OFFICIAL SITE
Institute of Marriage
Research & Studies
Calling Something a Marriage Does Not Make It a Marriage
STATUS
Contents
Reversing the
SCOTUS Ruling
April 2017
Can the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage be reversed; or otherwise can same-sex-marriage be abolished?
For starters, three-fourths votes by state legislators can amendment the Constitution that would reverse the court’s ruling. That is how Prohibition was repealed in 1933.
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court can overrule itself. It happened in 2003 when Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, in response to the court in Stenberg v. Carhart ruling that the partial-birth abortion ban in Nebraska had been ruled unconstitutional.
Likewise in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in Gonzales v. Carhart to uphold Congress’s Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Another scenario of what could happen with same-sex marriage is Congress pass a law banning it, which, of course, would be unconstitutional and challenged in the courts.
In that scenario eventually it would reach the higher court, which would then revisit arguments against same-sex marriage and depending on the Justices, reach a different ruling than the past one.
Steps to Abolishing
Same-Sex Marriage
April 2017
There steps to abolishing same-sex marriage:
Step 1: Weaken the protections of same-sex marriage (in various states there are subtler efforts already underway);
Step 2: Strategically appointing Republicans in key positions (already done); and
Step 3: Set up constitutional conflicts in the states, forcing the issue before the courts to again be heard (the easiest of the three steps).
____________
According to Matt Braume contributor to The Huffington Post, referencing the National Organization for Marriage. See, Could Republicans Undo Marriage Equality? Yes—And Here’s How, The Huffington Post, December 19, 2016.
See, www.huffpost.com/entry/could-republicans-undo-marriage-equality-yes-and_b_58582040e4b0d5f48e1651ab.
See also, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court
Won’t Just Overturn Gay Marriage and Abortion Cases, The Daily Beast, November 9, 2016.
A Different
Court Next Time
April 2017
In 2015 when Obergefell v. Hodges was decided, three out of the five Justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage were in their 80’s and a third 79 years old not in the best of health.
It is widely believed at the time these Justices would be replaced with others considered to be conservative.
UPDATE
September 10, 2021
On April 10, 2017, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch replaced Justice Scalia who had passed away.
On October 6, 2018, Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Justice Kennedy who retired.
On October 27, 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had passed away.
__________
All three of the newest and
by far youngest
United States Supreme Court Justices
were appointed by
President Donald J. Trump
and confirmed by the U. S. Senate.
__________
Currently
COLORADO
The Colorado Baker Cases
November 9, 2018
Revised January 6, 2020
Probably the most familiar case putting a business and its owner up against religious beliefs verses same-sex marriage, Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission; commonly referred to as the Colorado baker case. [1]
Jack C. Phillips is owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, a Denver suburb in Colorado. He is also a baker at the store.
FIRST CASE
In the summer of 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop they said to seek a cake for their same-sex marriage. After being sat down at the "consulting table" to discuss with Jack the cakes creation and design:
“They introduced themselves as ‘David’ and ‘Charlie’ and said that they wanted a wedding cake for ‘our wedding.’ Jack informed [them] that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Jack told the men, ‘I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’” [2]
Jack repeatedly has said that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs; that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would go against God to create cakes for same-sex marriages.
The gay couple received a free rainbow-themed custom cake from another local business and married in September 2012, in Massachusetts. At the time Colorado law did not recognize same-sex marriage, and did not for another three years following Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. [3], [4], [5], [6]
Following the couple being married, in May 2013 a formal complaint was filed with the Office of Administrative Courts “alleging that [Jack] discriminated against the [gay couple] in a place of public accommodation due to sexual orientation, in violation of § 24-34-601(2), C.R.S.”
In response, Jack did not dispute that he refused to sell the couple a cake for their same-sex wedding, but maintained that the “refusal was based solely upon a deeply held religious conviction that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and was not due to bias against [the couple’s] sexual orientation.” [7]
Eventually, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court on two legal questions: "Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
The Supreme Court in June 2018, in a 7-2 decision, held that the Free Exercise Clause requires governmental neutrality when adjudicating disputes involving free exercise claims. The Court then identified statements made by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during the hearings indicating hostility towards the Jack's religious beliefs. [8]
Accordingly, the Court concluded that "the Commission's treatment of Jack’s case violated the State's duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint." The Commission was "obligated under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips' religious beliefs." [9]
SECOND CASE
On the same day which the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would review Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in June 2017, Jack received a call from attorney Autumn Scardina requesting that Jack make for him a custom cake for his gender transition celebration. Similar calls followed in the weeks and months to come, with requests for cakes featuring sexually explicit messages, marijuana, Satan, sex toys, and more.
Jack declined each of these requests, which he believes came exclusively from Scardina, who then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) for discrimination on the basis of gender identity. [10]
However, this time Jack went on the offensive and filed his own lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, against the Director and all members of the CCRC, the Colorado Attorney General and Colorado Governor, raising a list of Constitutional violations. [11]
Following the court’s Order denying a motion to dismiss Jack’s lawsuit, the defendants in that case dropped the complaint filed by attorney Scardina in exchange for Jack dismissing his lawsuit. [12], [13]
THIRD CASE
In response to the above dismissals, attorney Scardina filed in Colorado state court a third action against Jack. This lawsuit claims that Jack discriminated against Scardina and used deceptive and unfair trade practices. [14]
UPDATE
March 4, 2021
On March 4, 2021, the Denver District Court Judge issued its Order to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, stating “Plaintiff has failed to establish an actionable unfair or deceptive trade practice. Accordingly, summary judgment enters in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s [Colorado Consumer Protection Act] claim.”
However, the case will proceed with regards to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, stating “Defendants have not shown that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff cannot prove discrimination because of her transgender status.” [15]
UPDATE
June 18, 2021
As many expected would happen, the Colorado lower court ruled against Jack in the discrimination issue. [16]
An appeal has been filed. If the Colorado Supreme grants review, it would give the justices a chance to settle the dispute between public accommodation laws and First Amendment rights. Either way this case could very possibly find its way into federal court, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, may anticipate.
UPDATE
October 8, 2024
The Colorado Supreme Court on October 8, 2024, dismissed the latest lawsuit against Jack Phillips. [17] With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) lawyers Jack has won each and every one of these cases.
______________________________
[1] See, Complaint, Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, U.S. District Court Case 1:18-cv-02074, at www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopComplaint.pdf.
[2] See, Colorado Office of Administrative Courts, Initial Decision…, CR 2013-0008, at www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf.
[3] See, “Wedding Cakes v. Religious Beliefs,” Supreme Court Blog, at www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/wedding-cakes-v-religious-beliefs-plain-english/.
[4] See, “Timeline: Masterpiece Cakeshop, LGBT Rights and the Courts,” The Denver Post, Updated August 15, 2018, at www.denverpost.com/2018/06/04/masterpiece-cakeshop-timeline/.
[5] See, footnote 2, Colo. Const. art. II, § 31 (“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state”); § 14-2-104(1), C.R.S. (“[A] marriage is valid in this state if: . . . It is only between one man and one woman.”).
[6] See, Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14–556, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf.
[7] See, footnote 2.
[8] See, Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
[9] Id.
[10] See, “Colorado Targets Jack Phillips Again For Refusing To Make a 'Gender Transition' Cake,” MRC TV, August 15, 2018, at www.mrctv.org/blog/colorado-continues-target-same-christian-baker-so-he-files-lawsuit.
[11] See, Complaint, Masterpiece et al v. Aubrey Elenis, et al, U.S. District Court Case 1:18-cv-02074, at www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopComplaint.pdf.
[12] See, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Elenis, Docket, at http://files.eqcf.org/cases/d-colo-118-cv-02074-docket/.
[13] See, “Jack Wins Again” [video], ADF, at www.facebook.com/AllianceDefendingFreedom/videos/602728863581692/?notif_id=1551815099881759¬if_t=live_video.
[14] See, Complaint, Autumn Scardina v. Jack Phillips, No. 2019CV32214, at www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ScardinaMasterpiece-COMPLAINT.pdf.
[15] See, ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, at https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/MasterpieceScardinaDecision.pdf.
[16] See, RULING of the Colorado lower court, at https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/MasterpieceScardinaFOF-COL.pdf.
[17] See DECISION of the Colorado Supreme Court, at https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/MasterpieceColoradoSupremeCourtRuling.pdf.
Done
COLORADO
Web Designer Challenges Being Forced to
Promote Same-Sex Marriage
September 2021
Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer in the Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado, who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.
However, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) requires Lorie to create custom websites celebrating same-sex marriage and prohibits her statement, even though in response to the lawsuit Colorado stipulates that she works with all people regardless of sexual orientation.
Lori challenged the CADA which would require her to use her artist creativity to communicate ideas and messages that she does not agree with, including those on marriage.
UPDATE
December 13, 2022
At issue was whether Colorado could enforce a statute compelling a website designer for weddings (or others in similar situations), whose religious beliefs are that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, to create expressive designs for a couple entering a same-sex union.
The court 6-3 held that "the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."
Lorie Smith, the founder and owner of 303 Creative, had challenged the same Colorado anti-discrimination law at issue in the 2018 highly publicized decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that Colorado violated a baker’s (Jack Phillips’) First Amendment rights when it did not exercise religious neutrality in determining the baker must design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. [3]
Although the outcome of Lorie’s case impacted her right to the free exercise of her faith, it is important to keep in mind that religious freedom was not per se at the center of the controversy, as it focused on the right to non-compelled speech or expression as an artist.
The freedom to create consistent with your own personal beliefs and artistic choices; that government cannot prohibit or punish a person for their speech or expression, nor for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.
It is also important to note as in Jack’s case, also in Lorie’s case the record was clear that she was "willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as sexual orientation."
Jack and Lorie do not question same sex couples’ right to live out their beliefs, but merely ask for the same freedom to live out their own religious beliefs.
This court decision allows that.
_____________________________
[1] See, Opinion of the Court (Decision), 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, No. 21–476, cited as 600 U. S. ___ (2023), at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf.
[2] See also, "303 Creative: SCOTUS Rules First Amendment Protects Colorado Website Designer from Creating ‘Expressive’ Wedding Websites for Same-Sex Couples," The National law Review, July 24, 2023, Vol. 13, No. 205, at www.natlawreview.com/article/303-creative-scotus-rules-first-amendment-protects-colorado-website-designer.
[3] See, Opinion of the Court (Decision), Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16–111, cited as U. S. ___ (2018), at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
Done
ARIZONA
City of Phoenix Says No To Art Studio:
Christians Must Promote Same-Sex Marriage
October 26, 2017
Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski are the owners of Brush & Nib Studio in Phoenix, Arizona. They believe that God called and equipped them to be artists, that they must glorify God with their artistic talents and artwork, and that they cannot do anything in their art business that violates their religious beliefs or dishonors God.
In that spirit Joanna and Breanna wanted to include on their website for Brush & Nib Studio a statement informing prospective customers of the religious inspiration behind their art, their religious beliefs about art and marriage, and how their beliefs impact the artwork they create and their artistic message.
Also in their statement they wanted it to read that they cannot "create any artwork that violates their vision as defined by their religious and artistic beliefs and identity,” such as art “that demeans others, endorses racism, incites violence, contradicts their Christian faith, or promotes any marriage except marriage between one man and one woman," such as same-sex marriage.
However, city ordinance § 18-4(B), as city officials pointed out, demanded that Joanna and Breanna instead use their artistic talents to promote same-sex wedding ceremonies and also forbid them from publicly communicating the Christian beliefs that require them to create art celebrating only marriages between one man and one woman.
Ironically, while city officials took extra issue with that part of the statement which read "[w]e believe that God created marriage as a life-long union exclusively for one man and one woman"; city officials also acknowledged that businesses were permitted to publish their beliefs supporting same-sex marriage.
Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit (Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix) on behalf Joanna and Breanna in May 2016, based on the First Amendment and other laws violated. The case is pretty simple in that no American, including artists, should have the government force them to create art against their artistic and religious beliefs.
Both the Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CV 2016-052251) and the Arizona Court of Appeals (Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0602) refused to side with Joanna and Breanna. Their case is again being appealed.
______________________________
See e.g., www.adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/brush-nib-studio-v.-city-of-phoenix
See e.g., https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2017/10/26/artists-to-appeal-decision-that-allows-phoenix-to-control-artistic-expression/
See e.g., www.freedomforallamericans.org/60-businesses-and-organizations-in-arizona-file-brief-supporting-phoenix
UPDATE
September 16, 2019
Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Phoenix's Brush & Nib Studio, no longer have to make custom wedding invitations for same-sex couples, Arizona’s top court ruled today.
Today in a 4-3 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court declared that the Phoenix nondiscrimination ordinance is in violation of the constitution. It further declared that Brush & Nib Studio is not required under the Phoenix ordinance to design same-sex wedding invitations. [1]
The court explained, "The rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person's home or church, or private conversations with like-minded friends and family. These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their beliefs in public. This includes the right to create and sell words, paintings, and art that express a person's sincere religious beliefs.
"The City of Phoenix cannot apply its Human Relations Ordinance to force Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studios, to create custom wedding invitations celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib have the right to refuse to express such messages under Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act.”
In other words, the ordinance giving special protection rights to LGBT cannot be used to force artists to create custom wedding invitations for same-sex couples and business owners have the right to choose who they do business with.
“‘Today freedom won,’ ADF Attorney Jonathan Scruggs said. ‘A government that can crush Joanna and Breanna can crush us all.’ Scruggs noted that they're watching similar cases in other parts of the country, and hoping the issue will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
______________________________
See e.g., Arizona Supreme Court ruling, www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2019/Brush%20and%20Nib%20Filed.pdf.
See e.g., Alliance Defending freedom (ADF) article, www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2019/09/16/huge-win-for-brush-nib-studio!-arizona-supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-two-phoenix-artists?fbclid=IwAR1thvCYVJG78tKGXWICEtN8lcgLRQJRl-dyTRHDCpV0TQQZw2YqWNggHvs.
See e.g., Phoenix Times article, www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-court-allows-business-to-refuse-lgbt-customers-11359414.
Done
UTAH
Amendment to Polygamy Laws
July 9, 2017
When one thinks of polygamy relationships, they may in the same thought think Utah or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Actually, the Mormons, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are commonly referred to, in 1890 officially abandoned the practice of polygamy relationships or marriages. But that has not stopped it. Today there are 30,000 polygamists in Utah.
Ironically, polygamy laws in Utah are the strictest of all states because they bar married people from living with a second purported “spiritual spouse” even if the man is legally married to just one woman.
In February 2017 the laws on polygamy in Utah got even stricter or at least the punishment did. The amendment to the already existing laws provide for harsher punishments, if those convicted of the crime of polygamy are also convicted of other crimes such as domestic abuse or fraud.
Even with the new harsher punishment, however, Utah’s Attorney General said the amendment does not change its long-standing policy that they will not go after otherwise law-abiding polygamists.
In the mean time, supporters of polygamy are steadfast on they will continue fighting for a change, arguing that for the same reasons that same-sex marriage is now legal across the country, so should polygamy be legal.
As supporters of polygamy continue their fight, supporters of incestuous marriages wait for their progress saying that a victory for polygamy is another victory for them.
______________________________
See also "Opposition" page, The Door Same-Sex Marriage Opened article.
See e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/news/utah-gov-signs-law-aimed-at-polygamy/
See e.g., http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sister-wives-protest-in-salt-lake-city-utah-to-be-polygamous/news-story/b9cf9157aab4398f36814bd18f627c2b
UPDATE
May 13, 2020
Effective May 5, 2021, in Utah the punishment for polygamy in some cases is an infraction similar to a traffic summons instead of a felony punishable by a prison term.
Under the new law, a married person can now take additional spouses at the same time and not be subjected to felony charges, as long as the new spouse entered into the union voluntarily. The infraction can be a fine up to $750 and/or community service.
However, a polygamous marriage if it was made by threats, fraud or force, or involves abuse, is still a felony carrying a prison term of up to 15 years.
______________________________
See, Bigamy Amendments, Bill SB 102, at SB0102 (utah.gov); or for easier reading at C76-7-S101_2021050520210505.pdf (utah.gov).
Done
WISCONSIN
Photographer Can Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Photos
August 1, 2017
A photographer can reject job requests based on religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, says a Wisconsin county court and government officials.
Amy Lynn Lawson, owner of Amy Lynn Photography Studio in Madison, Wisconsin,
filed what is known as a "pre-enforcement challenge" lawsuit against the City of Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.
Ms. Lawson, who works out of her home, claimed that the city’s public accommodations ordinance and the state’s public accommodations law prohibit her from conducting her business, according to the dictates of her conscience and beliefs. Ms. Lawson argued the ordinance and law even force her to use her creative expression in support of activities she does not agree with, which includes same-sex marriage.
On August 1, 2017, Judge Richard Niess of the Dane County Circuit Court agreed and said in the coming weeks he would sign an order declaring that Ms. Lawson and her home-based business are not subject to the city’s public accommodations ordinance or the state’s public accommodations law. Both the state and the city agreed to this resolution.
______________________________
See e.g., www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10189
Done
NORTH CAROLINA
Dismissed: Lawsuit Challenging Law Magistrates
Not Required to Perform Same-Sex Marriages
June 28, 2017
On June 28, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in a 3-0 ruling dismissed a lawsuit angering same-sex couples.
The lawsuit was filed against North Carolina’s bill SB2, also known as the Marriage Recusal law. The law specifically gives magistrates the right to refuse to perform same-sex marriages if doing so would violate “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Clerks also have the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses under this law.
Any magistrate who files a refusal under this law, however, cannot perform any marriages for six months afterward. Also, the law requires counties to make other magistrates or staffers available to handle marriage licenses and same-sex weddings in the event of recusals.
The three judge panel from the 4th Circuit unanimously dismissed the couples’ lawsuit, saying that SB2 clearly had not hurt their ability to get married, and for that reason stated that the defendants did not have standing for the lawsuit.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, for the Court, wrote: “At the heart of this lawsuit is a debate over the extent to which religious accommodations can coexist with the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
______________________________
See e.g., www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politicsgovernment/article158591679.html
Done
UNITED STATES
Effectively the Legal Right to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
October 6,, 2017
See on this website Opposition page, "Effectively the Legal Right to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage" article, and much more.
Done
WASHINGTON
Florist Sued after Declining Flower Arrangement for
Same-Sex Marriage
November 8, 2018
Revised December 30, 2019
It is a case many are well familiar with. Barronelle Stutzman who has been a florist for more than 30 years is sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. She has served and employed people who identify as LGBT for her entire career.
One such customer and longtime friend of hers, Rob Ingersoll one day asked her to create a flower arrangement for his upcoming marriage to another man. In her own words as read in The Seattle Times, Barronelle acknowledged that she “knew he was in a relationship with a man and he knew [she] was a Christian. But that never clouded the friendship for either of [them] until he asked [her] to design something special to celebrate his upcoming wedding.”
She declined his request because of her religious faith and the two of them talked about it. Rob assured her that he understood. She then suggested three others nearby florists who would be willing to do the flower arrangement for him. Barronelle felt that they parted as friends still.
Word of what happened got out via social media resulting in the Washington State attorney general deciding to take matters into his own hands and sued her. On top of that, Rob who she had been friends with for all those years and his partner, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), also sued her.
Eventually the two cases were consolidated. Each of the Washington state court’s hearing the case decided against Barronelle. In July 2017, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) representing Barronelle petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case.
On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Washington Supreme Court, after vacating that court’s decision and instructing it to reconsider her lawsuit in light of the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington, Supreme Court No. 17-108.
______________________________
The Seattle Times
www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-108.html
ADF Article
U.S. Supreme Court Docket
www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arlenes-flowers-inc-v-washington/
Washington State Court Docket
www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-108.html
UPDATE
June 6, 2019
On June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court ruled its state courts did not act with religious animus when they ruled that Arlene's Flowers broke the state's anti-discrimination law by declining on religious grounds to create flower arrangements for a same-sex marriage. It will again be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
____________________________
Court Ruling
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/916152.pdf.
UPDATE
June 2, 2021
On June 2, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review to Barronelle Stutzman.
__________________________
Court Docket
www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-333.html (see also, “Supreme Court declines to hear case of flower shop owner sued for not serving gay wedding,” Fox News, June 2, 2021, at www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-declines-flower-shop-owner-serve-gay-wedding).
UPDATE
November 18, 2021
On November 18, 2021, a settlement was signed ending the Washington state florist’s legal battle with state authorities and the American Civil Liberties Union (representing the gay couple), giving $5,000 to the ACLU clients.
__________________________
See, "Settlement Agreement and Release," signed by parties, at https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/ArlenesFlowersSettlementAgreement.pdf
See e.g., "An Unlikely Defender of Religious Liberty Passes the Torch," World News Group, November 18, 2021, at https://wng.org/roundups/an-unlikely-defender-of-religious-liberty-passes-the-torch-1637277247; and "Passing the Baton in the Battle for Religious Freedom," World News Group, November 19, 2021, at https://wng.org/opinions/passing-the-baton-in-the-battle-for-religious-freedom-1637322725?fbclid=IwAR2l2RNSZfUDj48Ap9PGvVePMeaxKCfK7s5ftisTb-_dGYOms6pa9D9iL9w.
Currently
SEEN HERE
Revised September 10, 2021
-
The Colorado Baker Cases
-
Web Designer Challenges Being Forced to Promote Same-Sex Marriage
-
Respect for Marriage Act of 2022
-
Gallup Poll Same-Sex Marriage
-
University of Idaho Prohibits Students Talking About Marriage According to the Bible.
-
Florist Sued after Declining Flower Arrangement for Same-Sex Marriage
-
City Punished Farmer Who Denied Same-Sex Wedding on His Private Property
-
Free Speech Fairness Act Reversing the Johnson Amendment
-
City of Phoenix Says No To Art Studio: Christians Must Promote Same-Sex Marriage
-
Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act
-
The Bakersfield's Bakery Case
-
Effectively the Legal Right to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
-
Amendment to Polygamy Laws
-
Bills Affecting Same-Sex Marriage
-
Photographer Can Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Photos
-
Same-Sex Marriage License Obstacle
-
Dismissed: Lawsuit Challenging Law Magistrates Not Required to Perform Same-Sex Marriages
-
Article Blocked and Removed by Facebook: “When the State Chooses Not to See Freedom of Religion”
Done
Respect for Marriage Act of 2022
December 13, 2022
On December 13, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the "Respect for Marriage Act" protecting the federal right to same-gender marriage, which is often referred to as same-sex marriage. [1], [2]
"This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.
"Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)
"The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
"The act does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals." [3]
Republicans argued that the bill was an unnecessary overreach that addressed a nonexistent threat; especially concerning interracial marriage which has not been under any threat whatsoever. However, a Democrat controlled House and Senator passed the bill, the signed Democrat, President Joe Biden.
______________________________
[1] See, "Bill Signed: H.R. 8404,"
White House Press Release, December 13, 2022, at www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/legislation/2022/12/13/press-release-bill-signed-h-r-8404/.
[2] See, "Bill: H.R.8404, Respect for Marriage Act," U.S. Congress, 2022, at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr8404enr/pdf/BILLS-117hr8404enr.pdf.
[3] See, "Bill: H.R.8404, Respect for Marriage Act," Congress.gov, December 13, 2022, at www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404.
Update
Gallup Poll
Same-Sex Marriage
June 5, 2023
A recent Gallup Poll survey of 1,011 adults was conducted May 1-24, 2023, via landline and cellphone, with results indicating:
Support for same-sex marriage is 71% among Americans. Gallup reports Republicans now down from 55% to 49% support such marriages.
Some have expressed a concern how the question was worded: "Do you think that marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional couples?"
Professional pollsters know how a question is asked is vital; how it is asked can steer a person to a preferred answer. The point being, as all of us might agree, is how many responded to the second part of the question – rather than being asked outright whether they believe same-sex marriage should be legal. In this case a two-part question might have resulted in a different and more accurate response.
See, https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx
NOTE: Gallup is believed by many to structure polling in favor of liberal views, and frequently accused of inaccurate results. In July 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Gallup agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle a case that it violated the False Claims Act and the Procurement Integrity Act. That same year the accuracy of Gallup polling on religious faith was also seriously questioned.
Also concerning is the possible bias, considering who yearly conducts this poll for Gallup, 33 year-old Justin McCarthy, democrat and arguably a LGBT sympathizer who lives in Washington, D.C., and previously a Confidential Aide to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Done
IDAHO
University of Idaho
Prohibits Mentioning Marriage According to Bible
January 24, 2023
A lawsuit was filed April 25, 2022, against the University of Idaho for telling a Christian group they were not allowed to discussion "marriage" according to the Bible. [1]
What led to the lawsuit three students who were members of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter at the University of Idaho, were at a community event on April 1, 2022, to condemn the use of an LGBT slur, when another student asked them why the CLS required its officers to affirm that marriage is between a man and woman. One of the CLS members answered that the chapter "requires this because it is the only view of marriage and sexuality affirmed in the Bible."
In the days following the event, other students and professors began mischaracterizing the CLS members’ beliefs. Some students even staged walkouts from one of the Professor’s classes who agreed with CLS.
The three CLS student members then received "no-contact" orders from the University’s Office of Civil Rights and Investigations, prohibiting them from communicating with the student who asked the question. A similar order was given to the Professor whose class the students had staged the walkout.
On June 30, 2022, the U.S. District Court ruled that the plaintiffs (three students and professor) were likely to prevail on their claims against University of Idaho officials. The court granted a motion to stop the university from enforcing the orders against the students while their lawsuit proceeded. [2], [3]
Following the court’s ruling, University of Idaho officials agreed to a settlement in which they permanently rescinded the no-contact orders against the named Plaintiffs. In addition, the university paid $90,000.
____________________________
[1] See, "Verified Complaint," Peter Perlot, et al. v. C. Scott Green, et al., USDC No. 3:22-cv-00183-DCN, at https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/PerlotComplaint.pdf.
[2] See, "Memorandum Decision and Order," Peter Perlot, et al. v. C. Scott Green, et al., USDC No. 3:22-cv-00183-DCN, at https://adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Perlot-v-Green-2022-06-30-MPI-order.pdf.
[3] See, "University Tried to Censor Christian Students," Alliance Defending Freedom, January 24, 2023, at https://adflegal.org/article/university-tried-censor-christian-students.
Done
MICHIGAN
City Punished Farmer Who Denied
Same-Sex Wedding on His Private Property
March 12, 2018
Revised January 6, 2020
The case being talked about here, Country Mill Farms and Stephen Tennes v. City of East Lansing, started in 2014 when someone posted on Country Mill Farms’ Facebook page, asking whether they would host a same-sex wedding; followed with the response they would prefer not to, due to the family’s religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. [1]
Country Mill Farms is a 120-acre apple orchard farm in Charlotte, Michigan, owned and operated by the Tennes family.
At some point the City of East Lansing some 22 miles away became aware of the Facebook post and response, which had nothing to do with East Lansing or the Farmer’s Market; the latter being a venue in which farmers bring their fruits and vegetables for sale.
Even though the Tennes family for years had been granted a vendor permit to sell their apples at the market, city officials in 2016 at first asked Country Mill Farms to stop selling in the city’s market which the family continued to do.
Then in 2017 the city officials denied Country Mill Farms' vendors application, citing a newly amended vendors policy. The policy included a new stipulation stating vendors must comply with the city's nondiscrimination civil rights ordinances both at the market and as "a general business practice."
With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), in May 2017 a complaint on behalf of the Tennes family was filed in federal court against the City of Lansing stating its new policy, among other things, "violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as state law that prohibits Michigan cities from regulating activities outside city boundaries." [2]
A motion for preliminary injunction was also filed, to which the court issued a lengthy Opinion and Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction, stating that the complaint and motion established a substantial likelihood that the city’s decision violated rights raised in the complaint. [3], [4]
Both parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Also, while this lawsuit was going through its proceedings the City of East Lansing changed some of the wording and enforcement of its ordinance which it had relied on.
On December 18, 2019, the federal court issued its Opinion and Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. [5]
The court ruled that the city ordinance used to ban Country Mill Farms from vending at the local market was unconstitutional at the time of its adoption.
Other issues raised in this case are headed to trial.
_____________________________
[1] See, Complaint, at www.courtlistener.com/docket/6076763/1/country-mill-farms-llc-v-east-lansing-city-of/ .
[2] Id.
[3] See, Court Docket at www.courtlistener.com/docket/6076763/country-mill-farms-llc-v-east-lansing-city-of/.
[4] See, Preliminary Injunction at www.adfmedia.org/files/CountryMillFarmsPI.pdf.
[5] See, Opinion and Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Cross Motions for Summary Judgment at www.adfmedia.org/files/CountryMillFarmsDistrictCourtDecision.pdf.
UPDATE
August 21, 2023
On August 21, 2023, the Federal District Court concluded Country Mill Farms/Stephen Tennes and family were entitled to judgment on their claim for violation of the Free Exercise Clause based on individualized assessments, doing so in the court’s detailed Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Rule 52© Motion.
UPDATE
December 15, 2023
On December 15, 2023, the U.S. District Court signed the final judgment and permanent injunction. Under the agreement, the city will pay Tennes $41,199 in damages. His attorney, ADF will receive $783,801 for representing Tennes in court.
The injunction reads: "The City of East Lansing may enforce the Vendor Guidelines against Country Mill Farms, but with the exception that Country Mill Farms may not be found in violation of the Guidelines for declining to host same-sex wedding ceremonies at Country Mill Farms."
______________________________
[1] See, Court Docket at www.courtlistener.com/docket/6076763/country-mill-farms-llc-v-east-lansing-city-of/; Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Rule 52© Motion, dated August 21, 2023, at www.courtlistener.com/docket/6076763/149/country-mill-farms-llc-v-east-lansing-city-of/.
[2] See, Order, at https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/CountryMillFarmsFinalJudgmentOrder.pdf.
Done
CALIFORNIA
The Bakersfield's Bakery Case
February 8, 2018
In a religion verses same-sex marriage case, Kern County Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe ruled against the State of California, which took legal action against Cathy Miller for her refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.
Cathy Miller of Tastiest Bakery in Bakersfield, California, for religious reasons refused to create a cake for a same-sex couple — stating she could not create a cake for the couple’s wedding because same-sex marriage clashed with her Christian faith. She instead referred them to another bakery.
Judge Lampe ruled in Cathy’s favor, saying her actions were protected by the First Amendment, because making a cake can be considered an act of artistic expression.
The ruling allows Miller to continue denying wedding cakes to same-sex couples until the case returns to court in June, 2018.
______________________________
See e.g., www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/08/california-court-allows-baker-to-refuse-to-bake-cake-for-lesbian-wedding
See e.g., https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/bakersfield.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/4f/b4fb4e8c-0b57-11e8-8a36-9b658b7eb697/5a79d28c1e6fc.pdf.pdf
See e.g., www.nbcnews.com/video/california-judge-sides-with-tastries-bakery-in-discrimination-case-1154756675634
See e.g., www.therip.com/news/2018/02/25/tastries-bakery-wins-court-case/
UPDATE
June 14, 2018
This case ended in favor of Tastries Bakery.
After the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop, lawyers in this case issued a statement reading:
“We are pleased the Supreme Court has recognized the long held principle that government cannot show hostility to citizens who live and work according to their most deeply held religious beliefs. As we argued in our defense of Cathy, people of faith should not be persecuted for refusing to use their artistic talents to promote messages that violate their conscience. Cathy loves to serve all people at her bakery, including LGBT persons, but she will not compromise her unwavering belief in God’s design for marriage.
"The Supreme Court ruled that lower courts must balance the rights of religious persons and LGBT persons, and we are confident that on balance Cathy properly exercised her rights by respectfully offering to connect the LGBT couple that came into her shop with a rival baker who would gladly make their wedding cake. The only thing the couple was not offered was the right to force Cathy to violate her religious beliefs—that is not a right to which they are entitled."
Following that statement on June 14, 2018, California dropped its appeal to this case. California Kern County Docket No. BCV-17-102855 (Abandonment of Appeal).
______________
See e.g., Court Docket/Info
https://odyprodportal.kern.courts.ca.gov/PORTALPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0
See e.g., Eyewitness News, FOX 54
UPDATE
October 21, 2022
California court again sides with the baker, Cathy Miller, on October 21, 2022.
__________________
See, Press Release, at https://thomasmoresociety.org/california-court-delivers-victory-for-cake-artist-targeted-for-religious-discrimination/.
See, Decision, at https://s4f4x7d5.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BCV-18-102633-Decision.pdf.
Notice
Article Blocked and
Removed by Facebook
September 17, 2020
There are two Facebook accounts (Facebook pages) assorted with and a part of the Institute of Marriage Research & Studies. The below article was posted late yesterday September 16th on one account and September 17th of the other account. Today, September 17, 2020, Facebook blocked and removed the article from both accounts.
The article relates to the Florist in Richland, Barronelle Stutzman, Washington, also covered above on this page.
___________________________
WHEN THE STATE CHOOSES NOT
TO SEE FREEDOM OF RELIGION
THE BLATANT discrimination against Christians by city and state officials is often left out of the story. In none is that more true than in Barronelle Stutzman’s case; the Washington florist who was sued by the state attorney general, after she turned down a friend’s request to make a flower arrangement for his same-sex wedding.
Left out of that story is the Seattle coffee shop owner who, after discovering some of the patrons in his coffee shop were Christians, began yelling profanity at them (much of it sexual and making references to Jesus) and saying for them to leave.
Yet, the same attorney general who sued Barronelle apparently saw nothing wrong in that.
We will get back to talking about the coffee shop incident in a moment, but first a quick update on Barronelle’s case.
Barronelle who has been a florist for more than to date 47 years is sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. She has served and employed people who identify as LGBT for her entire career.
One such customer and longtime friend of hers, Rob Ingersoll, one day asked her to create a flower arrangement for his upcoming marriage to another man. "I knew he was in a relationship with a man and he knew I was a Christian. But that never clouded the friendship for either of us or threatened our shared creativity — until he asked me to design something special to celebrate his upcoming wedding," Barronelle told The Seattle Times newspaper. [1]
Barronelle declined the friend’s request because of her religious faith and the two of them talked about it. Rob assured her that he understood. She then suggested three other nearby florists who would be willing to do the flower arrangement for him. Barronelle felt that they parted as friends still.
Word of what happened got out via social media, particularly on Facebook, eventually reaching Washington State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson. Taking matters into his own hands, AG Ferguson then sued Barronelle for violation of the state’s discrimination law.
Shortly thereafter the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also got word of what happened and after some persuasion, the ACLU convinced Rob and his partner to let them bring an additional case against Barronelle on their behalf. Eventually the two cases were consolidated. [2]
The incident between Barronelle and Rob took place in 2013; less than a year after AG Ferguson, a democrat, was elected into office and re-elected in 2016.
Shortly after he was re-elected there was another incident in a Seattle coffee shop – Bedlam Coffee in the Belltown area downtown Seattle, near the world famous Pike Market. As reported by one news source:
"It turns out those who vehemently demand Christians be tolerant of their views and lifestyles, and force Christians to perform services under threat of legal retaliation are — and I can’t believe I’m writing this — intolerant of Christians, and refuse to provide services for them." [3]
What happened is the Christian group "Abolish Human Abortion" entered the coffee shop and ordered drinks after a big part of the day handing out pro-life pamphlets, which depicted the horrors of abortion. The owner, Ben Borgman, verbally attacked the group after one of his baristas identified them.
"I’m gay. You have to leave" To which it was then asked by the group, "Are you denying us service?" The owner said, "I am. Yeah," This was after the group was identified as Christians.
"So you’re not willing to tolerate our presence?" Jonathan Sutherland, a member of the group asked. "Will you tolerate my presence?" the coffee shop owner responded.
Jonathan assured him they would. "We’re actually "in your coffee shop," he said. "Really?" the owner demanded. "If I go get my boyfriend and fuck him in the ass right here you’re going to tolerate that?" "That would be your choice," Jonathan answered.
But the owner would not be persuaded. "Are you going to tolerate it?" he asked again. "Answer my fucking question! No, you’re going to sit right here and fucking watch it!"
"Well, we don’t want to watch that," said Caleb Head, another member of the group.
"Well than I don’t have to fucking tolerate this!" the owner said. "Leave! All of you. Tell all your fucking friends, don’t fucking come here."
The group agreed to leave but not without another member, Caytie Davis, taking the opportunity as they left to share the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. "Just know that Christ can save you from that lifestyle," she said.
"Yeah, I like ass," the owner responded. "I’m not going to be saved by anything. I’d fuck Christ in the ass. Ok? He’s hot." [4]
As the owner was yelling at the group and telling them to leave, he was waving one of their leaflets (or flyer) which identified them as a Christian group. [5]
A video of the incident quickly circulated on the internet, but at the same time in many places has since been removed by Facebook and YouTube – though it can still be found. [6]
The "Dori Monson Show" on a local radio station interviewed Jonathan Sutherland and the following day the coffee shop owner. The coffee shop owner while not denying the incident – how could he, it was caught on video – did deny that being Christians had nothing to do with them being kicked out of his coffee shop. [7]
Later, Dori Monson would say he wondered whether the coffee shop incident would "get the same attention as that of a florist in Richland who refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding."
He also wanted to know if AG Ferguson would be as quick to take the coffee shop case, if there was one, as he was with the case against the florist. Otherwise, "it shows a double-standard and an example of how the highest legal office in the state is only going to use its power against groups the AG’s office disagrees with on a social level." [8]
Another local radio station among others tried to reach AG Ferguson for comment on how the coffee shop incident compared to the florist incident – to no avail. [9]
Barronelle’s case has been through all the levels of Washington state courts, deciding against her in each court, and to the U.S. Supreme Court which sent the case back to the Washington Supreme Court, after vacating that court’s decision and instructing it to reconsider the lawsuit in light of the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
To no surprise the Washington Supreme Court again decided against Barronelle. A second appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is pending. [10]
Washington state statute RCW 49.60.010, better known as the "Washington Law Against Discrimination," reads in pertinent part:
"A state agency is herein created with powers with respect to elimination and prevention of discrimination in employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement, and in real property transactions because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and the commission established hereunder is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes."
Barronelle Stutzman, Jack Phillips and others in their situation do not question same sex couples’ right to live out their beliefs – but merely ask for the same freedom to live out their own religious beliefs. While the above statute does not mention freedom of religion, we know ourselves that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees us that freedom.
The freedom to live according to God’s Word, and as Christians we are not to make it easier for someone to sin. To enable sin is the same as indirectly taking part in that sin; we are not to participate in the sins of others. 1 Tim. 5:22.
Jesus tells us stealing is wrong, so we are not to enable theft. Similarly, we are not to make easier homosexuality or even same-sex marriage. Participation in sin is not an option for a Christian. Romans 6:1-2; 1 John 3:9.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is defending Barronelle’s case, and in doing so is fighting for all of us – the blatant discrimination against Christians by state officials. You are encouraged to visit their Facebook page, at www.facebook.com/AllianceDefendingFreedom/?epa=SEARCH_BOX.
______________________________
[1] See, “Why a Friend is Suing Me: the Arlene’s Flowers Story,” The Seattle Times, November 12, 2015, at www.seattletimes.com/opinion/why-a-good-friend-is-suing-me-the-arlenes-flowers-story/.
[2] See, “Florist Sued after Declining Flower Arrangement for Same-Sex Marriage,” Institute of Marriage Research & Studies,” the Status page (with constant updates), at www.iomras.info.
[3] See, “Gay Coffee Shop Owner Forcibly Ejects Christian Customers for Their Beliefs,” Townhall Media/Red State, October 6, 2017, at www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2017/10/06/gay-coffee-shop-owner-refuses-serve-christians-goes-anti-christian-rant/.
[4] See, Footnote 1, citing “Christian Activists Booted from Seattle Coffee Shop: ‘I'm gay. You have to leave’”, The Washington Times, October 6, 2017, at www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/6/christian-activists-booted-from-seattle-coffee-sho/.
See also, “Gay Coffee Shop Owner Kicks Christians Out and Goes on Offensive Rant,” American Thinker, October 7, 2017, at www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/gay_coffee_shop_owner_kicks_christians_out_and_goes_on_offensive_rant.html.
[5] See e.g., (the flyer) “Is It Okay for a Gay Business Owner to Refuse to Serve Anti-Abortion Activists?” at www.newnownext.com/christian-group-gay-coffee-shop-ben-borgman/10/2017/.
[6] See e.g., (the video) “Angry Homosexual Kicks Christian Customers Out of Coffee Shop. WARNING! This video includes extremely graphic, hate-filled, blasphemous language. Watch and Share before Facebook takes it…,” Abolish Human Abortion, October 1, 2017, at www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1584181761647832. See also, “Video: Seattle Coffee Shop Owner Says Christians No Longer Welcome in Disgusting Meltdown,” America First Patriots, October 1, 2017, at https://americafirstpatriots.com/video-seattle-coffee-shop-owner-says-christians-no-longer-welcome-disgusting-meltdown/.
[7] See, (Interviews, including Audio; and video of the incident) “Christian abolitionist on his group’s removal from Bedlam Coffee in Seattle,” KIRO Radio, October 10, 2017, at https://mynorthwest.com/779194/abolitionist-bedlam-coffee/; and “Bedlam Coffee Owner: I Didn’t Kick Them Out for Being Christian,” October 11, 2017, at https://mynorthwest.com/780768/seattle-bedlam-coffee-ben-borgman/.
[8] Id. (first interview)
[9] See e.g., “Gay Business Owner in Seattle Accused of Discriminating Against Christian Customers,” KVI Radio, October 12, 2017, at http://kvi.com/news/local/gay-business-owner-in-seattle-accused-of-discriminating-against-christian-customers.
[10] See, Footnote 2.
Done
TEXAS
Same-Sex Marriage License Obstacle
May 2017
Texas Senate passed its bill (SB 522) allowing religious clerks to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and on May 9, 2017 referred to State Affairs.
Under the new bill most couples would undergo the same process. But if any clerk has "a sincerely held religious belief" that prevents them from issuing a license, they will not be made to issue the license.
Instead, counties will be required to designate a county employee to serve as the "certifying official" when nobody else is willing to issue a license. If no county employee volunteers, the commissioner’s court can contract with somebody else to do issue the license—even if issued over the phone.
Done
MISSISSIPPI
Protecting Freedom of Conscience
from Government Discrimination Act
July 6, 2017
On July 6, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in a 3-0 ruling lift the ban from a lower court that had blocked a Mississippi law titled the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.
The law now enforceable, among other things, allow government clerks to opt out of certifying same-sex marriages(though only if the marriage is not “impeded or delayed” by their decision) and allow businesses to deny wedding-related services to same-sex couples if their marriage contravened “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”
Opponents had argued aggressively that part of the law they say allows religious organizations to engage in job and housing discrimination against LGBT people; allow public school counselors to refuse to work with LGBT students; and potentially force child-welfare agencies to place LGBT children with non-same-sex parents.
Reportedly it is the broadest religious-objections law enacted by any state. It protects three beliefs: that marriage is only between a man and a woman, sex should only take place in such a marriage, and a person’s gender is determined at birth and cannot be altered.
Opponents say they will seek a full 5th Circuit Court review in hopes of again blocking the law from being enforced.
______________________________
See e.g., www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/23/mississippi-can-enforce-lgbt-religious-objections-law-court.html
UPDATE
January 8, 2018
Today, January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal by LGBT activist in Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, challenging the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" claiming its religious-liberty protection actually established an official state religion in Mississippi, violating the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
______________________________
See e.g., www.breitbart.com/…/supreme-court-begins-2018-rejecting-ca…/
See e.g., http://thehill.com/…/367891-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-c…
DONE
TENNESSEE
Bills Affecting Same-Sex Marriage
July 21, 2017
An update and replacement to the original posting April 10, 2017, pertaining to the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act.
After Tennessee lawmakers passed House Bill 1111 (also called Senate Bill 1085), Governor Bill Haslam signed the legislation into law on May 5, 2017, to take effect immediately. [1]
The new law requires that words in Tennessee laws to be interpreted as having their "natural and ordinary meaning." [2]
The new law does not explicitly cite "husband," "wife," "mother," and "father" as having natural and ordinary meanings based on the biological distinctions between men and women. However, it does state that any word undefined in state law must be used according to its "natural and ordinary meaning. The intent being undefined words mean what they meant at the time lawmakers put them into law."[3]
Some, including those in the LGBT community, see it as a way of denying same-sex couples the legal rights and protections granted to a "husband," a "wife," a "father" or "mother."
Two lesbian couples, each pregnant via artificial insemination, on May 10, 2017, filed a lawsuit. In it they claim the law interpreting words such as "mother" and "husband" in lesbian relations and marriages will interfere with nonbiological parents’ rights. [4]
Specifically, the two lesbian couples claim "a child born as a result of artificial insemination, with the consent of a married woman’s husband, is deemed to be the legitimate child of the husband and wife. Tennessee courts have interpreted the laws reference to 'husband' to include spouses of lesbians."[5]
The new law, the two lesbian couples say, "would change that interpretation and they are asking a court to give them the same protection given to male husbands." [6]
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss which the Court on July 21, 2017, granted. [7]
___________________________
[1] See, www.nashvillechanceryinfo.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=71401.
[2] See, www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HB1111.pdf.
[3] See e.g., https://apnews.com/8b2b110cb04f484c8c99b4d82032fbca.
[4] See, www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/OrdinaryTN.pdf, and www.courthousenews.com/women-challenge-tennessees-natural-ordinary-law/.
[6] Id.
[7] See, www.nashvillechanceryinfo.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=71401.
OFFICIAL SITE