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Bogren, a Trump judicial nominee for a seat on the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan, has withdrawn himself from consideration amid claims that he is anti-Catholic.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."

Lesbian Couple Has Standing To Challenge Grants To Catholic Foster Care Agency

In Marouf v. Azar, (D DC, June 12, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that a lesbian couple (as well as an organizational plaintiff) lack taxpayer standing to challenge federal grants to a Catholic non-profit organization which refuses to place unaccompanied refugee children for foster care with same-sex couples.  However, the court held that the couple does have individual standing to pursue their Establishment Clause, Equal Protection and Due Process challenges to the grants.  The court said in part:

According to the Federal Defendants, a federal agency cannot be held to account for a grantee’s known exclusion of persons from a federally funded program on a prohibited ground. That is an astonishing outcome. Surely, the government would not take this position if, say, Plaintiffs here were excluded from fostering a child based on their gender (both are women), national origin (Marouf is the daughter of Egyptian and Turkish immigrants), or religious faith (Marouf was raised a Muslim, Esplin a Mormon). Yet, despite conceding that there is no agency policy that prevents child placement with same sex couples ..., the Federal Defendants in this case wish to avoid the responsibility that comes with being good stewards of federal funds. They cannot do so.

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.

Court Rejects Christian Adoption Agency's Challenge To Anti-Discrimination Regulation

In New Hope Family Services v. Poole, (ND NY, May 16, 2019), a New York federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge by a Christian adoption agency to New York's anti-discrimination provisions. Regulations of New York's Office of Children & Family Services prohibit adoption agencies from discriminating, among other things, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. New Hope Family Services will not place children with same-sex couples or with unmarried couples. Inquiries from such couples are referred to other agencies. The court rejected New Hope's contention that the regulation violates its free exercise rights because it was adopted to target faith-based agencies.  Instead, the court found that the regulation "is facially neutral and generally applicable, and that it has been neutrally and generally applied in this case...." The court also rejected New Hope's free speech and equal protection challenges to New York's regulation. In a press release, ADF said that the decision is likely to be appealed.

3rd Circuit: Philly May Require Its Foster Care Agencies To Accept Same-Sex Couples

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (3d Cir., April 22, 2019), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples.  The court said in part:

The City’s nondiscrimination policy is a neutral, generally applicable law, and the religious views of CSS do not entitle it to an exception from that policy. 

[A]t the preliminary injunction stage CSS shows insufficient evidence that the City violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Fair Practices Ordinance has not been gerrymandered..., and there is no history of ignoring widespread secular violations ... or the kind of animosity against religion found in Masterpiece. Here the City has been working with CSS for many decades.... And the City has expressed a constant desire to renew its relationship with CSS as a foster care agency if it will comply with the City’s non-discrimination policies protecting same-sex couples.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

How Did Government Action On Gay Marriage Affect Attitudes?

Courthouse News Service reports on interesting research posted yesterday at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

Researchers compared trends before and after state-level legalization of gay marriage in each state.

The study found the local legislation reduced antigay bias, even though biases against lesbian and gay people were already decreasing. States which legalized same-sex marriage experienced decreases in homophobia at a sharper rate – declining at roughly double the previous rate – after legalization, according to the study.

For the 15 states that didn’t pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage before it became federal law, Hehman and his research team found a “backlash effect” where homophobia increased in those states in the immediate aftermath after the Supreme Court ruling – despite a decreasing trend in anti-gay bias prior to Obergefell.

PNAS, in assessing the significance of the research, says in part that it indicates "government legislation can inform attitudes even on religiously and politically entrenched positions."

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized In Cayman Islands

A decision handed down last Friday by the Cayman Islands Grand Court has legalized same-sex marriage in the Caribbean nation that is a British Overseas Territory.  Cayman Compass reports:

The decision, which was met by applause from around 80 people who packed into Courtroom 5, follows a petition by Day and her partner Vickie Bodden Bush.

The couple, who have been in a committed relationship for seven years and have an adopted daughter together, brought a joint judicial review and constitutional challenge after government refused their application to marry in April last year.

Chief Justice Anthony Smellie ruled on Friday that the decision was discriminatory. He said preventing same-sex couples from accessing marriage, and the suite of rights that come with it, was a clear violation of freedoms guaranteed in Cayman’s constitution, including the right to a private and family life.

Chief Justice Smellie used his powers under the Constitution to rewrite the Marriage Law. He ordered that the clause in the law, specifying that marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples, be altered to state, “‘Marriage’ means the union between two people as one another’s spouses.”

United Methodist Church Risks Split Over Position On LBTQ Ordination and Marriage

HuffPost reports that the United Methodist Church will likely break apart after a close vote yesterday at its 2019 General Conference on LGBTQ roles in the Church. As reported by United Methodist News Service, the delegates adopted the so-called "Traditional Plan" by a vote of 438 to 384.  This plan continues the Church's ban on ordaining LGBTQ clergy and the prohibition on officiating at or hosting same-sex weddings. The opposing "One Church Plan" was defeated by a vote of  449 to 374.  It would have allowed ordination LGBTQ pastors, and allowed, but not required, churches to host and pastors to officiate at same-sex marriages.  Later, by a vote of 405 to 395, the Conference asked the Church's Judicial Council to rule on the constitutionality of the Traditional Plan at its scheduled April meeting.

Tax Preparer Refuses To Prepare Joint Return For Same-Sex Couple

Washington Post reports on the latest clash between religious liberty assertions and non-discrimination principles:

For four years, Bailey Brazzel says, she had employed the same tax preparer, Nancy Fivecoate of Carter Tax Service in Russiaville, Ind. Fivecoate prepared the taxes without issue each time — until this year, when Brazzel brought her new wife, Samantha.

Fivecoate declined to serve the couple, citing her religious beliefs.

This was the first year the Brazzels, who wed in July, were filing jointly as a married couple. According to Samantha, Fivecoate explained that she believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that she would therefore not be able to prepare their taxes.

Indiana does not have a statewide law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Nathan Walker for the lead.]

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.

Religious Adoption Agency Sues Over Nondiscriminaton Rule

A suit was filed this week in New York federal district court challenging a New York regulation that (Title 18 NYCCR Sec.421.3) that adoption agencies may not discriminate against applicants for adoption services on various grounds, including sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status.  New Hope Family Services, a faith based adoption agency, refuses to recommend or place children with unmarried couples or same-sex couples.  The complaint (full text) in New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (ND NY, filed 12/6/2018) contends that this regulation violates the agency's free exercise, free expression and equal protection rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Albany Episcopal Bishop Defies Parent Body On Same-Sex Marriage Rites

In July, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed Resolution B012 Marriage Rites for the Whole Church, which was designed to give local congregational access to all couples wishing to have a same-sex marriage ceremony.  The Resolution stated in part:

[I]n dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority ... holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority ... shall invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couple...

Last week, in response to Resolution B012 that is to become effective on Dec. 3, the Bishop of Albany, William Love, who has been an opponent of same-sex marriage, issued a Pastoral Letter (full text) that reads in part as follows:

I cannot in good conscience as a bishop in God’s holy Church agree to what is being asked for in B012. While I respect the authority of General Convention as an institutional body, my ultimate loyalty as a bishop in God’s holy Church is to God....

Until further notice, the trial rites authorized by Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention of the Episcopal Church shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy (canonically resident or licensed)....

Albany Times-Union reports on the Bishop's action.

Kim Davis Loses Re-election Bid

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, in Rowan County, Kentucky on Tuesday, county clerk Kim Davis lost her re-election bid by some 650 votes. Davis garnered national attention in 2015 by her adamant refusal to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. (See prior posting).

Third Circuit Hears Arguments In Challenge To Foster Care Non-Discrimination Requirement

Courthouse News Service reports on Tuesday's oral arguments in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected Catholic Social Services challenges to the requirement that it not discriminate against same-sex couples in foster care placement. (See prior posting.)

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.

UK Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Baker Who Refused To Supply Cake Supporting Gay Marriage

In a widely followed case, the United Kingdom Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Christian bakers in a case that became particularly high profile after the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.  In Lee v. Ashers Baking Company Ltd, (UKSC, Oct. 10, 2018), the court framed the question-- which arose under anti-discrimination provisions in the law of Northern Ireland-- as follows:

The substantive question in this case is whether it is unlawful discrimination, either on grounds of sexual orientation, or on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, for a bakery to refuse to supply a cake iced with the message “support gay marriage” because of the sincere religious belief of its owners that gay marriage is inconsistent with Biblical teaching and therefore unacceptable to God.

Rejecting the claim that the bakery engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the court said in part:

The reason for treating Mr Lee less favourably than other would-be customers was not his sexual orientation but the message he wanted to be iced on the cake. Anyone who wanted that message would have been treated in the same way.... By definition, direct discrimination is treating people differently....

In a nutshell, the objection was to the message and not to any particular person or persons....

Experience has shown that the providers of employment, education, accommodation, goods, facilities and services do not always treat people with equal dignity and respect, especially if they have certain personal characteristics which are now protected by the law. It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.

The court also rejected the contention that the bakery had discriminated against Mr. Lee on the basis of his political opinion:

The objection was not to Mr Lee because he, or anyone with whom he associated, held a political opinion supporting gay marriage. The objection was to being required to promote the message on the cake. The less favourable treatment was afforded to the message not to the man.... The situation is not comparable to people being refused jobs, accommodation or business simply because of their religious faith. It is more akin to a Christian printing business being required to print leaflets promoting an atheist message.

The court went on to hold that were the bakery required to furnish the cake, it would violate the owners' freedom of conscience and free expression rights protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court gave a broad interpretation to the rights:

[T]here is no requirement that the person who is compelled to speak can only complain if he is thought by others to support the message. Mrs McArthur may have been worried that others would see the Ashers logo on the cake box and think that they supported the campaign. But that is by the way: what matters is that by being required to produce the cake they were being required to express a message with which they deeply disagreed.

In a Postscript, the court discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion.  The court also issued a Press Summary of the opinion. Irish Times reports on the decision.
[Thanks to Marty Lederman and Seth Tillman via Religionlaw for the lead.] [This post has been updated to eliminate the statement that this case was "analogous" to Masterpiece Cakeshop.]

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to Romanian Constitution Fails

In Romania, voters have failed to approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would have enshrined a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution.  As reported by the Washington Post and Reuters, the two-day referendum failed to generate the 30% turnout needed for passage of the measure.  Only 20.4% of the voters cast ballots for the measure that was backed by the Social Democrat Party and the Orthodox church. According to the Post:

The referendum itself did not give voters a choice to vote in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, but only whether the constitutional definition of a “family” should continue to be gender-neutral. Either way, the result would not have had an immediate legal impact, but may have prevented possible future court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union.

But as a growing number of government critics urged Romanians to boycott the vote, the same-sex marriage referendum also became a de facto confidence vote over the Social Democratic government. The ruling party has repeatedly shocked domestic and international observers with corruption scandals and attempts to disrupt the rule of law that triggered large protests across the country.

Supreme Court Refuses Emergency Injunction In Catholic Social Services Foster Care Case

In a one-sentence order yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant an emergency injunction in Fulton v. Philadelphia.  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected Catholic Social Services challenges to Philadelphia' requirement that it not discriminate against same-sex couples in foster care placement. Catholic Social Services wanted the Supreme Court to allow it to continue foster care placements while it appealed the city's intake freeze to the 3rd Circuit. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted the injunction. SCOTUSblog reports on the court's action