• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » Court may hear same-sex wedding cake religious exception case

Court may hear same-sex wedding cake religious exception case

June 9, 2017 by Michael Peabody

wedding cake - depositphotos.com

 

The high-profile issue of whether businesses can be compelled under state or local laws to provide services in violation of the religious beliefs of the owners has yet to be heard in the Supreme Court. Where state anti-discrimination laws apply, business owners who have religious objections to has participating have faced significant fines and have closed their doors. If Federal law compels religious business owners to act in violation of their faith, the Supreme Court has found that their rights are protected under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), but the Court has not issued recent rulings involving claims of state level free exercise violations.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Docket No. 16-111).  This case involves a bakery owner who refused on religious grounds to “design and create” a cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. The owner is arguing that the statute violated both his right to free speech and free exercise of religion.

There are several reasons why the Supreme Court may decide to hear this case when it declined to hear previous religious exception cases.

Masterpiece Cakeshop has been consistently framed

In 2014, the Court declined to hear a case involving a New Mexico photography studio. The highly-publicized case of Elane Photography v. Willock (Docket No. 13-585, cert. denied 4/7/2014) involved a photographer who refused on religious grounds to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. The Supreme Court of New Mexico upheld a fine against her for violating a state law that prohibits commercial businesses from discriminating against same-sex couples.

In Elane Photography, the photographer had initially argued that the state law violated her right to free exercise of religion, but when she appealed the case to the Supreme Court, she argued made a free speech argument. Although the Court did not explain its rationale in declining to hear the case, it is quite possible that the Court felt the argument was disjointed because the free speech argument that reached the Court was different from the free exercise argument raised at the lower levels.

 

Masterpiece Cakeshop does not involve a complex “substantially underinclusive” regulation

In Stormans v. Wiesman (Docket No. 15-682, cert. denied 6/28/2016), the Court in a 5-3 decision declined to hear a case involving a Washington state pharmacy that refused to stock “abortion pills” or “emergency contraceptives” as required by state law. This case presented a “substantially underinclusive” scenario in which a pharmacy could be exempted from the requirement if it did not accept a customer’s insurance or would not be paid appropriately, but not if the pharmacy owner had “religious, moral, or other personal grounds” for not providing the products. Had the Court heard the case, it might have needed to draw lines decision that would have overwritten Smith, and implicitly increased the power of the states to interfere with the free exercise of religion.  https://dd1.f06.myftpupload.com/supreme-court-declines-washington-pharmacy-case.html

The issue presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop is clear

In this case, the baker’s (petitioner’s) attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom have presented the issue as follows:

Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

In addressing two constitutional provisions as an “or” and contesting the application of the law rather than its legitimacy, the question is sufficiently broad yet simple and gives the Court room to address one or both of these fundamental constitutional issues.

Conflict in rulings mean issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court

Given the recent lower-court ruling in favor of the religious shirt printer in Kentucky t-shirt case, and a wide range of other lower court opinions on the subject of religious accommodation, Masterpiece Cakeshop  may be the best vehicle for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether state-level non-discrimination provisions impermissibly violate the free exercise or free speech rights of religious business owners.

The Supreme Court is currently meeting to decide what cases it will hear, and we should know soon whether this will make it onto the docket for the October 2017 Term.

 

Photo:  DepositPhotos.com / ivonnewierink

Filed Under: Constitution, Discrimination, Supreme Court

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it.

— Mikhail Bakunin

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0