Posted on 12/08/2016 9:06:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A pair of Christian artists may face several months in prison for refusing to make wedding invitations for a same-sex ceremony due to an Arizona city ordinance.
Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski of Brush & Nib Studio are appealing a court decision from a September ruling against their lawsuit, claiming that a Phoenix city ordinance violates their freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
Duka and Koski are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm that often tackles religious liberty cases.
ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner, who is representing the two artists, said in an interview last week on the Fox News program "The Kelly File" that the case "involves artistic expression."
"The issue here is whether the government can force artists to create art in violation of their convictions and this ordinance actually imposes jail time potentially on artists as well as fines," stated Waggoner.
"Six months in jail for every day Joanna and Breanna are not in compliance. We don't force artists to create artistic expression under threat of jail time."
In May, Duka and Koski filed suit against the City of Phoenix arguing that Phoenix City Code Section § 18.4(B) violates their religious freedom.
Titled "Discrimination in public accommodations," the city code section bars discrimination "in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability."
"No person shall, directly or indirectly, refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person, or aid in or incite such refusal, denial or withholding of, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person," continued the ordinance.
"It is unlawful for any owner, operator, lessee, manager, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation to directly or indirectly display, circulate, publicize or mail any advertisement, notice or communication which states or implies that any facility or service shall be refused or restricted because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability."
City Code Section § 18.4(B) did include an exemption for "bona fide religious organizations" regarding "the prohibitions concerning marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression." However, this exemption did not apply to businesses.
Filed as a "pre-enforcement civil rights lawsuit," Duka and Koski's suit argues that by not protecting for-profit like their artistic business the ordinance should be declared "unconstitutional."
"Phoenix law strips artists of their freedom to choose what to create and what to say in the marriage context," read the suit.
"These provisions also prevent Plaintiffs from explaining why they only support one-man/one- woman marriage and why they cannot create art for marriages (such as same-sex marriages) that contradict their religious beliefs about marriage."
In September, Arizona Superior Court Judge Karen A. Mullins ruled against the suit, concluding among things that the act of creating a wedding invitation for a same-sex ceremony "does not compel Plaintiffs to convey a government mandated message, such as an endorsement or pledge in favor of same-sex marriages, nor does it convey any message concerning same-sex marriage."
"It is absurd to think that the fabricator of a wedding invitation for a same-sex couple has endorsed same-sex marriage merely by creating or printing that invitation," wrote Judge Mullins.
"Moreover, there is nothing about the creative process itself, such as a flower or vine or the choice of a particular font or color, that conveys any pledge, endorsement, celebration, or other substantive mandated message by Plaintiffs in regard to same-sex marriage."
Civil rights legislation has been used to erode that right and now outright deny it.
You get insane double standards like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission rulings within a week of each other: that a Christian business had to serve homosexuals because that was their civil right, but the homosexual business owner could refuse Christian groups service because that was political speech they could refuse to engage in. But since liberals have set up a moral hierarchy where some groups have more rights/moral weight than others, they don’t see this as immoral, akin to Shariah law giving Muslims more weight in any dispute than Christians or infidels.
The 60's.
Isn’t Arizona supposed to be a “Republican” state? Isn’t the governor and both houses of its legislature controlled by the Republicans? How the Hell does this happen in Arizona????
These are state laws, not federal.
Here are your invitations in courier typeface on 20 lb. copy paper. I hope you like them.
Future cakes will include a closet in which the figures stand
There will be a lot of industrious Christians on welfare. Maybe they can combine efforts and set off a huge revival in society with millions of Christians healing and renewal groups and activities.
Thank you. Everybody everyday makes a discriminating choice on what to eat at breakfast, the clothes they will wear, the route to work, etc.
Definition of discrimination by Webster's Dictionary.
1 :
a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
Notice that 3b is the LAST definition of discrimination.
I am am prejudiced towards a 1958 Impala versus a 1958 Ford Fairlane. I am also prejudiced against asparagus versus green beans. I can do this all day long.
Discrimination and prejudice is the way of human nature. We judge, discriminate and have our prejudices (decisions) every day. It's the liberal/socialist mindset that tells us it's bad to make such distinctions. They are wrong.
so much for freedom of speech and the right to free association
welcome to progressive slavery
And then word gets around, "I heard about people who went to Duka and Koski and their work really sucked. It was absolutely terrible." Goodbye business.
Their freedom of speech hasn't been impaired, and they accept limitations on their right to free association when they request a license to do business.
“Isn’t Arizona supposed to be a “Republican” state? Isn’t the governor and both houses of its legislature controlled by the Republicans? How the Hell does this happen in Arizona????”
This is not about the State of Arizona, it is about the City of Phoenix.
And then word gets around, “I heard about people who went to Duka and Koski and their work really sucked. It was absolutely terrible.” Goodbye business.
She was told that “D” stands for “delete”. Those customers are not worth working with. You also don’t want referrals from them because they will just get you more D’s.
I see this as sort of the same thing. And the good news is that once these sexual deviants realize that if you are forced to “bake the cake”, it just may be inedible. Do they really want that to happen at their “wedding”?
Finally, no small number of people at the event will know exactly what happened and will not blame you a bit.
I wrote the same in another thread. It's going to be the ADA lawyers going around looking for some old business to sue for refusal of services.
If I am prejudiced towards someone I have the right to do so for whatever reason. The federal government has not constitutional say AT ALL and state governments have no just say.
Personal choice is a God-given right and you are not required to explain your reasons to anyone. It may get you fired, you may lose friends, and people may hate you, but no government can justly interfere with your free and private choices as long as you don’t interfere with another’s freedom.
The artists are being discriminated against because of their religion.
business is exercising your freedom of expression where the work produced by your professional talents are your expressions
a public corporation is forced to adhere to federal laws as it’s a publicly traded company.
a private corporation can do anything it wants internally as it’s not beholden to anyone. when it comes to providing its services, whether or not the business will render services to any customer walking up is up to that business.
as an example, gas stations can refuse to provide fuel if they believe the driver is intoxicated.
also, a bartender may refuse continued service if he’she believes the customer has ‘had enough’
Intoxication is not a protected class in Arizona, or any other state that I'm aware of. You can refuse to serve someone if they are drunk. You cannot refuse to serve them if they are black or Jewish or, in Arizona at least, if they are gay. Or any other class protected by state law.
This a case where one person's rights can be protected only by discrimination against a second person. And that second person's rights can be protected by denying rights to the first person. How do you prevent this from happening? I don't see how you can under current law. The only solution that I can think of is to allow a business to clearly post a sign that says they will not serve homosexuals, or blacks or Muslims or anyone else, for religious reasons or any other reason. Let everything be clear and out in the open and let the market decide.
Being Gay should not be a protected class. If people were born gay they would have found the gene by now. Lawyers in a court case said that being gay was genetic in order to claim they deserved human rights. Up to that point they had been losing in court. (Preaching to the choir, I know.)
Is the lisp also genetic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.