[B]ecause an “individual” did not file the claim, but rather an organization did, we would have to determine whether the organization is a member of the protected class, which we find impossible to ascertain. No end user may have been denied the service who is a member of the protected class, or perhaps one was. If so, then the determination would have to follow whether the reason for denial of service constitutes discrimination under the ordinance, and then whether the local government was attempting to compel expression, had infringed on religious liberty, or had failed to carry its burden under KRS 446.350. But without an individual, as required by Section 2-32(2)(a), this analysis cannot be conducted.Justice Buckingham filed a concurring opinion, arguing that the Human Rights Commission had unconstitutionally attempted to compel the business to express ideas with which it disagreed. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Monday, November 04, 2019
Organization Lacks Standing To Claim Sexual Orientation Discrimination By Christian Business Owners
In Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands On Originals, (KY Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2019), The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed on standing grounds a suit against a small business whose Christian owners refused on religious grounds to print T-shirts for a Pride Festival. The court held that because the discrimination complaint was filed only by a gay-rights organization, plaintiff lacks statutory standing:
Labels:
Free speech,
LGBT rights,
Public accommodation law,
Standing