announcing withdrawal of the subpoenas, the mayor said that the city will continue to defend the ordinance against repeal efforts.  The mayor's decision comes one day after pastors from across the country came to Houston to protest, and people across the country mailed more than 1000 Bibles to the mayor as a protest.

Houston Narrows Subpoenas, But Pastors Say Not Enough

The city of Houston, Texas announced yesterday that it has filed narrowed subpoenas against five pastors in a lawsuit against it challenging rejection of referendum petition signatures.  At issue is an attempt by opponents of the city's Equal Rights Ordinance to obtain its repeal.  Much of the opposition-- particularly to provisions on transgender rights-- was led by clergy. Originally the city issued broad subpoenas calling for all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to the Ordinance or issues surrounding it. (See prior posting.) The new subpoenas omit any reference to sermons, but still seek information from 5 pastors who were leaders in the referendum petition drive on the petition gathering process. According to Mayor Annise Parker:

This is not about what they may be preaching from the pulpit.  It is about proving that the petition gathering process organized by these pastors did not meet the requirements of the City Charter.  This information is critical to proving the city’s contention that the petition was ineligible for placement on the ballot and that the organizers knew this.

Alliance Defending Freedom (representing the pastors) still objects to the narrowed subpoenas, stating in a press release:

The city of Houston still doesn’t get it. It thinks that by changing nothing in its subpoenas other than to remove the word ‘sermons’ that it has solved the problem. That solves nothing. Even though the pastors are not parties in this lawsuit, the subpoenas still demand from them 17 different categories of information – information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members. As we have stated many times, the problem is the subpoenas themselves; they must be rescinded entirely. The city must respect the First Amendment and abandon its illegitimate mission to invade the private communications of pastors for the purpose of strong-arming them into silence in a lawsuit that concerns nothing more than the authenticity of citizen petitions.

Pastors Seek To Quash Subpoenas For Sermons, Communications On Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance

Opponents of Houston, Texas' Equal Rights Ordinance enacted in May have sued after the city ruled that they had insufficient signatures on their petitions to get a repeal referendum on the ballot. (See prior posting.) As part of discovery in the lawsuit in state court, the city issued broad subpoenas (full text) to a group of five pastors calling for them to produce, among other items:

All communications with members of your congregation regarding HERO [Houston Equal Rights Ordinance] or the Petition....

All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

The pastors last week filed a motion to quash the subpoenas (full text) and a Memorandum in Support of the Motion (full text), arguing that the subpoenas are not "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible, relevant evidence." In a Statement emphasizing opponents' objections to provisions in the Equal Rights Ordinance relating to transgender access to bathrooms, Alliance Defending Freedom said Monday that the subpoenas are designed to stifle social commentary.  Fox News yesterday reported on developments.

UPDATE: According to KTRH News:

City Attorney David Feldman argues the subpoenas are justified because the churches are where opponents of the ordinance met. "We're certainly entitled to enquire about the communications that took place in the churches regarding the ordinance and the petitions because that's where they chose to do it," Feldman tells KTRH News. "Its relevant to know what representations and instructions were given regarding these petitions," he says. [Thanks to Matthew Crawley for the lead.]

Christian-Owned Bridal Shop Refuses Gown Fittings For Lesbian Couple

The latest installment in the battle over whether Christian-owned businesses can refuse service based on religious beliefs comes from Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. According to yesterday's Christian News, W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg recently refused to schedule gown fittings for two lesbian women who were planning their wedding.  One of the women refused service took her complaints to Facebook, and the dispute has now proliferated on social media.  Bridal shop owner Victoria Miller later told reporters: "We feel we have to answer to God for what we do. And providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God’s law." Now Bloomsburg city council is considering enacting an ordinance to prohibit discrimiantion on the basis of sexual orientation.

Restaurant's "Praying In Public" Discount Raises Questions

Inquisitr and HLN reported yesterday on a Winston-Salem, North Carolina restaurant that offers a 15% "Praying in Public" discount.  Apparently Mary's Gourmet Diner awards the discount to diners when a member of the wait staff sees them pray over their food. The story has gone viral, and some raise the question of whether the practice violates the religious discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

UPDATE: CBS Charlotte reported on Aug. 7 that the diner has stopped its discount program after the Freedom From Religion Foundation threatened to sue.

Houston Passes Controversial Equal Rights Ordinance

As reported by CultureMap Houston, on Wednesday the Houston, Texas City Council by a vote of 11-6 passed the controversial Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (full text). The new law protects against discrimination in public accommodations, employment and housing on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy. A provision that would have protected transgender persons in bathroom choice was removed after particularly strong objections from conservative and religious leaders.  Religious organizations are exempted from various provisions of the Ordinance. According to MSNBC, before passage of this ordinance, Houston was the largest U.S. city without local anti-discrimination laws.  Opponents of the measure are attempting to collect the needed 17,000 signatures to put repeal of the Ordinance on the ballot in November's election.

Supreme Court Denies Review In New Mexico Same-Sex Wedding Photographer Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Elane Photography v. Willock,  (Docket No. 13-585, cert. denied 4/7/2014). (Order List.) In the case, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the New Mexico Human Rights Act requires a commercial photography business to serve same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. It concluded that the 1st Amendment does not require an exception for creative or expressive professions. (See prior posting.)

New York City Settles Discrimination Suit Over Modest Dress Signs In Hasidic-Owned Stores

Yesterday the New York City Commission on Human Rights settled a suit it had filed in August 2012 against seven businesses in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn charging them with religious and gender discrimination. The businesses, owned by Hasidic Jews,  posted signs calling for modest dress by those entering the store.  Failed Messiah blog reports that under the proposed settlement agreement the Commission says it will drop its charges and store owners will agree that if they post signs in their windows, they will say that while modest dress is appreciated, everyone is welcome to enter free from discrimination. The stores' attorney says that the exact wording of future signs is still being worked out. (See prior related posting.)

Colorado Civil Rights Commission Initial Decision Holds Bakery Violated Law In Refusing Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

In Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO Civ. Rts. Commn., Dec. 6, 2013), an Administrative Law Judge for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission held that a bakery and its owner illegally discriminated against a same-sex couple on the basis of sexual orientation in refusing to sell them a wedding cake. The bakery owner claimed that creating cakes for same-sex weddings violates his religious beliefs. The ALJ held that the refusal violated the public accommodation anti-discrimination ban in C.R.S. Sec. 24-34-601(2), rejecting the argument that the refusal was not "because of" the couple's sexual orientation.

The ALJ also rejected respondents' claims that requiring them to prepare the cake would violate their free speech and free exercise rights protected by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions.  The ALJ held that this would not amount to compelled speech, saying that the bakery owner "was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage." Also any impact on free speech "is 'plainly incidental' to the government's right to regulate objectionable conduct."  The ALJ rejected respondents' free exercise claim, finding that the anti-discrimination law is neutral and of general applicability.

The ALJ's initial decision may be appealed to the full Civil Rights Commission (Commn. Rule 10.13), and from their to the state court of appeals (C.R.S. Sec. 24-24-307). The ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. Fox News and AP report on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]