New Survey On Religious Refusals To Provide Service and More

On August 1, the Public Religion Research Institute announced the results of its July 2018 Survey on attitudes toward religiously-based service refusals, LGBT rights and other issues of discrimination. Here are some excerpts from its report:

Close to half (46%) of Americans believe that the owners of wedding-based businesses, such as caterers, florists, and bakers, should be allowed to refuse to serve same-sex couples if doing so violates their religious beliefs, while about as many (48%) say these types of businesses should be required to serve same-sex couples. One year earlier, a majority (53%) of the public said wedding-based businesses should be required to serve gay and lesbian couples, while only about four in ten (41%) said they should not.....

Among major religious groups, white evangelical Protestants express the strongest support for allowing wedding businesses to refuse services.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the public express support for same-sex marriage. Only 28% of Americans oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.... More than seven in ten (71%) Americans say they favor laws that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations....

Relatively few Americans believe Jewish people in the U.S. are experiencing a considerable amount of discrimination. Only 30% say that Jewish people face a lot of discrimination..... Americans are far more likely to say Muslims are experiencing a substantial degree of discrimination in the U.S. More than six in ten (62%) Americans say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims....

Lesbian Spouses Sue Senior Housing Community For Discrimination

A suit was filed in Missouri federal district court this week by a lesbian married couple against a senior housing community for refusing to rent to same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Walsh v. Friendship Village of South County, (ED MO, filed 7/25/2018), alleges that the senior housing community which is not religiously affiliated has a Cohabitation Policy that provides:

Friendship Village “will permit the cohabitation of residents within a single unit only if those residents, while residing in said unit, are related as spouses by marriage, as parent and child or as siblings,” defining “[t]he term ‘marriage’ as used in this policy means the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible.”

The suit alleges violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act and Missouri's Human Rights Act. Friendly Atheist blog has more on the lawsuit.

Court Rejects Challenges To Foster Care Agency Non-Discrimination Requirement

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, July 13, 2018), 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.  CSS argued that the requirement violates the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment as well as Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Act. The court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the requirement, saying in part:

CSS’s compliance with the terms of the Services Contract does not: constrain or inhibit CSS from conduct or expression mandated by its religious beliefs, curtail CSS’s ability to express adherence to CSS’s religious faith, deny CSS a reasonable opportunity to “provide foster care to children,” or compel CSS to engage in conduct or expression that violates a “specific tenet” of CSS’s religious faith....

CSS contends that the provision of certification services for same-sex couples would require CSS to express its religious approval of same-sex relationships in contravention of Catholic teaching about marriage. This is not the case. To illustrate this point, if, for example, CSS were to certify a couple where one spouse is previously divorced, CSS’s certification would not suggest that CSS approved of divorce as a religious matter.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Arlene's Flowers Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. Washington, (Docket No. 17-108, vacated 6/25/2018), (Order List), granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the Washington Supreme Court in light of  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n.  In the Arlene's Flowers case, the state of Washington's Supreme Court had 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. (See prior posting).

Permanent Injunction Issued In Ethics Battle By Alabama Justice

As previously reported, in March an Alabama federal district court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that provisions in the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics that were invoked against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker are unconstitutional.  At issue was a ethics complaint over comments by Parker about the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on an earlier Alabama Supreme Court order barring probate judges from issuing licenses for same-sex marriages.  Now the parties have agreed on the scope of a permanent injunction, and this week in Parker v. Judicial Inquiry Commission of the State of Alabama, (MD AL, June 11, 2018), the court issued an opinion and the consent injunction, barring the state Judicial Inquiry Commission from enforcing Canons 1, 2A and 3A(6):

to proscribe or punish any public comment by a judge unless the public comment can reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a proceeding pending or impending in any court. Public discussion by judges or judicial candidates of an issue of public importance cannot be proscribed or punished ... merely because that issue may happen to be the subject of a pending or impending proceeding in any court.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the court's action.

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.

Bermuda Court Invalidates Bar On Same-Sex Marriage

In Ferguson v. Attorney General, (Bermuda Sup. Ct., June 6, 2018), a Bermuda trial court held unconstitutional Bermuda's Domestic Partnership Act 2018 that rejects recognition of same-sex marriage.  The Act was passed to reverse an earlier court decision that held existing anti-discrimination laws validated same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In yesterday's decision, the court held that the effect of the Domestic Partnership Act is to limit those desiring recognition of their same-sex relationship to choosing domestic partnerships. It held that while it is not invalid as a law enacted substantially for religious purposes, it is an invalid infringement of  belief:

Prior to the DPA coming into force, same-sex couples who believed in the institution of marriage could manifest their beliefs by participating in legally recognised marriage ceremonies. Just as PMB and its members genuinely believe that same-sex marriages should not be legally recognised, the Applicants and many others equally sincerely hold opposing beliefs. It is not for secular institutions of Government, without constitutionally valid justification, to direct the way in which a citizen manifests their beliefs.

... The Applicants do not seek the right to compel persons of opposing beliefs to celebrate or enter into same-sex-marriages. They merely seek to enforce the rights of those who share their beliefs to freely manifest them in practice. Persons who passionately believe that same-sex marriages should not take place for religious or cultural reasons are entitled to have those beliefs respected and protected by law. But, in return for the law protecting their own beliefs, they cannot require the law to deprive person who believe in same-sex marriage of respect and legal protection for  their opposing beliefs.

 The court also issued a summary of its decision, and Skift reports on the decision.

Supreme Court In Narrow Decision Reverses Order Against Wedding Cake Baker

Today, by a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 4, 2018), reversed on narrow grounds a Colorado appellate court's decision upholding the state Civil Rights Commission's cease and desist order against a baker who refused on religious grounds to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The Supreme Court's majority decision, written by Justice Kennedy, focused on what was seen as the unfairness of the hearing provided to the baker by the Commission, and the difference between this case and the approach in others decided by the Commission:

The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court acknowledged the difficulties involved in deciding the broader issues posed by the case:

The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.... 

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of  possibilities that seem all but endless.

Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Breyer.  Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito.  Justice Thomas filed a opinion concurring in part, joined by Justice Gorsuch.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion arguing that there was not sufficient evidence of unfair hostility by the Commission to the baker's religious beliefs.

Politico reports on the decision, as does SCOTUSblog.

Catholic Social Services Sues Philadelphia Over End To Foster Care Referrals

A suit was filed in a Pennsylvania federal district court this week by Philadelphia Catholic Social Services and two of its clients challenging action taken by the city of Philadelphia to stop foster care referrals to the agency.  The city took the action because of CSS's policy against placing foster children with same-sex couples.  The complaint (full text) in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, filed 5/16/2018), alleges in part:

Catholic Social Services remains willing and able to continue its ministry serving children in Philadelphia. It wants to help alleviate the foster care crisis in Philadelphia, and it has not and will not prevent any qualified family from becoming a foster parent, be it through Catholic Social Services or a referral to another agency. But because of the City’s actions, Catholic Social Services is unable to place foster children with families. Its 100-year-old ministry to at-risk children is in jeopardy.

The complaint alleges violation of Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Protection Act, the 1st and 14th Amendments. Pennsylvania constitutional provisions, the Philadelphia city charter and breach of contract. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Air Force Upholds Right of Commander To Refuse To Sign Certificate For Same-Sex Spouse

Stars and Stripes reported yesterday that the Director of the Air Force Review Boards Agency has granted an appeal by an Air Force Colonel who had been disciplined for refusing to sign a "certificate of appreciation" for the same-sex spouse of a master sergeant in his unit who was retiring.  Col. Leland Bohannon refused to sign the certificate because he thought it would signify his personal endorsement of a marriage that violates his religious beliefs.  Eventually the certificate was instead signed by a two-star General.  The retiring master sergeant however filed an Equal Opportunity complaint, and Bohannon was stripped of command of the Air Force Inspection Agency and removed from consideration for a promotion to brigadier general.

In a letter (full text) to members of Congress who had intervened on Bohannon's behalf, the Secretary of the Air Force wrote:

The Director concluded that Colonel Bohannon had the right to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs and did not unlawfully discriminate when he declined to sign the certificate of appreciation.... The Air Force has a duty to treat people fairly and without discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation and met that duty by having a more senior officer sign the certificate.

The Air Force places a high value on the rights of its members to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all. The decision on appeal applied current Air Force policy and the law.  It is an example of a situation in which protected, and potentially competing, interests must be carefully examined and resolved.

Britain's Court of Appeals Rules Against Gay Priest's Employment Discrimination Claim

In Pemberton v Inwood, (EWCA , March 22, 2018), the England and Wales Court of Appeal ruled against Jeremy Pemberton, a gay Church of England priest who was prevented from taking a position as a hospital chaplain when he married his same-sex partner.  Pemberton sued claiming employment discrimination and harassment. Lady Justice Asplin's opinion held that the action taken against Pemberton falls within a statutory exception from the Equality Act's discrimination provisions for religious organizations that impose various requirements regarding marriage and sexual orientation.  Rejecting Pemberton's harassment claim, Justice Asplin said in part:

If you belong to an institution with known, and lawful, rules, it implies no violation of dignity, and is not cause for reasonable offence, that those rules should be applied to you, however wrong you may believe them to be. Not all opposition of interests is hostile or offensive.

 The Guardian reports on the court's decision. (See prior related posting.)

Judge Suspended, In Part For Refusal To Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

In In re Day, (OR Sup. Ct., March 15, 2018), the Oregon Supreme Court in a 91-page opinion suspended state circuit court judge Vance D. Day from his judicial office for three years without pay. The state's Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability had recommended the harsher penalty of removal from office. (Commission report).  A number of unrelated charges were involved; the court concluded that six of the counts had been proven.  One of those was described as follows by the court in its press release on the case:

Count 12 concerned a change in respondent's chambers relating to marriage requests that he received after issuance of a federal court ruling, in May 2014, that had invalidated Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Before that ruling, respondent had made himself available to solemnize marriages. After that ruling, he told his staff that, upon receiving any marriage request, they should check for any personal gender information available in the court's case register system, to try to determine whether the request involved a same-sex couple. If so, they should tell the couple that he was not available on the requested date or otherwise notify him so that he could decide how to proceed. If the request were from an opposite-sex couple, however, then they should schedule the wedding date.  Respondent's judicial assistant checked the system one time and determined that a requesting couple might be a same-sex couple, but respondent had an actual scheduling conflict, so she truthfully told the couple that he was not available.  Several weeks after that, respondent stopped solemnizing all marriages. The Court concluded that respondent's conduct had been willful and had violated Rule 3.3(B) (prohibiting manifestation of bias or prejudice in the performance of judicial duties) and related constitutional provisions. The Court did not address a number of constitutional challenges that respondent had raised as affirmative defenses to Count 12. It explained that, in light of the other, notably serious misconduct that the commission had proved by clear and convincing evidence, the misconduct at issue under Count 12 would not affect its consideration of the appropriate sanction, regardless of whether those constitutional challenges were meritorious or not.

Progressive Secular Humanist blog reports on the decision.

Alabama Judicial Ethics Provision Enjoined In Part

In Parker v. Judicial Inquiry Commission of the State of Alabama, (MD AL, March 2, 2018), an Alabama federal district court held that a provision in Alabama's Canon of Judicial Ethics, because of its breadth, violates the free speech provisions of the 1st Amendment.  At issue was the provision that: "A judge should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court...."  A complaint had been filed against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker over his comments on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on an earlier Alabama Supreme Court order barring probate judges from issuing licenses for same-sex marriages. The court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Judicial Inquiry Commission

from enforcing Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics 3A(6) to the extent that it proscribes public comment by a judge about a pending or impending proceeding in a court outside the state of Alabama, [or] ... proscribes public comment by a judge that cannot reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a proceeding in Alabama.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

"Parody Marriage" Bills Are Newest Attempt To Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage

A bill titled Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act (H 4949) was introduced into the South Carolina legislature last week (Feb. 15). A similar bill with the same title (HB 0167) was received for introduction in the Wyoming legislature on Feb. 14.  Taking a new approach to challenging same-sex marriage, the bills define marriage that does not involve one man and one woman as "parody marriage."  The bills then declare that parody marriages, as well as treating sexual orientation as a suspect class, violate the Establishment Clause because they are part of the religion of Secular Humanism.  They declare, on the other hand, that marriages between one man and one woman are secular because they arise "out of the nature of things" and are "natural, neutral and noncontroversial."   According to the Charleston City Paper, the bills in both states were written with the advice of Chris Sevier. Sevier has gained notice by filing lawsuits seeking to have his marriage to his computer recognized--- suits filed in an attempt to discredit non-traditional marriages. (See prior posting.)

Former Magistrate Receives Damages In Settlement Over Refusal To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

According to a press release this week from Becket, the North Carolina court system last November agreed to a settlement with a former North Carolina magistrate who was forced to resign in 2014 because of her objections to performing same-sex marriage ceremonies.  Under the settlement of a complaint filed with the EEOC, magistrate Sandra Myrick will receive $210,000 in damages and $115,000 in attorneys fees. (Full text of settlement agreement).  The settlement came 8 months after the decision by an Administrative Law Judge in Myrick v. Warren, (EEOC, March 8, 2017) holding that the EEOC has jurisdiction over Myrick's religious discrimination complaint under the Government Employees Rights Act of 1991.  The ALJ also concluded that Myrick had demonstrated a prima facie case of religious discrimination and that she had not been offered an accommodation.

California Baker May Refuse To Create Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

A California state trial court has held that a bakery owner has the right to refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple when the owner has religious objections to same-sex marriage. The court pointed out:

The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as sexual orientation.

The bakery had arranged to refer orders from same-sex couples to a competing bakery that has no objections. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, (CA Super., Feb. 5, 2018), the court said in part:

The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence....

No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The Bakersfield Californian reports on the decision.

Couple Sues Printer Over Substitution of Anti-Gay Pamphlets For Wedding Programs

The New York Post this week reports on a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts federal district court against Vistaprint.  The company's North American Business Headquarters are located in Boston.  Plaintiffs are a same-sex couple who were married in a ceremony in Pennsylvania last September. The couple had ordered 100 copies of a customized program for their wedding.  When they opened the package Vistaprint sent to them, they found that instead of the programs they had been sent 80 copies of an anti-gay pamphlet titled "‘Understanding Temptation: Fight the good fight of the faith." The pamphlets warn: "Satan entices your flesh with evil desires." Vistaprint, which says it would not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, indicated that it had just learned of the incident and have begun an internal investigation.

Inter-American Human Rights Court Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage and Transgender Rights

In an Advisory Opinion (full text in Spanish) dated Nov. 24, 2017, but apparently first published on Jan. 9, 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that the American Convention on Human Rights requires governments to recognize family rights of same-sex couples and transgender rights. As reported by the Washington Blade:

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Tuesday issued a landmark ruling that recognizes same-sex marriage and transgender rights in the Western Hemisphere. 

The seven judges who issued the ruling stated governments “must recognize and guarantee all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex.” Six of the seven judges also agreed that it is necessary for governments “to guarantee access to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination.”

The court issued its ruling after the Costa Rican government in 2016 asked for an advisory opinion on whether it has an obligation to extend property rights to same-sex couples and allow transgender people to change their name and gender marker on identity documents.

The ruling says the Costa Rican government must allow trans people to legally change their name and gender marker on official documents.

According to La Voz,  "Costa Rica is the only country that gives the same weight to a CIDH ruling as it does to a national court’s judicial decision."

Supreme Court Refuses Review In Standing Case Challenging Mississippi's Conscience Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Barber v. Bryant, (Docket No. 17-547, cert. denied 1/8/2018) and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, (Docket No. 17-642, cert. denied 1/8/2018). (Order List.)  In the companion cases, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed challenges to Mississippi's Conscience Protection Act for lack of standing. The law, Mississippi's HB 1523, protects against discriminatory action by state government anyone who acts in accordance with his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions that marriage is only between one man and one woman, sexual relations are reserved to such marriages, and gender is determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. (See prior posting.) An en banc rehearing was denied by the 5th Circuit, over the dissent of two judges.  National Law Journal reports on the Supreme Court's action which leaves the law in effect.

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.