Arizona Supreme Court Backs Wedding Invitation Artists In Their Free Speech Claim

In Brush & Nib. v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Sup Ct., Sept. 16, 2019), the Arizona Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that Phoenix's public accommodation law cannot be applied to force owners of a wedding and event supply business to create custom wedding invitations for same-sex ceremonies when doing so violates their religious beliefs. The several opinions generated span 78 pages.  The majority opinion of Justice Gould, focusing largely on the compelled speech doctrine, said in part:

[Plaintiffs] have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act.... Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’ creation of custom wedding invitations that are materially similar to those contained in the record.... We do not recognize a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations. Likewise, we do not, on jurisprudential grounds, reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ creation of other wedding products may be exempt from the Ordinance....

 Plaintiffs’ custom wedding invitations, and the creation of those invitations, constitute pure speech entitled to full First Amendment protection....

Here, Plaintiffs’ objection is based on neither a customer’s sexual orientation nor the sexual conduct that defines certain customers as a class. Plaintiffs will make custom artwork for any customers, regardless of their sexual orientation, but will not, regardless of the customer, make custom wedding invitations celebrating a same-sex marriage ceremony. Thus, although Plaintiffs’ refusal may ... primarily impact same sex couples, their decision is protected because it is not based on a customer’s sexual orientation.

Justice Bolick filed a concurring opinion. Three dissenting opinions were filed, one joined by all three dissenters. The primary dissent written by Justice Bales said in part:

Our constitutions and laws do not entitle a business to discriminate among customers based on its owners’ disapproval of certain groups, even if that disapproval is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. In holding otherwise, the majority implausibly characterizes a commercially prepared wedding invitation as “pure speech” on the part of the business selling the product and discounts the compelling public interest in preventing discrimination against disfavored customers by businesses and other public accommodations.

Arizona Republic reports on the decision.

Ann Arbor Concedes Narrow View of Public Accommodation

Last week, the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan settled a suit brought by a conservative political consulting and marketing firm challenging the city's attempt to apply its public accommodation law to the firm. Ann Arbor Code § 9:151(22) defines a public accommodation as including:

[A] business or other facility of any kind, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available to the public....

The Stipulated Dismissal (full text) in ThinkRight Strategies, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, (ED MI, filed 9/5/2019), asserts that:

While ThinkRight advertises to and receives requests for its services from the general public, ThinkRight will not fulfill any request if doing so involves promoting messages, views, policies, platforms, or causes contrary to ThinkRight’s conservative or religious principles.

The city of Ann Arbor conceded:

Ann Arbor does not consider ThinkRight to be a place of public accommodation as defined by Ann Arbor Code § 9:151(22).That is because ThinkRight will only provide its services in ways that promote, or are not contrary to, its conservative political beliefs and therefore limits the platforms, views, policies, causes, events, or messages it will convey or promote through its services.

ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement.

8th Circuit Vindicates Wedding Videograhers' 1st Amendment Claims

In Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, (8th Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the 1st Amendment protects wedding videographers who refuse on religious grounds to produce videos of same-sex weddings. Minnesota contended that the refusal violates two provisions of Minnesota's Human Rights Act.  Judge Stras, writing for the majority, said in part:

Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways. First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech....

Laws that compel speech or regulate it based on its content are subject to strict scrutiny....

... [R]egulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be.

The majority also concluded that because the state's action burdens religiously motivated speech, the hybrid rights doctrine requires strict scrutiny. The majority remanded the case to the district court for it to decide whether the videographers are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Judge Kelley dissenting, said in part:

 ... [T]he court tries to recharacterize Minnesota’s law as a content-based regulation of speech, asserting that it forces the Larsens to speak and to convey a message with which they disagree. Neither is true. The Larsens remain free to communicate any message they desire—about same-sex marriage or any other topic—or no message at all. What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others. And make no mistake, that is what today’s decision affords them license to do.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Kentucky Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Refusal To Print Pride Festival T-Shirts

On Friday, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands On Originals.  In the case, 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 because of religious beliefs to print T-shirts for a local LGBT Pride Festival. (See prior posting.) WFPL News reports on yesterday's oral arguments. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Homeless Shelters Excluded From City's Anti-Discrimination Ordinances

In Downtown Soup Kitchen v. Municipality of Anchorage, (D AK, Aug. 9, 2019), an Alaska federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of two of Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinances against a faith-based homeless shelter for women which admits only individuals who were determined to be female at birth. Thus transgender men may be admitted, but transgender women may not.  The court concluded that homeless shelters are not covered by either the fair housing or public accommodation provisions of the city's code. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Consulting Firm Challenges City's Ban On Discrimination Based on Political Belief

A suit was filed in a Michigan federal district court this week challenging the constitutionality of the Ann Arbor (MI) non-discrimination ordinance that, among other things, bars discrimination based on political belief. The complaint (full text) in ThinkRight Strategies, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, (ED MI, filed 7/29/2019), alleges that plaintiffs are political conservatives whose political views are religiously motivated. Their consulting business develops websites and content for speeches, guides canvassing, promotes events and handles media relations. I will not, however, accept requests for service that involve promoting messages or policies contrary to their conservative or religious principles. The suit contends that Ann Arbor's ordinance bars this client selectivity in violation of plaintiffs' free speech rights and is unconstitutionally vague. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Survey Finds Increased Support for Religious-Based Refusals To Serve Small Business Customers

On Tuesday, the Public Religion Research Institute released the results of its survey finding increased public support for allowing small businesses to refuse service to various minority groups because of the business owner's religious views. (Full text of survey results.) The report finds 30% say it should be permissible to refuse service to gays or lesbians on religious grounds, while 29% say the same for refusals to serve transgender individuals. 24% support allowing refusal to serve atheists; 22% say this should be allowed as to Muslims.19% say it should be allowed as to Jews. 15% say small businesses should be able to refuse service to African-Americans if it conflicts with religious beliefs.

Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and remanded for further consideration the case of Klein v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, (Docket No. 18-547, 6/17/2019). (Order List). In the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals 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. (See prior posting.)  The Supreme Court ordered reconsideration in light of its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop last year.

District Court Nominee Withdraws Amid Controversy Over Brief In 1st Amendment Case

The Hill and the Kansas City Star report that Michael Bogren, a Trump judicial nominee for a seat on the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan, has withdrawn himself from consideration amid claims that he is anti-Catholic.  Three Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicated their opposition to Bogren because of a brief he filed in a 2017 case defending the City of East Lansing. Vendor Guidelines for East Lansing's Farmers' Market required vendors to comply with the civil rights ordinance as a general business practice. The Catholic owner of Country Mill Farms was denied a vendor permit because, while the Farm hosts weddings at its orchard, it refuses on religious grounds to host same-sex weddings.  (See prior posting.) In the brief, Bogren argued that the First Amendment does not create an exception for discrimination based on religious beliefs any more than it does for a member of the Ku Klux Klan refusing to serve African Americans.

Members of Bogren's law firm, Plunkett Cooney, wrote a letter (full text) on June 7 strongly defending Bogren, saying that criticism of him is misinformed. Michigan's two Democratic Senators supported Bogren.  But Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley, one of Bogren's chief critics, argued: "He could have given a vigorous defense to his client without stooping to calling this Catholic family equivalent to members of the KKK, comparing them to radical Islamic jihadists."

Another Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop For Refusal To Create Cakes For LGBT Events

Another lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, this time over his refusal on religious grounds to create a pink birthday cake with blue icing for a transgender female customer.  The complaint (full text) in Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO dist. Ct., June 5, 2019), contends that the refusal violates Colorado's anti-discrimination and deceptive practices acts. This suit was filed by the aggrieved customer after litigation over the same issue between Phillips and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was dropped. (See prior posting.)  Last year the U.S. Supreme Court on narrow grounds ruled against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in its attempt to issue a cease and desist order against Masterpiece Cakeshop for its refusal to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Christian Post reports on the most recent lawsuit.

Washington Supreme Court OK's Anti-Discrimination Law Enforcement Against Florist Opposed To Gay Marriage

In an important and wide-ranging 76-page opinion yesterday, the Washington state Supreme Court held that a florist shop's refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and that enforcement of the law does not violate the constitutional rights of the floral shop owner.  This is the second time the case has been before the Washington Supreme Court.  After the first decision, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the state court's judgment and  remanded for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. (See prior posting.) Yesterday in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers , Inc., (WA Sup. Ct., June 6, 2019), in a unanimous decision, the court concluded that the state adjudicatory bodies involved acted with religious neutrality. It refused to allow the challengers to expand their claims to allege selective enforcement based on religion by the Washington attorney general.

The Washington Supreme Court went on to hold that challengers cited no authority to support their argument that the state's public accommodation law protects proprietors of public accommodations to the same extent as it protects their patrons, and that a balancing test should be used. The court then rejected the florist's free speech claims, saying:

The decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding. 

The Court also rejected challengers' religious free exercise claims under the U.S. and Washington state constitutions. It concluded that even if the state constitution requires strict scrutiny, that test is met:

[P]ublic accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace. Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined.

Seattle Times reports on the decision. A press release by ADF says the floral shop owners will again ask for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Christian Wedding Services Owner Loses Challenge To Colorado's Public Accommodation Law

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, May 17, 2019), is another in the growing line of cases in which Christian wedding service providers refuse on religious grounds to make their services available for same sex weddings.  Here plaintiff Lorie Smith wanted to expand her business to design custom websites for couples planning weddings. However she would not provide her services for same-sex weddings.  In the case, a Colorado federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to the application of the "communications clause" of Colorado's public accommodation law to Lorie Smith's business.  That law prohibits publication of any notice or advertisement indicating that services will be withheld on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. The court rejected both 1st and 14th Amendment claims.

In their equal protection challenge, plaintiffs argued that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has applied the law only where business owners disfavor same sex marriages, but not to refusals to produce products with pro-religious messages. The court concluded however that businesses in the other cases were not similarly situated to plaintiff's business.

In rejecting plaintiffs' free speech challenge, the court emphasized that only the clause in the law barring communication of an intent to discriminate was at issue.  The court assumed, for purposes of its decision, that the law's "accommodation clause" which is a substantive ban on discrimination is constitutional. This led it to conclude that under Supreme Court precedent:

the government’s ability to regulate unlawful economic activity allows it to prohibit advertisements of this type, even if it must do so by defining the prohibited message based on its content.

The court rejected plaintiffs' Free Exercise challenge, finding that the communications clause is a neutral of general applicability.

Catholic School Challenges City's Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

A small Catholic college preparatory school in South Euclid, Ohio has filed suit in federal district court challenging the city's recently enacted anti-discrimination ordinance.  The complaint (full text) in The Lyceum v. City of South Euclid, Ohio, (ND OH, filed 4/3/2019), challenges the lack of any exemption for religious organizations in the ordinance that bars employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination on the basis of  religion, creed, marital status, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation, among other categories. It also prohibits statements indication that individuals are unwelcome on these bases. The suit alleges that the ordinance violates the school's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Cleveland.com reports on the case.

Supreme Court Denies Review In B&B's Refusal To Rent To Lesbian Couple

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Aloha Bed & Breakfast v. Cervelli, (Docket No. 18-451, certiorari denied 3/18/2019). (Order List).  In the case, 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. (See prior posting.) The Hawaii Supreme Court denied review. (See prior posting.)

Arizona Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Over Refusal To Design Invitations For Same-Sex Wedding

Yesterday the Arizona Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix. (Video of full oral arguments). In the widely-followed case, 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. The state appeals court rejected most of plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise arguments. (See prior posting.)  AP reports on the oral arguments.

Cert. Filed In Oregon Wedding Cake Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (cert. filed 10/22/2018). In the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals 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. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

8th Circuit Oral Arguments In Wedding Videographers' Refusal To Serve Same-Sex Couples

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey.  In the case,  a Minnesota federal district court 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. (See prior posting.) Minneapolis Star Tribune reports on the 8th Circuit oral arguments.

Second Broad Challenge To Austin's Anti- Discrimination Ordinances Filed

Following a federal court lawsuit filed last week by churches challenging Austin, Texas' ban on employment discrimination (see prior posting), a broader lawsuit has been filed in state court challenging the application of Austin's public accommodation, housing and employment discrimination ordinances to any individual or business that has religious objections to homosexual or transgender behavior.  The complaint (full text) in Texas Values v. City of Austin, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 10/8/2018) asks the court to declare that the ordinances violate Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Texas Constitution

to the extent that they: (a) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to hire or retain practicing homosexuals or transgendered people as employees for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (b) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to rent their property to tenants who are engaged in non-marital sex of any sort, including homosexual behavior, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (c) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to participate in or lend support to homosexual marriage or commitment ceremonies, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; and (d) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to provide spousal employment benefits to the same-sex partners or spouses of employees, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (e) prohibit individuals and entities from establishing sex-specific restrooms and limiting them to members of the appropriate biological sex, for reasons based in sincere religious belief.

Austin Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Sues Colorado In New Religious Accommodation Dispute

In the wake of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is again entangled in litigation.  The complaint (full text) in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. v. Elenis, (D CO, filed 8/14/2018) alleges that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' free exercise, free speech, equal protection and due process rights when on July 2 it issued a Determination (full text) that Phillips violated the state's public accommodation anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a birthday cake that celebrates a customer's gender transition.  The district court lawsuit alleges in part:

6.... [S]ome Colorado citizens, emboldened by the state’s prosecution of Phillips, have targeted him. On the same day that the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’s case, a Colorado lawyer called his shop and requested a cake designed with a blue exterior and pink interior, which the caller said would visually depict and celebrate a gender transition. Throughout the next year, Phillips received other requests for cakes celebrating Satan, featuring Satanic symbols, depicting sexually explicit materials, and promoting marijuana use. Phillips believes that some of those requests came from the same Colorado lawyer.

7. Phillips declined to create the cake with the blue and pink design because it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex—the status of being male or female—is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed. A mere 24 days after Phillips prevailed in the Supreme Court, Colorado told him that he violated Colorado law by declining to create that cake. In so doing, the state went back on what it told the Supreme Court in its Masterpiece briefing—that its public accommodation law allows Phillips to decline to create cakes with pro-LGBT designs or themes.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Fox 31 News reports on the lawsuit.

Hawaii Supreme Court Denies Review In Cse of B&B's Refusal To Rent To Lesbian Couple

In an Order (full text) entered July 10, the Hawaii Supreme Court in Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast denied certiorari.  In the case, a Hawaii sate appeals court (see prior posting) 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 appeals court also rejected privacy and free exercise defenses. AP reports on the state Supreme Court's denial of review. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]