Germany's Bundestag Approves Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by BBC and the New York Times, on Friday Germany's Bundestag passed legislation permitting same-sex marriage.  Currently only civil unions are allowed for same-sex couples.  The vote was 393-226 with 4 abstentions.  Chancellor Angela Merkel, while voting against the change, told members of her governing coalition to vote on the issue according to their consciences. The legislation changes Germany's law to read: "Marriage is entered into for life by two people of different or the same sex."  The legislation must still be approved by the Bundesrat (the upper house of parliament) and signed by Germany's president, but neither of those steps appears to be in doubt.

Texas Supreme Court Keeps Life In Challenge To City's Same-Sex Couple Benefits

In a complex opinion, the Texas Supreme court has given two Houston taxpayer-voters another chance to challenge the legality of the city's extending spousal benefits to same-sex married couples.  At issue in Pidgeon v. Turner, (TX Sup. Ct., June 30, 2017), is the instructions on remand given by a state appeals court in reversing a trial court's temporary injunction against the city's action.  Plaintiffs' suit is based on the contention that Texas' Defense of Marriage Act still has residual effect and that the state appeals court incorrectly indicated to the trial court that the 5th Circuit's DeLeon decision invalidating the state's DOMA is binding on it.  The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the appeals court was incorrect in telling the trial court to proceed "consistent with" DeLeon:

We agree with Pidgeon that De Leon does not bind the trial court in this case and the court of appeals should not have instructed the trial court to conduct further proceedings “consistent with” De Leon. Penrod Drilling, 868 S.W.2d at 296.17 That does not mean, however, that the trial court should not consider De Leon when resolving Pidgeon’s claims. Fifth Circuit decisions, particularly those regarding federal constitutional questions, can certainly be helpful and may be persuasive for Texas trial courts. Moreover, De Leon could potentially affect the relief the trial court might provide on remand, since De Leon has enjoined the Governor from enforcing the Texas DOMAs and the State of Texas is thus providing benefits to state employees’ same-sex spouses. The trial court should certainly proceed on remand “in light of” De Leon, but it is not required to proceed “consistent with” it.

The Texas Supreme Court refused to reach another argument by plaintiffs that they have standing to seek a clawback of payments the city made to same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  Plaintiff's cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, contending that as taxpayers they have been injured by the payments "because they are devout Christians who have been compelled by the mayor’s unlawful edict to subsidize homosexual relationships that they regard as immoral and sinful."  NPR reports on the decision.

No Taxpayer Standing To Challenge North Carolina Conscience Law Excusing Magistrates From Performing Marriages

In Ansley v. Warren, (4th Cir., June 28, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on standing grounds an Establishment Clause challenge to North Carolina's Senate Bill 2 which allows state magistrates who have religious objections to same-sex marriage to recuse themselves from performing all marriages.  (See prior posting.)  The court said in part:

The outcome here is in no way a comment on same-sex marriage as a matter of social policy. The case before us is far more technical—whether plaintiffs, simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers, have alleged a personal, particularized injury for the purposes of Article III standing. Based on a century of Supreme Court precedent, we conclude that they have not.

Asheville Citizen-Times reports on the decision.

Supreme Court: Same-Sex Spouses Must Get Equal Treatment In Birth Certificates

In Pavan v. Smith, (Sup. Ct., June 26, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari and summarily (i.e. without further briefing or oral argument) reversed a decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court on the rights of same-sex married couples. The Supreme Court held that "Obergefell’s commitment to provide same-sex couples 'the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage'" means that the state must apply the same rules to same-sex and opposite-sex married couples in the issuance of birth certificates. Under Arkansas law, the male spouse of a woman who gives birth appeared on a birth certificate, but the female spouse of a woman who gives birth did not.  The Supreme Court struck this differentiation down, saying that in Arkansas birth certificates are more than just a marker of biological parentage.

Justice Gorsuch, in an opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented saying that this is an inappropriate case for summary reversal.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Craig S. Lerner, The Tower of Babel Revisited: Global Governance as a Problematic Solution to Existential Threats, (North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2017 Forthcoming).
• Yaniv Roznai, Negotiating the Eternal: The Paradox of Entrenching Secularism in Constitutions, (2017 Mich. St. L. Rev. 253).
• Derek Smith, Render Unto Caesar: The Constitutionality of Ontario's Effective Referral Requirement for Medical Assistance in Dying (June 7, 2017).
• Terry S. Kogan, Public Restrooms and the Distorting of Transgender Identity, (North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 4, 2017).
• Alqahtani Suaad Muhammad, Western Feminism or Return to Authentic Islam? Jordanian Women in Faqir's Pillars of Salt and My Name Is Salma, (AWEJ for Translation & Literary Studies, Volume 1, Number 2, May 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Paul Christopher Johnson, Possessed Persons and Legal Persons in Brazil, 31 Maryland Journal of International Law 180-216 (2016).
• Justin B. Richland. Paths In the Wilderness?: The Politics and Practices of Hopi Religious Freedom in Hopitutskwa, 31 Maryland Journal of International Law 217-243 (2016).
• Sara Movahed, Hope for the Hopi In a Post-Hobby Lobby World: The Supreme Court's Recent Interpretation of RFRA and Strengthening Native Americans' Religious-Based Land Rights Claims, 31 Maryland Journal of International Law 244-256 (2016).
• Andrew Forsyth, Book Review. Not Without Honor? Prophecy Without Contempt: Religious Discourse in the Public Square by Cathleen Kaveny, [Abstract], 29 Yale Journal of Law & Humanities 113-127 (2017).
• Charles Adside, III, Constitutional Damage Control: Same-Sex Marriage, Smith's Hybrid Rights Doctrine, and Protecting the Preacher Man After Obergefell, 27 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 145-205 (2017).

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

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

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Madalyn Doucet Vicry, That Kind of Girl: Effects of Homeschooling on the Sexual Health of Women and Girls, (Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. 18, No. 103, 2017).
• Wojciech Sadurski, Judicial Review and Public Reason, (Comparative Judicial Review, Rosalind Dixon, Erin F. Delaney, eds, Edward Elgar, UK, 2017, Forthcoming).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, A Free Speech Tale of Two County Clerk Refusals, (Ohio State Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Elaine Rene Elizabeth Panter, Tanya Primiani, Tazeen Hasan & Eduardo Calderon Pontaza, Antidiscrimination Law and Shared Prosperity: An Analysis of the Legal Framework of Six Economies and Their Impact on the Equality of Opportunities of Ethnic, Religious, and Sexual Minorities, (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7992 (March 3, 2017)).
• Robin Bradley Kar, Transformational Marriage: How to End the Culture Wars Over Same-Sex Marriage, (The Contested Place of Religion in Family Life (Cambridge University Press 2017)).
• Robin Elliot & Michael Elliot, 'Striking the Right Balance: Rethinking the Contest between Freedom of Religion and Equality Rights in Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia', (Forthcoming in the University of British Columbia Law Review, (2017) Volume 50:3).
• Clifford Rosky, Still Not Equal: A Report from the Red States, (After Marriage Equality: The Future of LGBT Rights pgs. 73-101 (2016)).

SSRN (Islamic Law)

• Hae Won Bang, Production of Islamic Knowledge in the European Diaspora: A Case Study of Digital Texts from a British Muslim Halal Certifier, (May 30, 2016).
• Mmaphuti David Tuba, Lodhi 5 Properties Investments CC v Firstrand Bank Limited [2015] 3 All SA 32 (SCA) and the Enforcement of Islamic Banking Law in South Africa ,(Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 20, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Symposium: Law and Religion in an Increasingly Polarized America. Articles by Kathleen A. Brady, Marc O. DeGirolami, Kent Greenawalt, B. Jesse Hill, Andrew Koppelman, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Ira C. Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle, James M. Oleske, Jr. and Robin Fretwell Wilson. 20 Lewis & Clark Law Review 1093-1458 (2017).
• Allan W. Vestal, Regarding Oaths of Office, 37 Pace Law Review 292-325 (2016).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Taylor dissented, saying in part:

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

 Lexington Herald Leader reports on the decision.

Bermuda Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

In a 49-page opinion handed down last week, a Bermuda trial court judge legalized same-sex marriage in the island nation (which is classified as a British Overseas Territory).  In Godwin v. Registrar General, (Bermuda Sup. Ct., May 5, 2017), the court held that the Registrar General violated the Human Rights Act of 1981 (HRA) when it denied a  marriage license to a same-sex couple. The court concluded that the provision of the HRA that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of services applies to the Registrar General's action.  The Royal Gazette reports on reaction to the ruling.

6th Circuit: Damage Action Against Kim Davis Is Not Moot

In Ermold v. Davis, (6th Cir., May 2, 2017), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a damage action against Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis brought by a same-sex couple who had been denied a marriage license by Davis.  The district court had dismissed the case because subsequent legislative action and an Executive Order by the governor assured that marriage licenses are now being issued to same-sex couples. The court held, however, that where a suit only seeks damages for past injury, a change in defendant's conduct does not moot the controversy.  Judge Siler also filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the district court still might find that Davis was protected by Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jonas J Monast, Brian C. Murray & Jonathan B. Wiener, On Morals, Markets, and Climate Change: Exploring Pope Francis' Challenge, (Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 80, 2017).
• Jonathan F. Will, I. Glenn Cohen & Eli Y. Adashi, Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Tara A. Smith, Religious Liberty or Religious License? Legal Schizophrenia and the Case against Exemptions, (Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 32, Fall 2016).
• Tara A. Smith, What Good Is Religious Freedom? Locke, Rand, and the Non-Religious Case for Respecting It, (Arkansas Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, 2017).
• Michael J. Perry, A Global Political Morality: Human Rights, Democracy, and Constitutionalism, (Emory Legal Studies Research Paper 17-431 (2017)).
• Jonathan F. Will, Religion As a Controlling Interference in Medical Decision-Making by Minors, (October 19, 2016).
• Sarah Khanghahi, Thirty Years after Al-Khazraji: Revisiting Employment Discrimination Under Section 1981, (64 UCLA Law Review 794 (2017).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Atta Ul Mustafa, Proposed Procedural Amendments to Check Misuse of Blasphmey Laws in Pakistan, (July 4, 2016).
• Matthew S. Erie, The Traveling Waqf: Property, Religion, and Mobility Beyond China, (Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 25, (1-2, Special Issue on Waqfs) (February 2018)).
• Paul Johnson & Robert M. Vanderbeck, Sexual Orientation Equality and Religious Exceptionalism in the Law of the United Kingdom: The Role of the Church of England, (April 25, 2017).
• Dwight G. Newman, Ties that Bind: Religious Freedom and Communities (Introduction), (in Dwight Newman, ed., Religious Freedom and Communities (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2016)).
• Darren Rosenblum, Sex Quotas and Burkini Bans, (Tulane Law Review, Vol. 92, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Herman D. Hofman, For Richer or For Poorer: How Obergefell v. Hodges Affects the Tax-Exempt Status of Religious Organizations that Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, 52 Gonzaga Law Review 21-57 (2016/17).
• 2015 Richard J. Childress Memorial Lecture: Religious Freedom, Social Justice and Public Policy. Keynote lecture by Lawrence G. Sager; contributions by Christopher C. Lund, Matthew T. Bodie, Elizabeth Sepper, Jeffrey A. Redding and B. Jessie Hill. 60 St. Louis University Law Journal 585-710 (2016).

Roy Moore Announces Run For U.S. Senate Seat From Alabama

In Alabama this week, Roy Moore who has been suspended for the rest of his term as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court because of his defiance of same-sex marriage rulings (see prior posting) announced that he will formally resign from his judicial position in order to run for the United States Senate.  The Republican primary for the seat is scheduled for August (with a potential run off in September). The special election itself is scheduled for December 12.  The Senate seat initially opened up when former Senator Jeff Sessions was appointed U.S. Attorney General. According to AL.com, Moore will face several opponents in the primary, including incumbent Sen. Luther Strange who was appointed on an interim basis to Sessions' seat by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, and Dr. Randy Brinson, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama.  In his announcement, Moore said in part: "My position has always been God first, family then country. I share the vision of President Donald Trump to make America great again."

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Suspension of Chief Justice Over Defiance of Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, a specially composed panel of judges sitting as the Supreme Court of Alabama unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspending Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for the remainder of his term. Six judges joined in the court's opinion, while one judge concurred only in the result. In Moore v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, (AL Sup. Ct., April 19, 2017), the court in a 66-page opinion agreed that Moore violated various provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics when he issued directions to Alabama judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal court decisions and orders to the contrary, including the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  AL.com reports that Moore remains defiant

Suit Says Clerk Harassed Same-Sex Couples Seeking Marriage Licenses

A suit was filed earlier this week in a West Virginia federal district court contending that personnel in the Gilmer County Clerk's Office harassed same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses.  The complaint (full text) in Brookover v. Gilmer County, (D WV, filed 4/17/2017), alleges in part:

When Deputy Clerk Debbie Allen saw that a same-sex couple was applying for a marriage license, she ... launched into a tirade of harassment and disparagement. She slammed her paperwork down on her desk, screaming that the couple was an “abomination” to God and that God would “deal” with them.... Another clerk joined in ... by shouting “it’s [Allen’s] religious right” to harass same-sex couples while performing the official state duties of the Clerk’s office.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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."

Photographer Challenges Public Accommodation Law

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

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

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

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

An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

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.]

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.