Posted on 10/28/2017 4:11:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A court in Arizona has rejected arguments of evangelical Christian wedding invitation designers that a Phoenix ordinance protecting discrimination against LGBT people forces them to make artwork for same-sex couples, which is against their religious beliefs and freedoms of speech and religion. The Christians plan to appeal.
Judge Karen Mullins of Maricopa County Superior Court this week ruled that the Phoenix ordinance does not violate Arizona's free speech and free exercise of religion laws, quashing an attempt by Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, to override the ordinance, AZ Central reported.
The Phoenix non-discrimination ordinance was expanded in 2013 to include sexual orientation and gender identity bias.
"The government may permissibly regulate the sale of goods and services by businesses that sell those goods and services to the general public. This is true even if the goods and services at issue involve expression or artistic creativity," the judge said in her written order.
While no same-sex couple has asked the studio for services and there's no complaint against the Christian artists, Mullins said Phoenix can prohibit the Christians from refusing to serve clients based on their sexual orientation. She said, "the printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives."
"The city considers this another victory that confirms Phoenix's non-discrimination ordinance is legal and valid," city spokeswoman Julie Watters was quoted as saying in a statement.
Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Brush & Nib Studio, plans to appeal. "People shouldn't be forced to promote views that they disagree with," ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs was quoted as saying.
In a similar case, President Donald Trump's administration this week asked the Supreme Court to allow it to argue in favor of Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips and his right to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.
Oral arguments in the Colorado case are scheduled for Dec. 5. The case concerns Phillips, a Christian baker who was found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2014 of discriminating against same-sex couple Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012 when he refused to make a cake for their wedding, citing his belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
The Trump administration has filed a brief in support of Phillips, arguing that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause protects him from Colorado's public accommodation law. It is asking for 10 minutes of argument time during the December hearing.
In Washington state, Barronelle Stutzman, also known as the "Christian grandma florist," has asked the Supreme Court to hear her appeal to reverse a court's decision earlier this year that found her guilty of discrimination for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding.
"For more than four years, Barronelle has endured the litigation in this case with unwavering grace, humility, and faith — even as she faces losing everything she owns," ADF wrote about the case earlier. "Now she will take her last stand before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to preserve her religious freedom and her right not to be forced to speak a message about marriage that violates her beliefs."
“We have all have to obey laws we don’t like.”
Actually that’s not quite true. Otherwise “separate but equal” might still be the law of the land.
Non-discrimination statues are Unconstitutional, just like 3/4’s of the current Federal Government.
Arizona has changed and Kelli Ward is not the shoo-in she would have been even 5 years ago.
That poor kid. In any decent society, he would be placed in a good home. And the “mommies” would be placed in jail.
Should they lose the case in court, and they ultimately will, then they should do this. Hire a freelancer to do the work, at the exact amount charged to the client. Then issue a press release saying they complied with the court but neither did the work nor profited by the order. State that the government can force no one to act. They can fine, and even jail a citizen to try to coerce, but ultimately the people will overcome.
This ruling makes no sense in the USA, home of the free.
Christians have to see the writing on the wall, instead of going to court find businesses/people to outsource to. Avoid the courts.
Churches will need to stop performing State marriages in the future more than likely.
The only other options is to start going after Muslim/Jewish concerns in the same way.
They are being coerced into going against Christian values.
“We have all have to obey laws we don’t like.” Couldn’t disagree more. No one has an obligation to obey an unjust law. An unjust law is no law at all. A law that forces someone to do something that violated their Christian beliefs is not a just law. Laws typical are fashioned in the negative - to prevent someone from doing that which is wrong, never to force someone to do something that someone else thinks is right.
That is the very same thing Germans folks explained to the judges at the Nuremberg Trials.
The fact of the matter is, moral people have an obligation to disobey unlawful or immoral orders.
Arizona used to have a fairly large Christian population, but nowadays, some “churches” aren’t preaching the Gospel (or are only teaching the “fun” parts). We’re not in Arizona, but it’s happening all over the country. I know someone who used to be on her (former) church’s worship team, and they were told they were going to have to stop singing songs about the blood of Jesus, because the younger folks (their target demographic) found it distasteful. One of the fastest growing churches in our area, and we’re in the “Bible Belt”.
Suppose I wanted to open a business, a floral shop, bakery, whatever, and I can’t decide whether to open it in Jonesville or Smithville. Finally I decide upon Jonesville. Do the people of Smithville have the right to sue me because I am depriving them of my services?
Or suppose, after being in business a few years in Jonesville, I decide to retire. Can the people of Jonesville now sue me, forcing me not to retire, because I would be depriving them of my services?
Obviously not. I can open a business or not open one. I can open in one town and reject another. I can shut down my business whenever I want.
Therefore, nobody has a right to my services, or the services of any other private company! If that’s not the law, then the law needs to be changed.
Seems to me private businesses reject customers for a variety of reasons. You can’t go into a fancy restaurant dressed like a slob. You can’t walk into a movie theater carrying a big bag of home-popped popcorn and a jug of sweet tea. They’ll turn you away. So why can’t these Christian companies turn away whomever they want?
Suppose I wanted to open a business, a floral shop, bakery, whatever, and I can’t decide whether to open it in Jonesville or Smithville. Finally I decide upon Jonesville. Do the people of Smithville have the right to sue me because I am depriving them of my services?
Or suppose, after being in business a few years in Jonesville, I decide to retire. Can the people of Jonesville now sue me, forcing me not to retire, because I would be depriving them of my services?
Obviously not. I can open a business or not open one. I can open in one town and reject another. I can shut down my business whenever I want.
Therefore, nobody has a right to my services, or the services of any other private company! If that’s not the law, then the law needs to be changed.
Seems to me private businesses reject customers for a variety of reasons. You can’t go into a fancy restaurant dressed like a slob. You can’t walk into a movie theater carrying a big bag of home-popped popcorn and a jug of sweet tea. They’ll turn you away. So why can’t these Christian companies turn away whomever they want?
Every American has the right to refuse service to anyone that demands that they must sin at their request.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THANK you! I know there’s no requirement that conservatives must be Christians, but I still get gob-smacked every time I see posts by conservatives who are clearly anti-Christian. I’m old enough to know better, but it never sits well with me. I would never try to force anyone to be a Christian, but I sort of thought most conservatives believe the Constitution, when it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The right to free exercise of religion obviously includes how a person practices their faith, including how they conduct a Christian-based business.
Good answer.
Freedom is delightfully messy.
Compelled labor = Slavery
No problem, if a gay couple insisted on getting wedding invitations printed by a Christian shop, charge them extra and subcontract work to somebody else.
So it's not discrimination against a category of persons. Rather, it's a choice not to enter into a contract to produce a particular product. The government has not authority to force people to contract for work they don't want to do.
Try that with, say, artist Fairey Shepard, who designed the iconic Obama "Hope" poster. Try to force him to design one just like that for Trump. See how far you'd get in a court of law.
Does a publisher have to publish all works of all writers who request publication? Or don't they get a choice of what they want to publish?
Why would it matter how you or I see it? The relevant point is how they see it.
Isn't destroying a person's right to accept or decline a particular business agreement, involuntary servitude?
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.