Public Accommodation Law Upheld Against Religious Claims In First Post-Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision

In the first case to present issues similar to those in the Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, an Arizona appellate court has largely vindicated the rights of a same sex couple.  In Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix, (AZ App, June 7, 2018), owners of an art studio that designs wedding products, citing their Christian religious beliefs, refused to create customer-specific merchandise for same-sex weddings. They sued to obtain an injunction against application of Phoenix's public accommodation anti-discrimination law to them.  Rejecting their free speech argument, the court said in part:

the conduct at issue is not the creation of words or images but the conduct of selling or refusing to sell merchandise—either pre-fabricated or designed to order—equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech. Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in “a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., slip op. at 10.

The court goes on to note:

Although Appellants are prohibited from posting discriminatory statements about their intent to refuse services for same-sex weddings, they may post a statement endorsing their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and may post a disclaimer explaining that, notwithstanding that belief, Section 18-4(B) requires them to provide goods and services to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Or they may post a disclaimer that the act of selling their goods and services to same-sex couples does not constitute an endorsement of their customers’ exercise of their constitutional right to marry or any other activities.

The court did, however, strike as unconstitutionally vague a portion of the public accommodation law that prohibited advertisements or notices that states or implies that a person, because of sexual orientation would be "unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable or not solicited."

The court went on to reject the studio owners' free exercise claims:

Appellants have failed to prove that Section 18-4(B) substantially burdens their religious beliefs.... Appellants are not penalized for expressing their belief that their religion only recognizes the marriage of opposite-sex couples. Nor are Appellants penalized for refusing to create wedding-related merchandise as long as they equally refuse similar services to opposite-sex couples. Section 18-4(B) merely requires that, by operating a place of public accommodation, Appellants provide equal goods and services to customers regardless of sexual orientation. Appellants are free to discontinue selling custom wedding-related merchandise and maintain the operation of Brush & Nib for its other business operations. What Appellants cannot do is use their religion as a shield to discriminate against potential customers.

Slate reports on the decision.

UPDATE: AP reports that that attorneys for Brush & Nib plan an appeal.

Religious Organizations Challenge City's New Anti-Discrimination Law

Five churches and a Christian radio station filed suit last week in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging a De Pere city anti-discrimination ordinance that does not clearly exempt religious organizations.  The complaint (full text) in Hope Lutheran Church v. City of De Pere, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 2/22/2018) says that the city has not been willing to assure churches and religious organizations that they will be exempt from the employment and public accommodation provisions of the law that takes effect next month.  The complaint contends:

As a result, the ordinance is likely to be imposed on churches and other religious organizations in a manner that would mandate government orthodoxy in core religious functions, communication, and conduct.

While the law does permit religious organizations to hire on the basis of religion, it does not exempt them from prohibitions on hiring on the basis of sex, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity.  Fox 11 News reports on the law suit.

State Appeals Court Rejects Religious Defense By B&B That Rejected Lesbian Couple

In Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, (HI App., Feb. 23, 2018), a Hawaii sate appeals court held that a 3-room bed & breakfast violated the state's public accommodation law when the B&B owner refused on religious grounds to accept a room reservation from a lesbian couple.  The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court held that an exemption in a separate housing discrimination statute for small rooming houses does not apply to the public accommodation law.  The court also rejected defendant's state and federal constitutional privacy and free exercise defenses, finding that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.  Hawaii News Now reports on the decision.

Oregon Appeals Court Upholds Judgment Against Baker Who Refused Same-Sex Wedding Cake

In Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (OR App., Dec. 28, 2017), an Oregon appeals court in a 62-page opinion agreed with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. The court upheld $135,000 in damages that the Bureau had awarded. The court held that the bakery's refusal of service  was "on account of" the couple's sexual orientation. Rejecting plaintiffs' constitutional arguments the court said that "the final order does not impermissibly burden the Kleins' right to the free exercise of their religion because it simply requires their compliance with a neutral law of general applicability...."

Moving to plaintiffs' free expression argument, the court said in part:

Although the Kleins’ wedding cakes involve aesthetic judgments and have decorative elements, the Kleins have not demonstrated that their cakes are inherently “art,” like sculptures, paintings, musical compositions, and other works that are both intended to be and are experienced predominantly as expression. Rather, their cakes, even when custom-designed for a ceremonial occasion, are still cakes made to be eaten. Although the Kleins themselves may place more importance on the communicative aspect of one of their cakes, there is no information in this record that would permit an inference that the same is true in all cases for the Kleins’ customers and the people who attend the weddings for which the cakes are created. Moreover, to the extent that the cakes are expressive, they do not reflect only the Kleins’ expression. Rather, they are products of a collaborative process in which Melissa’s artistic execution is subservient to a customer’s wishes and preferences. For those reasons, we do not agree that the Kleins’ cakes can be understood to fundamentally and inherently embody the Kleins’ expression, for purposes of the First Amendment.

The court concluded that at most intermediate scrutiny applies and the Bureau's order survives that level.  The court however reversed the Bureau's holding that the bakery's statements about the case violated a separate provision prohibiting display of any notice that a business intends to discriminate in the future. KPTV News and The Oregonian report on the decision.

Transcript of Oral Arguments In Masterpiece Cakeshop Is Now Available

The transcript (full text) of today's oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is now available.  Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has posted an analysis of the argument.  She speculates that Justice Kennedy holds the key vote. She also observes:

[M]any of the more liberal justices’ questions seemed to focus on trying to convince their more conservative colleagues that, even if they might be inclined to vote for Masterpiece, it would be next to impossible to write a ruling for the baker that did not, as Justice Stephen Breyer put it, “undermine every civil rights law since year 2.”

SCOTUS Will Hear Arguments In Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Today

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the widely followed case that pits the religious and free speech rights of a Christian bakery owner against the rights of a same-sex couple under Colorado's public accommodation law.  SCOTUSblog has a preview of the arguments, as well as a case page with links to the many briefs filed in the case, to the opinion below and to extensive commentary.  The high profile which the case has assumed is encapsulated in this deck headline from the Christian Science Monitor:

As evidenced by the people who began camping outside the high court for a seat at Tuesday’s oral arguments, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case seems destined to be a historic ruling – with both sides warning that defeat could bring potentially seismic consequences.

Daily Signal has a profile of one of the lawyers who will be arguing before the court today.  The transcript of the oral arguments should become available later today.  I will post a link to it at that time.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Constitutional Challenges To City's Civil Rights Law

In Country Mill Farms v. City of East Lansing, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191658 (WD MI, Nov. 16, 2017), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a number of plaintiff's constitutional challenges to a city's civil rights ordinance. Vendor Guidelines for East Lansing's Farmers' Market required vendors to comply with the civil rights ordinance as a general business practice. Country Mill Farms was denied a vendor permit because, while it hosts weddings at its orchard, it refuses on religious grounds to host same-sex weddings.  It announced its policy in a Facebook post.

The court allowed Country Mill to move ahead with an overbreadth challenge to a portion of the ordinance, saying in part:

The City is wrong that the Ordinance regulates only conduct. The Ordinance also regulates speech. Section 22-32 of the Code defines "harass" as including "communication which refers to an individual protected under this article." Section 22-31 prohibits harassment of any person based on a list of characteristics. And, Section 22-35(b)(2) prohibits the printing and publishing of certain statements and signs based on their content.

The court also refused to dismiss plaintiff's Free Exercise and Establishment Clause challenges (as well as an unconstitutional conditions challenge), saying in part:

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Plaintiffs have pleaded facts to support a claim that the City enacted a generally applicable and neutral policy, which was then used to target Plaintiffs' religiously-motivated conduct. The Ordinance did not apply to Plaintiffs in 2016. After the City learned that Plaintiffs would not hold same-sex weddings on their farms because of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, the City amended the Vendor Guidelines to incorporate the neutral and generally applicable law and applied it to Plaintiffs. As pled, the City's action is a "veiled cover for targeting belief or a faith-based practice." ...

Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the Establishment Clause. The facts in the complaint allow the Court to infer that the predominant purpose of the changes to the Vendor Guidelines was motivated by the disapproval of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs.

Various other challenges to the ordinance were dismissed. (See prior related posting.)

Wedding Invite Designers Lose Challenge To Public Accommodation Law

In Brush & Nib Studio L.C. v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Super. Ct., Oct. 25, 2017). an Arizona trial court rejected challenges by a studio that creates custom wedding invitation and wedding products to the city of Phoenix's public accommodation anti-discrimination law.  Plaintiffs, because of the Christian religious beliefs, intend to refuse to produce custom designed products for same-sex couples,  The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that this violates their free speech rights under the Arizona Constitution, concluding that any impact on speech is merely an incidental, content-neutral impact of an ordinance directed at combating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The law survives the intermediate level scrutiny applied in such cases.  The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim under the state's Free Exercise of Religion Act, saying in part:

Nothing about the ordinance has prevented the Plaintiffs from participating in the customs of their religious beliefs or has burdened the practice of their religion in any way.

In a press release, ADF says that an appeal is planned.  The press release also contains links to various pleadings in the case.  Arizona Republic reports on the decision.

Court Upholds Anti-Discrimination Law Over Wedding Videographer's Challenge

In Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey, (D MN, Sept. 29, 2017), a Minnesota federal district court in a 63-page opinion rejected a challenge to a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that requires plaintiffs, owners of a videography business that plans to offer wedding videos, to serve same-sex couples.  Responding to plaintiffs' free speech arguments, the court said in part:

Posting language on a website telling potential customers that a business will discriminate based on sexual orientation is part of the act of sexual orientation discrimination itself; as conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment.

Plaintiffs also argued that the law, as applied, unconstitutionally affects the content of their videos. However the court concluded:

The MHRA’s application to the Larsens’ wedding video business, as a content neutral regulation of conduct with an incidental effect on speech, survives intermediate scrutiny.

The court went on to reject plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, finding that the law is neutral and of general applicability.

Wedding Website Designer Has Standing To Challenge One of Colorado's Civil Rights Laws

In 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, Sept. 1, 2017), a website designer challenged the constitutionality of two anti-discrimination provisions of Colorado law that protect, in part, against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  One provision prohibits any place of public accommodation from withholding services on the basis of sexual orientation.  The second prohibits publishing of any communication that indicates services will be withheld on the basis of sexual orientation.  Plaintiff wants to promote and create wedding websites, but, because of her religious beliefs, not for same-sex couples. A Colorado federal district court held that plaintiff has standing to challenge the prohibition on publishing discriminatory communications since she plans to post a statement indicating that she will not create websites that violate her religious beliefs. However she does not have standing to challenge the ban on withholding services because a number of steps would need to occur before any enforcement of that provision against her would become likely.  The court also postponed any ruling on the merits pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on a similar issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Public Accommodation Law Does Not Apply To Photographer Without Business Store Front

Earlier this year a Madison, Wisconsin creative photographer, Amy Lynn, filed suit in Wisconsin state court challenging local and state public accommodation provisions that impeded her ability to rely on her Christian religious beliefs in her client selection. (See prior posting.)  Now, according to an ADF press release, at an August 1 hearing the court announced that it will issue an order declaring that the local and state public accommodation laws do not apply to individuals like Lynn who do not have a physical store front as part of their business.  The court said that the city and state agree that the public accommodation laws do not apply in such cases.

Farmers' Market's Exclusion of Vendor Over Same-Sex Marriages Views Is Challenged

A suit was filed on Wednesday in a Michigan federal district court challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds the City of East Lansing's Vendor Guidelines for its Farmers' Market. The complaint (full text) in Country Mill Farms, LLC v. City of East Lansing, (WD MI, filed 5/31/2017), claims that the city modified its Guidelines to target Country Mill Farms because its owner, Stephen Tennes, shared on Facebook his Catholic belief opposing same-sex marriage.  Tennes posted that while his Farm hosts weddings, it only hosts those that conform to his belief that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman. Following this post, city officials unsuccessfully attempted to pressure Country Mill to end its participation in the Farmer's Market.  When that was unsuccessful, the city changed its Guidelines to require all Farmers' Market participants to abide by the city's Civil Rights Ordinance both while at the market and as a general business practice.  The complaint also alleges that this is an attempt by the city to extend the reach of its ordinances beyond its borders in violation of the Michigan Home Rule City Act.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Long Skirts, Title II vs. Title VII

In Jalal v. Lucille Roberts Health Clubs, Inc., (SD NY, May 22, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Jewish woman against a health club which refused to allow her to wear a long skirt while using gym equipment.  In the suit, plaintiff Yosefa Jalal alleged that by refusing to allow her to dress as required by her religious beliefs, the health club violated the public accommodation provisions (Title II) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court disagreed, saying in part:

Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts plausibly supporting a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation. Although plaintiff contends that she was treated differently than other Lucille Roberts members on the basis of her religion, the factual allegations only suggest that she was treated differently because she insisted on wearing an article of clothing that, according to defendant, was inappropriate gym attire.... Nowhere does the complaint allege that defendant selectively enforced its dress code against Jewish women.... There is no indication ... that claims grounded solely in disparate impact—and lacking any allegation of discriminatory intent—are cognizable under Title II.

Consumerist reports on the decision.

Meanwhile, JTA reported yesterday on a religious discrimination in employment lawsuit filed in New York state court.  Plaintiff Hadas Goldfarb, an Orthodox Jewish woman who was hired by New York Presbyterian Hospital as a paramedic, was dismissed when when she insisted on wearing a skirt instead of pants as required by the hospital's dress code.  Unlike the public accommodation section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the employment discrimination provisions (Title VII) require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious exercise. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Fragmented Decision Upholds Business' Refusal to Print LGBT Pride T-Shirts

In a 2-1 decision yesterday, the Kentucky Court of Appeals concluded that a business which prints customized T-shirts was not in violation of a county's public accommodation law when it refused to print T-shirts for a local LGBT Pride Festival. At issue in Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands On Originals, Inc., (KY Ct. App., May 12, 2017), was the policy of a business which prints customized t-shirts, mugs, pens, and other accessories "to refuse any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership."

Chief Judge Kramer, writing the court's opinion, held that the business, Hands On Originals (HOO), never refused goods or services to a customer on the basis the customer's sexual orientation or gender identity because the order was placed by an organization which has no sexual orientation of gender identity. Neither did HOO deny goods or services because the customer was engaging in conduct engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a protected class of people. Judge Kramer explained, saying in part:

The acts of homosexual intercourse and same-sex marriage are conduct engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who are homosexual. But anyone—regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, age, or corporate status—may espouse the belief that people of varying sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals. Indeed, the posture of the case before us underscores that very point: this case was initiated and promoted by Aaron Baker, a non-transgendered man in a married, heterosexual relationship who nevertheless functioned at all relevant times as the President of the GLSO.

Judge Lambert concurred only in the result and filed a separate opinion contending that HOO is protected in its conduct because of the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Statute.  She said in part:

HOO refused to print the shirts because the HOO owners believe the lifestyle choices promoted by GSLO conflict with their Christian values.

Judge Taylor dissented, saying in part:

The majority takes the position that the conduct of HOO in censoring the publication of the desired speech sought by GLSO does not violate the Fairness Ordinance. Effectively, that would mean that the ordinance protects gays or lesbians only to the extent they do not publicly display their same gender sexual orientation. This result would be totally contrary to legislative intent and undermine the legislative policy of LFUCG since the ordinance logically must protect against discriminatory conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation or gender identity. Otherwise, the ordinance would have limited or no force or effect.

 Lexington Herald Leader reports on the decision.

No 1st Amendment Bar To Deciding Catholic College's Student Expusion

In Chestnut Hill College v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, (PA Commnwlth. Ct., April 7, 2017), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (an appellate court) held that a Catholic college’s decision to expel a student is reviewable by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.  The college expelled an African American student a few weeks before his scheduled graduation, allegedly because the student retained some of the proceeds from events that were held for a charitable cause.  The student claimed this was a pretext for racial discrimination.

The court held that Catholic colleges and universities are "public accommodations" under the state's Human Relations Act.  It held that adjudicating the claim would not involve unconstitutional entanglement between church and state, saying:

Student’s claims do not require the Commission to construe religious doctrine. Importantly, College did not identify any Catholic doctrine as grounds for Student’s expulsion.

The court also emphasized that the college "did not cite any religious doctrine based defense to Student’s racial discrimination claims."

Photographer Challenges Public Accommodation Law

Earlier this week a suit was filed in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging Madison City Code § 39.03(5) which makes it illegal for public accommodations to deny “equal enjoyment” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs or to publish “any communication” that denies facilities or that conveys a person’s patronage is “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs. It also challenges Wis. Stat. §106.52 that has similar provisions regarding sexual orientation. The complaint (full text) in Amy Lynn Photography Studio, LLC v. City of Madison, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 3/7/2017), contends that these legal provisions impede the ability of photographer Amy Lynn to rely on her Christian religious beliefs in deciding which clients to offer her visual storytelling service:

Amy loves to photograph and post about weddings so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the beauty of marriage. Amy also wants to photograph for and post about pro-life pregnancy health clinics so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the sanctity of life. These desires have grown as Amy has seen our culture increasingly question the value of marriage and the sanctity of human life.

To counteract that trend, Amy not only promotes certain content, she avoids certain content. Amy can hardly promote her beliefs while glamorizing contrary ideas. Amy therefore cannot photograph or write about things celebrating pornography, racism, violence, abortion, or any marriage besides marriage between one man and one woman, such as same-sex marriage. Nor can she photograph or write about organizations that promote those beliefs.

But Madison’s and Wisconsin’s public accommodation laws forbid that freedom.

An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Washington Supreme Court Says Florist's Refusal To Sell For Same-Sex Wedding Violated State Law

In a widely followed case, the state of Washington's Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a trial court's decision that a florist's religiously-motivated refusal to sell arranged flowers for a same-sex wedding violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination.  In State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.,WA Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2017), the court, summarizing its 59-page decision, said:

Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman [the florist shop owner] was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding-constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD. We also hold that the WLAD may be enforced against Stutzman because it does not infringe any constitutional protection. As applied in this case, the WLAD does not compel speech or association. And assuming that it substantially burdens Stutzman's religious free exercise, the WLAD does not violate her right to religious free exercise under either the First Amendment or article I, section 11 [of the state constitution] because it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.

A press release from ADF says that florist Barronelle Stutzman will seek U.S. Supreme Court review in the case. Links to pleadings and court rulings in the case can also be found on ADF's case page. (See prior related posting.) Tri-City Herald reports on the decision.

Florida Judge Says Refusal To Sell Cake With Anti-Gay Message Is Not Religious Discrimination

A Florida Administrative Law Judge in a decision last week recommended to the Florida Commission on Human Relations that it find a Longwood, Florida bakery did not violate the state's public accommodation law when it effectively refused an order for a cake with the inscription "Homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord." Cut the Cake bakery, owned by a mother and daughter, quoted a caller a price of $5,850 for the cake after the bakery had been the subject of thousands of calls per week when a You-Tube video was posted of a previous call in which the bakery refused to make a cake displaying an anti-homosexual message. In Mannarino v. Cut the Cake Bakery, (FL Div. Admin. Hearings, Feb. 9, 2017), petitioner claimed that the refusal constituted religious discrimination against him as a Christian.  The judge ruled, however, that the bakery did not fall within the definition of "public accommodation" under Florida law since it does not sell food for consumption on the premises. Additionally he ruled that petitioner had not shown religious discrimination, saying:

Cut the Cake refused to fulfill Petitioner’s order, not because he was Christian, but because of what it perceived to be the purpose of his message. Cut the Cake considered Petitioner’s message mean-spirited, regardless of his religion or the Quote’s source.

St. Augustine Record reports on the decision.

Wedding Videographers Sue To Refuse Same-Sex Couples

The owners of a St. Cloud, Minnesota film and media production company filed suit yesterday in federal district court claiming that the Minnesota Human Rights Act violates their rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments by requiring them "to produce videos promoting a conception of marriage that directly contradicts their religious beliefs if they produce videos promoting marriages between one man and one woman."  The complaint (full text) in Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey, (D MN, filed 12/6/2016), alleges that Carl Larsen and Angel Larsen "desire to counteract the current powerful cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically-orthodox definition of marriage as between one man and one woman by magnifying God’s beautiful design and purpose for marriage through their creative storytelling and promotional talents." Plaintiffs argue:

The First Amendment prevents the government from compelling people to create, express, support, or promote a message not of their own choosing or to speak when they would rather remain silent.

KSTP-TV News reports on the lawsuit.

Washington Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Florist's Refusal of Flowers For Gay Wedding

The state of Washington's Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.  At issue is a decision by a state trial court holding 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. (See prior posting.) The oral arguments (video of full arguments) were heard by the Court sitting at Bellevue College, where the justices the prior day visited with students and spoke to classes.

AP reports at length on the oral arguments, including a report on this exchange at the beginning of appellant's presentation:

"A Muslim graphics designer should not be compelled to create designs promoting a Jewish Friends of Israel group, a gay public relations manager shouldn't be forced to promote the Westboro Baptist Church, and a Christian floral designer shouldn't be forced to create custom wedding designs for a wedding that is not between one man and one woman," Stutzman's attorney, Kristin Waggoner, told the court.

Waggoner immediately ran into questions. Justice Susan Owens brought up the state's first and only black justice, the recently deceased Charles Z. Smith, who had to stay in separate hotels from other attorneys when he traveled the country while working for the Justice Department in the 1960s.

"How is this different?" Owens asked. "Because I'm sure some of the owners of those hotels would profess they had strongly held religious beliefs that prohibited racial integration."

For one thing, Waggoner responded, renting out a hotel room isn't a form of artistic expression or speech deserving of protection. Stutzman's floral arrangements do constitute expression protected by the Constitution, the lawyer said, and the government can't compel that expression.

Alliance Defense Fund has a case page with links to the pleadings, briefs and opinions in the case.