Court Dismisses Fanciful Suit Designed To Discredit Same-Sex Marriage

A Kentucky federal district court has dismissed a rather fanciful lawsuit filed by opponents of same-sex marriage designed to emphasize plaintiffs' belief that only traditional marriage should be recognized.  In Sevier v. Bevin, (ED KY, March 31, 2017), the court describes plaintiffs' claims:

They identify themselves as "machinist" and "zoophile", respectively, and, together, allege the Commonwealth violated the following constitutional rights by denying Sevier's request for a marriage license permitting him marry his laptop and Ording's request for a marriage license permitting her to many an animal: (1) the right to due process; (2) the right to equal protection; (3) the right to freedom of association; and ( 4) the right to travel. They also claim that the denial of their request for a marriage license is a violation of the Supremacy and Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution, and also amounts to discrimination on the basis of race.

The court concluded that: "The Plaintiffs' Complaint or Amended Complaint fail to establish any plausible entitlement to relief. "  In a press release on the decision, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver said: "To marry a laptop computer or a parrot is nonsense, but the same was said about same-sex marriage, and yet there are now five lawyers on the U.S Supreme Court who pulled that rabbit out of a hat."

Wyoming Supreme Court Censures Judge Who Refused To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In a 3-2 opinion yesterday, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a judge who, because of religious objections, refuses to perform same-sex marriages violates the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct.  In Neely v. Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, (WY Sup. Ct., March 7, 2017), Justice Fox wrote for the majority, saying in part:

This case is not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs.... This case is also not about imposing a religious test on judges. Rather, it is about maintaining the public’s faith in an independent and impartial judiciary that conducts its judicial functions according to the rule of law, independent of outside influences, including religion, and without regard to whether a law is popular or unpopular.

Responding to petitioner's free exercise argument, the majority stated:

Allowing Judge Neely to opt out of same-sex marriages is contrary to the compelling state interest in maintaining an independent and impartial judiciary.

However, rejecting the Commission's recommendation that Judge Neely be removed from office, the majority said:

Weighing these factors, we find that Judge Neely’s misconduct warrants a public censure. We further find that Judge Neely must perform her judicial functions, including performing marriages, with impartiality. She must either commit to performing marriages regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation, or cease performing all marriage ceremonies.

Justice Kautz, joined by Justice Davis, dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s position that Judge Neely violated Rule 1.2 is based on the mistaken conclusion that Judge Neely refused “to follow the law of the land.” As discussed above, the undisputed evidence shows that Judge Neely made no such refusal. She did not state that she would deny marriage to same sex couples, but rather said she would assist such couples in finding someone to perform their civil marriage ceremony. The law does not require Judge Neely personally to perform every marriage.

Focusing on the majority's free exercise argument, the dissenters said in part:

Apparently some individuals might find it offensive that Judge Neely said she would decline to personally perform a same-sex marriage and instead would refer them to someone else. There is no compelling state interest in shielding individuals from taking such an offense.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Gabe Rusk for the lead.]

Catholic High School Loses Ministerial Exception Defense In Suit By Former Teacher

Monrovia Patch reports that a California state trial court has rejected the ministerial exception defense raised by a Glendora, California Catholic high school in a suit by a former teacher who was fired for marrying his same-sex partner shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  The court ruled that Kenneth Bencomo can move ahead with his wrongful termination, Labor Code and breach of contract claims against St. Lucy's Priority High School.  The court ruled that while the high school is a religious institution, Bencomo produced substantial evidence that that did not teach any religious classes.  He taught only studio art, dance, English and yearbook and magazine courses. The school did not require that religion be part of his classes, and he never led prayers or referenced Catholic doctrine.

Canada's Supreme Court Will Review Two Trinity Western Law School Cases

On Feb. 23, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) (summary of case) and Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, et. al. (British Columbia) (summary of case). At issue is the question of whether the Law Societies in various provinces can refuse to accredit Trinity Western University Law School because of its code of conduct based on evangelical Christian teachings.  In particular, the law school refuses to recognize same-sex marriages and requires students to sign its Community Covenant that, among other things, prohibits sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. TaxProf Blog has more on the Supreme Court's action. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

British Appeals Court Refuses To Extend Civil Partnerships To Heterosexual Couples

In Steinfeld & Keidan v Secretary of State for Education, (EWCA, Feb. 21, 2017), Britain's Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a challenge to British law that allows same-sex couples, but not opposite-sex couples, to enter civil partnerships as an alternative to marriage.  The differential treatment was challenged as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibition on discrimination (Article 14) and right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). As explained in the Court's Summary of the decision, all of the judges agreed that the ban on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples creates a potential violation of Articles 14 and 8.  However two of the three judges concluded that the limitation is permissible because it is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and is proportionate.  The Secretary of State is taking further time to assess whether, since the introduction of same-sex marriage, civil partnership should be phased out or should instead be extended to opposite-sex couples. CNN reports on the decision.

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.

Teacher Fired For Marrying Same-Sex Partner Sues Catholic High School

The North Carolina ACLU yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit on behalf of a teacher who was fired by a Catholic high school in Charlotte after the teacher announced on Facebook that he planned to marry his long-time same-sex partner. Plaintiff Lonnie Billard had taught for over ten years at the school and in 2012 was named the Teacher of the Year. The lawsuit alleges that the firing violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. WFAE reports on the lawsuit.

Firing Clerk Who Refused To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Did Not Violate Title VII

In Summers v. Whitis, (SD IN, Dec. 15, 2016), an Indiana federal district court held that an Indiana County Clerk did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when she fired a deputy clerk who refused, on religious grounds, to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The court held:

Here, the court finds no objective conflict between Summers’ duties as a deputy clerk and her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. When it came to marriage licenses, Summers’ job merely required her to process the licenses by entering data and handing out information. Specifically, she had to pull up the application, verify that certain information was correct, collect a statutory fee, print a form, and record the license in a book for public record. At bottom, she was simply tasked with certifying–on  behalf of the state of Indiana, not on her own behalf– that the couple was qualified to marry under Indiana law. The duties were purely administrative.

To be clear, Summers did not perform marriage ceremonies or personally sign marriage licenses or certificates. She was not required to attend ceremonies, say congratulations, offer a blessing, or pray with couples. Her employer did not make her express religious approval or condone any particular marriage. Summers remained free to practice her Christian faith and attend church services. She was even free to maintain her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Thus, she was not forced to “choose between [her] religious convictions and [her] job.”...

... [T]he court does not question the sincerity of Summers’ beliefs. She maintains that “it’s not God’s law to have [same-sex couples] marry,” ... and has pointed to select verses from the Bible in support. That is fine; she has every right to believe that. However, that belief, no matter how sincerely espoused, does not objectively conflict with the purely administrative duty to process marriage licenses. Summers’ desire to avoid handling forms related to activities of which she personally disapproves is not protected by federal law. Title VII is not a license for employees to  perform only those duties that meet their private approval.

The court held, alternatively, that any religious conflict was with federal law, not with an employment requirement.

Alabama's CJ Roy Moore Files Brief In Appeal of His Suspension

As previously reported, in September Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary (COJ) concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The COJ suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  This decision is now on appeal to a specially constituted bench of the Alabama Supreme Court, the regular Justices having recused themselves. Yesterday, Moore filed a 95-page brief setting out his arguments. The brief summarizes them in part as follows:

The JIC [Judicial Inquiry Commission and the COJ did not have the jurisdiction or authority to review the Administrative Orders of the Chief Justice, as such authority is placed solely in this Court.

The COJ violated Rule 16 by imposing a de facto removal (i.e., permanent suspension without pay) upon Chief Justice Moore without the unanimous concurrence of all sitting members....

All charges against Chief Justice Moore must be dismissed because they have no legal basis and are not supported by clear and convincing evidence.... 

Section 159 of the Alabama Constitution, which imposes an automatic suspension upon the mere filing of a complaint with the COJ, represents a gross violation of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....

The JIC violated the confidentiality mandated by the Alabama Constitution and Rule 5 by disclosing information about Chief Justice Moore’s matter prior to filing charges and the penalty should be dismissal of all charges.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the brief.

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.

Questions On Abortion and Gay Marriage Violated Rights of Constable Candidate

In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, Dec. 2, 2016), a Texas federal district court held that members of the Williamson County (TX) Commissioners' Court violated the equal protection rights of plaintiff when, in an interview for appointment as interim County Constable, they asked him his views on same-sex marriage, abortion and religious affiliation.  The Commissioners had argued that the purpose of their questions was to determine whether the appointee was likely to be electable for a full term to the position in the next popular election. KXAN News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenging Indiana Anti-Discrimination Laws Moves Ahead

As reported by the Indianapolis Star, an Indiana state trial court judge is allowing a lawsuit filed by three conservative advocacy organizations to move ahead.  The suit challenges laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The organizations assert that the laws infringe on their free exercise rights. The suit challenges the ordinances of four Indiana cities as well as the so-called "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that prevents using RFRA to discriminate. The order (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Nov. 16, 2016), however, requires plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding the state of Indiana as a party. In a statement (press release), plaintiffs' counsel said:

Plaintiffs currently stand stripped of the heightened legal protection provided under RFRA and must host speakers and hire employees who advocate for same-sex marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. We believe in the constitutionally protected free-exercise of religion that affects people who advocate for traditional marriage, just as it protects all other religious beliefs.

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.

Donald Trump On His SCOTUS Appointment, Abortion Rights and Marriage Equality

Last night, CBS' "60 Minutes" broadcast an hour-long interview (full text and video) by Leslie Stahl with President-elect Donald Trump and with members of his family. Portions of the interview dealt with the impact of his Supreme Court nomination on abortion rights and marriage equality. Here are excerpts from the interview:

Lesley Stahl: One of the things you’re going to obviously get an opportunity to do, is name someone to the Supreme Court. And I assume you’ll do that quickly?

Donald Trump: Yes. Very important.

Lesley Stahl: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint-- are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Donald Trump: So look, here’s what’s going to happen-- I’m going to-- I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very—

Lesley Stahl: But what about overturning this law--

Donald Trump: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be-- in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and--

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

Donald Trump: No, it’ll go back to the states.

Lesley Stahl: By state—no some --

 Donald Trump: Yeah.

Donald Trump: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

Lesley Stahl: And that’s OK?

Donald Trump: Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go....

***

Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for [the LGBTQ community] is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?

Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that--

Donald Trump: It’s done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.

Trinity Western Law School Wins Appeal In British Columbia

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia, (BC Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2016), the Court of Appeal for the Canadian province of British Columbia held that the province's Law Society acted unreasonably when it denied approval to a proposed new law school at the Christian-affiliated Trinity Western University. The Law Society's vote was a reaction to a requirement at the University that students sign a Community Covenant that, among other things, does not recognize same-sex marriage. The court summarized its decision in part as follows:

The issue on appeal is whether the Law Society met its statutory duty to reasonably balance the conflicting Charter rights engaged by its decision: the sexual orientation equality rights of LGBTQ persons and the religious freedom and rights of association of evangelical Christians. The Benchers initially voted to approve TWU’s law school. That decision was met with a backlash from members of the Law Society who viewed it as endorsement of discrimination against LGBTQ persons. The Benchers decided to hold a referendum and to be bound by the outcome. A majority of lawyers voted against approval. The Benchers then reversed their earlier position and passed a resolution not to approve TWU’s law school.

In doing so, the Benchers abdicated their responsibility to make the decision entrusted to them by the Legislature. They also failed to weigh the impact of the decision on the rights engaged. It was not open to the Benchers to simply adopt the decision preferred by the majority. The impact on Charter rights must be assessed concretely, based on evidence and not perception.

... [D]enying approval would not enhance access to law school for LGBTQ students. In contrast, a decision not to approve TWU’s law school would have a severe impact on TWU’s rights.... 

In a diverse and pluralistic society, government regulatory approval of entities with differing beliefs is a reflection of state neutrality. It is not an endorsement of a group’s beliefs.

CBC News reports on the decision. [Thanks to David Fernandes for the lead.]

Alabama Chief Justice Appeals Suspension With Cryptic Motion For Recusals

As previously reported, two weeks ago Alabama's Court of the Judiciary suspended Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for the remaining two years of his term on charges stemming primarily from his order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent to the contrary.  The decision has been followed by a series of appellate moves by Moore.  On Sept. 30, Moore filed a Notice of Appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court. Then on Oct. 10, Moore filed a Motion (full text) to recuse four current and three former Alabama Supreme Court Justices from hearing the appeal.  The grounds for seeking recusal of 6 of the 7 were filed only in a sealed affidavit with the following cryptic explanation:

Because Case No. 1150818 has been maintained under seal by the present and former justices who sat on that case, the argument for this section is not presented in this public filing. However, the facts presented in the attached Sealed Affidavit of Chief Justice Roy S. Moore amply demonstrate that the Justices, present and former, who sat on Case No. 1150818, have disqualified themselves by their biased and unconscionable actions in that case not only from participating in this case but also from playing any role in selecting a substitute Court.... Media organizations and members of the public, if they so choose, may intervene in Case No. 1150818 to demand that the records of that case be made public.

The motion also argued:

The selection of replacement Justices should be made by a random drawing from a pool of names consisting of all sitting circuit judges.

In an October 12 public statement, Moore urged the unsealing of the referenced case, saying in part:

I call upon the press to demand that the Alabama Supreme Court unseal Case No. 1150818 and, if necessary, to intervene in that case. The public has a right to know why I have requested that the justices, who participated in that case, be disqualified from playing any role in my appeal. The Court has refused my requests to unseal Case No. 1150818. I ask the Supreme Court and the media to act...

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended From Office Over Same-Sex Marriage Order

Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary today unanimously concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision finding that denial of marriage licences to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The Court of the Judiciary also found that Moore should have recused himself in a subsequent case involving same-sex marriage.  The Court suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  As reported by NPR, Moore's age will disqualify him from again running for the state Supreme Court in 2018.  A majority of the court voted to completely remove Moore from office, but removal rather than suspension requires a unanimous vote.  In the 50-page opinion in In re Roy S. Moore, (AL Ct. Jud., Sept. 30, 2016), the Court of the Judiciary also took into account the fact that Moore had in 2003 been the subject of proceedings that removed him from office after his resistance to court orders relating to a Ten Commandments monument.

Suit By Web Designer Challenges LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law

Last week, Lorie Smith, the owner of a Colorado graphic and web design company, filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation anti-discrimination law.  The complaint (full text) in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, filed 9/20/2016) alleges that the anti-discrimination provisions as they apply to plaintiffs violate various provisions of the 1st and 14th Amendments, including the free exercise clause.  The complaint alleges:

7. Colorado law makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication stating that they will not design, create, or publish websites celebrating same-sex marriages. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

8. Colorado law also makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication indicating that a person’s patronage at 303 Creative is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of sexual orientation. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

9. Therefore, Lorie and 303 Creative cannot explain on 303 Creative’s website their religious belief that God designed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman and why they cannot create wedding websites promoting and celebrating any other conception of marriage.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

No Taxpayer Standing To Challenge NC Magistrate Opt-Out Law

In Ansley v. Warren, (WD NC, Sept. 20, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed for lack of standing an Establishment Clause challenge to North Carolina's S.B. 2 that allows magistrates to recuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs, asserting taxpayer standing, pointed to expenditures involved in implementing the opt-out provisions.  The court held, however:

Plaintiffs have not pointed to the establishment of any specific appropriation of funds by the legislature to implement the allegedly unconstitutional purpose of S.B. 2. The funding provisions that Plaintiffs challenge here—travel expenses for magistrates and retirement contributions—are not “expenditures made pursuant to an express [legislative] mandate and a specific [legislative] appropriation,” ... but are “incidental expenditure[s] of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute,” which is not sufficient for the purposes of standing.

Dealing with a separate due process concern, the court said:

Because a magistrate’s “sincerely held religious objection” is secret, a person appearing before a state magistrate on a matter in said magistrate’s jurisdiction will not be aware of a potential bias against them. A law that allows a state official to opt out of performing some of the duties of the office for sincerely held religious beliefs, while keeping it a secret that the official opted out, is fraught with potential for harm that could be of constitutional magnitude.... But such matters must be dealt with as they arise.

Magistrates Lack Standing To Challenge Memo From Administrative Office On Same-Sex Marriages

In Breedlove v. Warren, (NC App., Sept. 20, 2016), the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a suit by two former magistrates who objected on religious grounds to a Memo issued by the state Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) indicating that magistrates have a constitutional duty to perform marriages for same-sex couples on the same basis as other marriages, and that refusal to do so is grounds for suspension or removal from office. The two resigned after they were not granted religious accommodations. The Court concluded that, despite the AOC memo, under North Carolina law it is various judges, not the AOC, that has authority to sanction, suspend or remove magistrates. The Court concluded:

the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint... fail to demonstrate an injury that defendants were capable of inflicting upon plaintiffs, and by extension fails to show that such an injury could be redressed.

WRAL News reports on the decision, and reminds readers that late last year the North Carolina legislature enacted a bill giving magistrates the right to opt out of performing marriages on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. (See prior related posting.)