Suits Against Kim Davis Move Ahead

In two similar cases, Yates v. Davis, (ED KY, Sept. 15, 2017), and Ermold v. Davis,(ED KY, Sept. 15, 2017), a Kentucky federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their damage actions against Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to issue them marriage licenses. Davis adopted a "no marriage license" policy because of her religious objections to issuing licenses for same-sex marriages. (See prior related posting.) While dismissing claims brought against Davis in her official capacity, the court refused to dismiss personal capacity claims against her.  It found that her refusal to issue licenses was subject to strict scrutiny. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Louisiana AG Opinion Says ABA Model Rule Barring Discrimination Is Unconstitutional

The Louisiana State Bar Association is considering adopting an amendment to its Rules of Professional Conduct that would define professional misconduct as including:

conduct in connection with the practice of law that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know involves discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability.  This rule does not prohibit legitimate advocacy when race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability are issues,nor does it limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.

This is a narrower version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) which the ABA House of Delegates adopted in 2016.  Last week, the Louisiana Attorney General's Office issued Attorney General's Opinion 17-0114 which concludes that the ABA version of the Model Rule is likely unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that while Louisiana's proposed version seeks to avoid many of the constitutional problems, it still suffers from some of the same vagueness and overbreadth issues as does the ABA rule.

In addition to finding that the ABA Model Rule is overbroad and vague, the Opinion also concluded that it violates associational and religious liberty protections, saying in part:

Lawyers participate in a wide variety of associations that engage in expressive conduct which could run afoul of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), including faith-based legal organizations and activist organizations that promote a specific political or social platform....

ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) could also result in lawyers being punished for practicing their religion.  The United States Supreme Court specifically noted in Obergefell v. Hodges that "those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."  However this type of advocacy appears to be prohibited by ABA Model Rule 8.4(g).... Under Rule 8.4(g), a lawyer who acts as a legal advisor on the board of their church would be engaging in professional misconduct if they participated in a march against same-sex marriage or taught a class at their religious institution against divorce....

AP reports on the Attorney General's Opinion.

South African Court Reconciles Marriage Law With Gender Identity Change Statute

Under South African law, marriages may be performed only for heterosexual couples; however civil unions, which create the same legal rights as a marriage, may be performed for either heterosexual or same-sex couples.  South Africa also has a statute which allows transgender individuals to register their gender transition with the government if they have undergone medical or surgical treatment to alter their sexual characteristics. Registration leads to a change in the gender listed on birth certificates and in the population register. In KOS v. Minister of Home Affairs, (S.A. High Ct., Sept. 6, 2017), a South African trial court was faced with the question of how to treat couples who had entered a heterosexual marriage (not a civil union), where subsequently the husband underwent gender transitioning and registered the change in gender identity with the government.

The government argued that in such cases, a gender change should not be able to be registered since it would result in a same-sex marriage, which the law does not recognize. In one of the cases, the government had instead cancelled the couple's marriage record and insisted that they enter a civil union.  The court however, disagreed concluding that the couples must be allowed to register the gender reassignment and remain married.  Refusing to do this, the court said, violates the rights under the South African Constitution to administrative justice and to equality and human dignity. GroundUp reports on the decision.

Australia's Top Court Upholds Planned Mail Survey of Voters On Same-Sex Marriage

In Wilkie v. Commonwealth of Australia, (High Ct. Australia, Sept. 7, 2017), Australia's highest court unanimously upheld the government's plan to conduct a voluntary survey by mail of the country's voters on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized.  At issue in the case was whether the government acted properly when it used a law permitting expenditures which are urgent and unforeseen to fund the survey.  As reported by news.com.au:

Ballots with the question, “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” will be sent to households across the nation on September 12....

If a majority of people vote in favour, a vote will then be held in parliament which [Prime Minister Malcolm] Turnbull says he expects will make same-sex marriage legal. If Australians vote no, Mr Turnbull has said the parliamentary vote will not proceed.

The postal survey was conceived after Australia's Senate voted against government sponsored legislation for a binding plebiscite. Interestingly, advocates of marriage equality were among those challenging the plebiscite, arguing that Parliament should legalize same-sex marriage without this preliminary vote. (Marriage Equality Information Sheet).  Law & Religion Australia last month had a lengthy post on the religious liberty implications of the substantive legislation that is being considered.

New Mexico Paramilitary Christian Group Members Arrested In Child Abuse Investigation

Earlier this week, New Mexico authorities raided the Fence Lake (NM) compound of the paramilitary Aggressive Christianity Missions Training Corps in a child abuse investigation.  They arrested sect co-leader Deborah Green and two other group members, while another member was arrested in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. According to People, the defendants are variously charged with child abuse, criminal sexual penetration, failure to report a birth, and bribery of a witness. Peter Green has been charged with 100 counts of criminal penetration of a child.

Four more sect members were arrested yesterday on charges of failing to register the births of their 11 children.  They were apprehended as they were allegedly trying to flee the state in two vans filed with children. Fox News, reporting this, says that the group describes itself as "revolutionary for Jesus" and provides a free spiritual "ammo pack" to anyone requesting one.  Its website includes anti-Semitic and anti-same sex marriage language.

Discussing interviews with ex-members of the sect, AP reports that:

[L]eaders of the Aggressive Christianity Missions Training Corps exercised control over followers by forcing them into hard labor and refusing to give their children medical care. When members complained, sect co-leader Deborah Green would hold "trials" against them for questioning her authority.... The trials led to banishment to isolated sheds without toilets and from the sect's compound without being allowed to take their children....

Australian Catholic Bishops React To Planned Plebiscite On Same-Sex Marriage

As reported earlier this month by CBC News, Australia's government is planning a mail survey beginning Sept. 12 of Australians on the issue of same-sex marriage. However it is facing a court challenge arguing that the government does not have authority to conduct this type of plebiscite without obtaining authority from Parliament.  Meanwhile the Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that Catholic bishops in Australia have threatened that if same-sex marriage is legalized, parish employees, including teachers in Catholic schools, who marry a same-sex partner may well be fired.

Northern Ireland Court Says No Right To Same-Sex Marriage

A trial court judge in the High Court of Northern Ireland yesterday held that the rights of same-sex couples under the European Convention on Human Rights are not infringed by the law of Northern Ireland which allows them only enter civil partnerships rather than full marriage.  As reported by The Independent, the decision comes in two cases heard together.  A press release by the court describes the opinion in one of the cases.  The judge pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights has already held that same-sex marriage is not a right under the Convention.  The judge observed, however:

To the frustration of supporters of same sex marriage the Assembly has not yet passed into law any measure to recognise and introduce same sex marriage. Their frustration is increased by the fact that the Assembly has voted by a majority in favour of same sex marriage, but by reason of special voting arrangements which reflect the troubled past of this State, that majority has not been sufficient to give the vote effect in law.

The Democratic Unionist Party has blocked passage of a law to allow same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland, even though it is recognized in the Irish Republic, England, Scotland and Wales. Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

Roy Moore Moves To Run-Off Against Luther Strange In Alabama U.S. Senate Primary

As reported by AP and the New York Times, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore came in first, capturing 38.9% of the vote, in yesterday's Alabama Republican primary for U.S. Senate. He will face incumbent Luther Strange, who received 32.8% of the vote, in the second round of the primary on Sept. 26.  Moore was removed as Chief Justice in 2003 when he refused to obey a court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument that stood on the state courthouse grounds.  After being re-elected as Chief Justice, last year he was suspended from his position for instructing probate judges to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)

Federal Suit By Houston Employees Seeks To Preserve Benefits For Same-Sex Couples

A suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by Houston city employees and their same-sex spouses seeking to preserve the same spousal benefits that are received by other city employees. In a decision handed down last month, the Texas Supreme Court kept alive a suit by Houston taxpayers challenging the city's extending spousal benefits to same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) In the complaint (full text) filed yesterday in Freeman v. Turner, (SD TX, filed 8/10/2017), plaintiffs asked the federal district court to declare that the city may not rely on the Texas DOMA Statute and the Texas Marriage Amendment, which have previously been held unconstitutional by federal courts, to justify depriving city employees with same-sex spouses to to the same spousal benefits extended to other married employees. The complaint also asks the court to find that denial or withdrawal of such benefits would be unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses. Texas Observer reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer: Paradigm Lost?, (Forthcoming, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy Supreme Court Review, October Term 2016).
• Meghan Boone, The Autonomy Hierarchy, (Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2016).
• Julio C. Colón, Improving Dispute Resolution for Muslims in the United States, (International Conference on Dispute Resolution 2017: Modern Trends in Effective Dispute Resolution, International Islamic University of Malaysia (2017)).
• Nicholas Aroney, Individual, Community and State: Thoughts on Jane Norton, Freedom of Religious Organizations, (July 17, 2017).
• Adam Perry, Pardons and Mercy, (July 30, 2017).
• Robert L. Tsai, Obama's Conversion on Same-Sex Marriage: The Social Foundations of Individual Rights, (Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 50, 2017).

From SSRN (International and Comparative Law):

• Jaclyn L. Neo, Realizing the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion: The Limited Normative Force of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, (Human Rights Law Review (2017, Forthcoming)).
• Jaclyn L. Neo, Secularism Without Liberalism: Religious Freedom and Secularism in a Non-Liberal State, (Michigan State Law Review, 2017).
• John Lunstroth, Human Rights and Cultural Diversity in UNESCO Bioethics, (in Advancing Global Bioethics, Vol. 6: Religious Perspectives on Bioethics and Human Rights (Tham, Joseph, Man Kwan, Kai, Garcia, Alberto (Eds.) 2017, Springer Nature, New York, Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Jewish Law):

• Raphael Cohen-Almagor, The Monopoly of Jewish Orthodoxy in Israel and Its Effects on the Governance of Religious Diversity, (in Anna Triandafyllidou and Tariq Modood (eds.), The Problem of Religious Diversity (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), pp. 250-272).
• Levi Cooper, Mysteries of the Paratext: Why Did Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady Never Publish His Code of Law?, (Diné Israel 31 (2017): 43-84).

Plaintiffs Awarded Attorneys' Fees In Suit Against County Clerk Kim Davis

In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, July 21, 2017) a Kentucky federal district court awarded $224,703 in attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiffs who previously obtained a preliminary injunction against Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis.  Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing marriage licenses entirely in order to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples.  The court yesterday held that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees because they were the “prevailing party” --they obtained a preliminary injunction that granted the relief they sought. The ultimate dismissal of the case after a change in the law rendered it moot did not change this conclusion.  The court, in a 50-page opinion, said in part:

In this case, the Plaintiffs “prevailed by every measure of victory.” The relief Plaintiffs obtained—the ability to secure marriage licenses and marry—was “preliminary” in name only. It is not the “fleeting” success that fails to establish prevailing-party status.  After the Court obtained compliance with the Preliminary Injunction Orders, Plaintiffs received marriage licenses. And once the plaintiff-couples received their marriage licenses, their rights were not subject to revocation….

... Couples continued to receive marriage licenses after the Kentucky General Assembly amended the law – albeit, on a form Davis felt more comfortable with. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction success materially altered their legal relationship with Davis, and that court-ordered change was enduring and irrevocable. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs “prevailed” within the meaning of § 1988 and are entitled to attorneys’ fees.

The court also held that the state of Kentucky, not Rowan County, is liable for the attorneys’ fees. AP reporting on the decision says Davis plans to appeal, but the state of Kentucky has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Activist's Suit Argues Gay Pride Flags Are Religious Symbols

The San Diego Union Tribune reported yesterday that anti-gay marriage activist Chris Sevier has filed suit against four members of Congress seeking to force them to remove rainbow flags they have in the hallways outside their Congressional offices.  According to the Union Tribune:

Sevier’s 38-page complaint asks the federal District Court in the District of Columbia to determine that “‘homosexuality’ and other forms of self-asserted sex-based identity narratives are a ‘religion,’” and that the colorful banners are a religious symbol for the “homosexual denomination.” ...

Sevier also asked the court to overturn Supreme Court rulings that ended a prohibition against sodomy and federal policies that only recognized opposite-sex marriages, as well as Obergefell V. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that found that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

Further, he said the members who displayed the flag should be removed from office.

Sevier has previously lost suits, aimed at discrediting same-sex marriage, in which he challenged state refusals to allow him to marry his laptop. (See prior posting.)

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.