New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Posts Tagged ‘public accommodations’

Supreme Court Takes a Pass on Hawaii B&B Discrimination Case

Posted on: March 21st, 2019 by Art Leonard No Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 18 that it will not review a decision by Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals, which ruled in February 2018 that a small bed & breakfast operating in a private home in the Mariner’s Ridge section of Hawai’i Kai, violated Hawaii’s civil rights law by denying accommodations to an unmarried lesbian couple who were planning a trip to Hawaii to visit a friend.  Hawaii’s civil rights law forbids businesses that are “public accommodations” from discriminating in providing their services based on the sexual orientation of customers.  Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, 415 P.3d 919 (Int. Ct. App. Haw. 2018), cert. denied by Hawaii S. Ct., 2018 WL 3358586 (July 10, 2018), cert. denied, No. 18-451, 2019 WL 1231949 (U.S. Sup. Ct., March 18, 2019).

The key issues raised in the case were whether such an operation is covered by the public accommodations law, and whether the owner, Phyllis Young, who lives there and operates it personally, could successfully raise constitutional claims against being required to accommodate a lesbian couple in her home.

Young operates “Aloha B&B” out of her four-bedroom house, and has averaged between one hundred and two hundred customers a year.  She advertises on her own website and some third-party websites.  Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford, a “committed” lesbian couple, emailed to inquire about renting a room for their vacation trip.  Young immediately responded by email that a room was available and explained how to make a reservation.  Cervelli phoned two weeks later to book the room.  As Young was taking down her information, Cervelli mentioned that she would be accompanied by another woman, and Young asked whether they were lesbians.  When Cervelli said “Yes,” Young responded, “We’re strong Christians.  I’m very uncomfortable in accepting the reservation from you.” Young refused the reservation and hung up on Cervelli.

Bufford then called and attempted to reserve the room, but again Young refused.  Bufford asked her whether it was because she and Cervelli were lesbians, and Young said “Yes.”  Young referred to her religious beliefs as the reason she was refusing the reservation.  “Apart from Plaintiff’s sexual orientation,” wrote Judge Craig Nakamura for the court of appeals, “there was no other reason for Young’s refusal to accept Plaintiffs’ request for a room.”

The women filed a discrimination claim with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, which concluded that they had a legitimate case.  Then Cervelli and Bufford filed a lawsuit against Aloha B&B in the state circuit court, represented by Lambda Legal with local attorneys from Honolulu, and the Civil Rights Commission intervened in the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff.  Attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the anti-LGBT religious litigation group, joined with local attorneys to defend the B&B.

Judge Edwin C. Nacino of the circuit court easily rejected the B&B’s argument that it was not a public accommodation, but rather a landlord that would not be covered by this law.  The law on discrimination in real estate transactions prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in residential rentals, but doesn’t apply to facilities with four or fewer units.  While the B&B has only four bedrooms, the evidence of 100-200 rentals per year made clear that Young’s business came within the “public accommodations” definition.  Young admitted that she only rented rooms for short stays, so this was a transient rather than a residential facility.

Young claimed that requiring her to accommodate the lesbian couple in her home violated her constitutional right to privacy, freedom of intimate association and free exercise of religion.  The circuit court rejected these defenses, and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issues of liability and injunctive relief.  Since the defendant was planning to appeal, the issue of damages was put on hold pending a final decision on the case.

The appeals court affirmed the trial judge on all points.  Judge Nakamura wrote that “to the extent that Young has chosen to operate her bed and breakfast business from her home, she has voluntarily given up the right to be left alone,” thus rejecting her privacy claim.  Opening up her residence to 100-200 paying guests a year is inconsistent with such a privacy claim.  Furthermore, although Young lives there, the extent of commercial activity means that “it is no longer a purely private home.”  And, furthermore, “the State retains the right to regulate activities occurring in a home where others are harmed or likely to be harmed,” and in this case “discriminatory conduct caused direct harm to Plaintiffs and threatens to harm other members of the general public.”

The court similarly rejected the intimate association claim, which, said the court, applies to family relationships and other small-group settings.  “The relationship between Aloha B&B and the customers to whom it provides transient lodging is not the type of intimate relationship that is entitled to constitutional protection against a law designed to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations,” said the appeals court.

Finally, the court found Young’s federal constitutional religious freedom claim would be foreclosed by Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that “neutral laws of generally applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even when they have the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice,” wrote Nakamura, summarizing the holding.  Fueled by ADF’s representation, Young tried to argue that the appeals court should impose a stricter test using the Hawaii Constitution’s protection of religious freedom, but the court refused to do so, stating that in its view Hawaii’s civil rights law would survive the most demanding constitutional test in any event.

“Assuming, without deciding, that Aloha B&B established a prima facie case of substantial burden to Young’s exercise of religion, we conclude that the application of [the Hawaii civil rights law] to Aloha B&B’s conduct in this case satisfies the strict scrutiny standard,” wrote Nakamura,” since “Hawaii has a compelling state interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations,” as the legislature has declared “the practice of discrimination because of sexual orientation in public accommodations is against public policy.”  The court concluded that the civil rights law “is narrowly tailored to achieve Hawaii’s compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations,” as the law “responds precisely to the substantive problem which legitimately concerns the State.”

The Hawaii Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal, so Young took the case to the Supreme Court, posing two questions: “Whether holding Mrs. Young liable without fair notice that her actions could be unlawful violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and whether the Commission’s efforts to punish Mrs. Young for exercising her religious beliefs in her own home violate   the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause?”

The first question reflected Young’s belief that she was covered by the exemption for rental operations with four or fewer bedrooms, so, as she claimed, when she turned down Cervelli and Bufford she sincerely believed her business was not covered by the civil rights law, and it would be fundamentally unfair to impose liability on her.  The court of appeals had easily rejected this argument, and it is not the kind of argument that the Supreme Court was likely to address as a failure of procedural due process of law.

The second question was intended to tempt members of the Court who have been calling for a reconsideration of the Employment Division v. Smith precedent, which was controversial when decided and actually led to the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by Congress and similar laws by many state legislatures.  Prior to that ruling, the Supreme Court had required the government to show a “compelling interest” when laws that burden free exercise of religion were challenged in court.

Employment Division was seen by many as a sharp departure from prior precedents, liberal Supreme Court justices dissented from the Court’s opinion by Justice Scalia, and a broad coalition spanning the political spectrum among religious organizations successfully lobbied Congress to pass RFRA, ultimately reimposing the “strict scrutiny” standard when federal laws impose a substantial burden or religious free exercise.

Despite calls for reconsidering Employment Division, most prominently by Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop last June, this petition evidently did not tempt at least four members of the Court to use this case as a vehicle to expand the religious freedom of business owners to turn down customers whom they found objectionable based on the owners’ religious beliefs. The Court avoided such reconsideration last Term in Masterpiece Cakeshop by deciding that case on a different ground.  Of course, if the Court wants to address these issues directly, they still have pending a petition to review an Oregon state court ruling against a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, 289 Or. App. 507, review denied by Oregon S. Ct., 363 Or. 224 (2018), so we continue to wait for another shoe to drop.

Meanwhile, unless a settlement is negotiated, Young faces a renewed proceeding in the Hawaii circuit court to determine what damages, if any, she will be ordered to pay to Cervelli and Bufford for unlawfully discriminating against them.

Missouri Supreme Court Revives Sex Discrimination Law Suits by Gay and Transgender Plaintiffs

Posted on: March 2nd, 2019 by Art Leonard No Comments

The Missouri Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings on February 26, reversing circuit court dismissals of sex discrimination lawsuits by gay and transgender plaintiffs.  Lampley v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, 2019 WL 925557, 2019 Mo. LEXIS 52; R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District, 2019 WL 925511, 2019 Mo. LEXIS 54.  In both cases, the court was sharply split, and in neither opinion did the Court hold that sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination claims, as such, may be brought under the state’s Human Rights Law.  However, at least a majority of the seven judges agreed in both cases that being gay or transgender does not bar an individual from making a sex discrimination claim under the statute, which it least allows them to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The decision is significant because Missouri is a conservative state that has not amended its Human Rights Act to ban discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and Missouri’s federal courts are in the 8th Circuit, where the federal court of appeals has not yet ruled on a pending appeal posing the question whether the federal Civil Rights Act’s ban on sex discrimination can be interpreted to cover such claims.

The first of the two decisions, Lampley v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, involves discrimination claims by two employees of the Missouri Department of Social Services Child Support Enforcement Division.  Harold Lampley filed a discrimination charge with the Commission, checking off on the charge form that he was a victim of discrimination because of “sex” and “retaliation.”  A heterosexual co-worker of Lampley, Rene Frost, also filed a charge, claiming she suffered “retaliation” because of her association with Lampley.

In the narrative portion of his charge, Lampley stated that he is a gay man who does not exhibit the stereotypical attributes of how a male should appear and behave, as a result of which he was treated differently from “similarly situated co-workers” who were not gay and who exhibited “stereotypical male or female attributes.”  Lampley claimed he was subjected to harassment at work, and that in retaliation for his complaints, he was “grossly underscored” in a performance evaluation.

In her narrative, Frost described her close friendship with Lampley.  Frost had complained about a performance review, the result of which was publicly announced to her co-workers in a departure from practice, and after which she claimed the employer moved her desk away from Lampley and the other co-workers with whom she collaborated. She was told she and Lampley were not allowed to eat lunch together, as they customarily did.  She also claimed that, unlike other employees, both she and Lampley were docked for pay for the time they met with their union representative about these issues, and that she continued to be subjected to verbal abuse, threats about her performance review, and “other harassing behaviors” as a result of her friendly association with Lampley.

The Commission’s investigator decided that Lampley was really trying to assert a sexual orientation discrimination claim, and that Frost’s claim was really that she was discriminated against for associating with a gay person.  In both cases, the investigator determined that the Act did not cover these charges, and the Commission terminated its proceedings, stating that both claims did not involve a category of discrimination covered by the law. The cases were “administratively closed,” and the Commission did not issue either Lampley or Frost the usual “right to sue” notice that would authorize them to go to court.

Thus stymied, Lampley and Frost filed petitions with the circuit court for administrative review, or, alternatively, for a writ of mandamus – an order from the court to the Commission to issue them right-to-sue notices.  The circuit court granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment, citing a 2015 Missouri Court of Appeals decision that stated that sexual orientation claims are not covered by the statute.

The Supreme Court judges were divided over how to characterize this case and whether the Supreme Court even had jurisdiction to decide it, finding procedural problems with the Lampley and Frost lawsuits, but ultimately a majority concluded that they could address these appeals on the merits.

As to that, three members of the seven-member court, joining in an opinion by Judge George W. Draper, III, concluded that it was appropriate to follow federal precedents stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), holding that the denial of a promotion to a female employee who was criticized as being too masculine in her dress and demeanor violated the rule against discrimination because of sex.  The Supreme Court accepted the argument that reliance on sex stereotypes in making personnel decisions was evidence of employment discrimination because of sex.

Turning to this case, Judge Draper wrote that it was wrong for the Commission to drop its investigation and close the case, because Lampley did not allege in his charge that he was a victim of sexual orientation discrimination.  Although he mentioned more than once in his narrative that he is a gay man, his claim was that he was a victim of sex discrimination because he did not exhibit stereotypical attributes of males.  Thus, he was entitled to an investigation of his claim, and similarly Frost was entitled to an investigation of her claim of retaliation against her based on her association with Lampley.  Draper emphasized that sexual orientation discrimination claims, as such, are not covered by the statute.  But he pointed to several opinions by federal courts, interpreting Title VII, that allowed gay plaintiffs to pursue sex discrimination claims using the sex stereotype theory.

Furthermore, wrote Draper, since the statutory time for investigation of a claim had long since expired, the appropriate remedy was for the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to issue right-to-sue notices to Lampley and Frost so they could pursue their discrimination claims in the circuit court.

One member of the Supreme Court concurred, but on a narrower ground.  Judge Paul C. Wilson, who wrote the opinion for a majority of the court in the R.M.A. case, discussed below, wrote that this case “should be analyzed and disposed of entirely on the basis of whether the facts alleged by Claimants assert sex discrimination claims covered by the MHRA,” which, he wrote, “they plainly do.”  However, he wrote, “the principal opinion does not stop there.  Instead, it proceeds to opine on whether ‘sex stereotyping,’ as discussed in the Title VII context in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, is a type of sex discrimination under the MHRA.”  But, referring to his opinion in R.M.A., Wilson argued that the MHRA “does not provide for ‘types’ of sex discrimination claims.”  Either a claimant is alleging sex discrimination or not.  If he or she is alleging sex discrimination, they are entitled to have their claims investigated and, ultimately, to present them to a court if they can’t be resolved by the Commission.

Judge Wilson would leave to a later stage in the litigation, when the matter is before the circuit court on the merits, the question whether the facts proven by the plaintiff in the lawsuit would amount to sex discrimination in violation of the law.  Thus, he saw the discussion of sex stereotypes as premature at this stage of the litigation.

Wilson agreed with Judge Draper’s opinion that the MHRA does not forbid sexual orientation discrimination as such.  His concurring vote, however, provided Draper with the majority to hold that the circuit court should not have granted summary judgment to the Commission, because Lampley was not claiming sexual orientation discrimination.

Chief Judge Zel Fischer agreed with Draper and Wilson that the state law does not forbid sexual orientation discrimination, but Fischer concluded for procedural reasons that the appeal should be dismissed.  Judge W. Brent Powell, in a separate dissent, while agreeing with Fischer that the court should dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds, said that otherwise the circuit court’s decision should be affirmed because “mandamus cannot be used to control the administrative agency’s executive director’s discretionary determination that Lampley’s and Frost’s complaints alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation rather than sex stereotyping.”  If that decision was reviewed under an “abuse of discretion” standard, wrote Powell, “the executive director did not abuse her discretion in closing Lampley’s and Frost’s complaints because the determination that the complaints alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation rather than sex stereotyping was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly against the logic of the circumstances considering the allegations contained in the complaints.”

The footnotes of the opinions by Draper and Powell battle over how to characterize the narrative portions of the charges filed with the Commission.  Draper emphasizes that both Lampley and Frost claimed to be victims of sex discrimination because of sex stereotyping, while Powell emphasizes that Lampley’s extended narrative, not quoted in full in the plurality opinion, could clearly support a conclusion that he was the victim of sexual orientation discrimination, thus making the Commission’s conclusion rational and not arbitrary.

In the R.M.A. case, the teenage student filed suit claiming that the school’s refusal to let him use boys’ restrooms and locker rooms was discrimination because of sex.  The plaintiff’s claim to the Commission and Complaint in the Circuit Court stated that his “legal sex is male” and that by denying him “access to the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms,” the school discriminated against him in the use of a public accommodation “on the grounds of his sex.”

R.M.A. filed his charge with the Commission in October 2014, and the Commission issued him a right-to sue notice in July 2015.  He filed suit against the school district and board of education in October 2015.  The defendants move to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: that the Act does not cover gender identity discrimination, and that the public schools are not subject to the public accommodations provisions.  The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss in June 2016, “without explanation,” and R.M.A. appealed.

Writing for give members of the court, Judge Wilson, as noted above in his concurring opinion in the Lampley case, asserted that it was unnecessary for the court to deal with the question whether R.M.A. had a valid sex discrimination.  Since it was dealing with an appeal from a motion to dismiss, he wrote, the court should focus on what R.M.A. alleged in his Complaint.  There, he stated that he was legally a male, and that the school’s denial of his access to the boys’ facilities discriminated against him because of his sex.  To Wilson, this was straightforward.  R.M.A. was claiming sex discrimination, and denial of access to school facilities because of his sex.  At this stage of the litigation, that should be enough to survive a motion to dismiss, and it was not necessary to address the question whether gender identity discrimination claims can be brought under the statute, because R.M.A. made no such claim in his Complaint.  Furthermore, Wilson saw no merit to the argument that the school’s restroom and locker room facilities were not subject to the ban on sex discrimination in public accommodations under the MHRA.

One can easily imagine what Judge Powell thought about this.  In his vehement dissent, joined by Chief Judge Fischer, Powell insisted that the term “sex” as used in the Act could not be construed to allow gender identity discrimination claims, and he insisted that this is what R.M.A. was trying to assert.

“The MHRA does not define the word ‘sex,’” wrote Powell.  “When there is no statutory definition, the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutory term can be derived from the dictionary.”  Quoting from Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary (1993), the word “sex” means “one of the two divisions of [organisms] esp. human beings respectively designated male or female.”  A secondary definition from Webster’s is the “sum of morphological, physiological, and behavioral peculiarities of living beings that subserves biparental reproduction with its concomitant genetic segregation and recombination… that is typically manifested as maleness or femaleness.”  And a third definition: “The sphere of interpersonal behavior esp. between male and female,” and the “phenomena of sexual instincts and their manifestations,” and “determining the sex of an organic being.”  Powell characterized these as boiling down to the concept of “biological sex,” asserting: “The MHRA, therefore, prohibits discrimination based on the biological classifications of male or female and does not extend to the separate concept of transgender status.”

Consequently, Powell concluded, “the petition survives a motion to dismiss only if it alleges that, as a biological female, R.M.A. was deprived of a public accommodation available to biological males.  R.M.A. makes no such allegation,” Powell continued.  “Instead, R.M.A. alleges he is a female who has transitioned to living as a male, and that the Defendants discriminate against him based on his sex by preventing him from using the boys’ restrooms and locker room.  R.M.A. does not allege that, as a biological female, he was barred from any public accommodation afforded to biological males.  Instead, R.M.A.’s allegation of discrimination distills to an acknowledgment that the Defendants excluded him from the boys’ restrooms and locker room because he is biologically female. If, as the principal opinion reasons, the relevant allegation is that R.M.A.’s ‘legal sex’ is male, then the majority will have ignored the crux of the petition while discarding the substance of the MHRA. The logical upshot is that the majority is presumably willing to hold the MHRA prohibits schools from maintaining separate restrooms and locker rooms for male and female students.  The alternative, of course, is to accept all of R.M.A.’s allegations as true, apply the plain language of the MHRA, and hold R.M.A.’s petition fails to state a claim of sex discrimination.”

Powell concluded that the question whether the statute should cover this kind of case was a policy question for the legislature, not the court.  “The General Assembly has spoken, and R.M.A.’s petition fails to state a claim of unlawful sex discrimination under the MHRA,” stated Powell, declaring that the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed.  To Judge Wilson, speaking for a majority of the court, Judge Powell’s arguments were irrelevant on the motion to dismiss, since R.M.A. had met the minimal pleading requirement of articulating a claim of sex discrimination.

Given the voting dispositions in these two cases, it is difficult to predict the future course of sex discrimination claims by gay and transgender plaintiffs in Missouri.  While they may survive motions to dismiss their claims, and a reluctant Human Rights Commission may be able to conciliate with the parties and obtain settlements in some cases, ultimately the questions posed by Judge Powell will come right back when the cases are litigated on the merits.  Since Judge Draper’s analysis was supported by only a minority of the court, it is uncertain whether his use of the sex stereotype theory would prevail in a ruling on the merits of a gay plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim.  And the limited nature of Judge Wilson’s ruling in R.M.A.’s case gives no hint of how a majority of the court would deal with a transgender student’s claims to restroom and locker room access.  Looming over all these questions is the pending 8th Circuit appeal under Title VII, and the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may hear cases next term concerning gay and transgender rights under federal sex discrimination laws.

Lampley and Frost are represented by Jill A. Silverstein, D. Eric Sowers, Ferne P. Wolfe and Joshua M. Pierson of Sowers & Wolf LLC in St. Louis.  R.M.A. is represented by Alexander Edelman and Katherine Myers of Edelman, Lisen & Myers LLP in Kansas City, and Madeline Johnson of the Law Offices of Madeline Johnson in Platte City, Missouri.

Arizona Appeals Court Cites Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision to Rule Out 1st Amendment Exemptions for Stationary Company

Posted on: June 11th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

The precedential meaning of a Supreme Court decision depends on how lower courts interpret it.  The media reported the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling as a “win” for baker Jack Phillips, since the court reversed the discrimination rulings against him by the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  But the opinion has a deeper significance than a superficial “win” or “loss” can capture, as the Arizona Court of Appeals demonstrated just days later in its rejection of a claim that a company that designs artwork for weddings and other special events can refuse to design and provide goods for same-sex weddings.

 

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the same anti-LGBT legal outfit that represented Jack Phillips before the Supreme Court, represents Brush & Nib Studio, LC, a for-profit company that sells both pre-fabricated and specially designed artwork.  The company provides retail goods and services to the public, so it comes within the coverage of the city of Phoenix, Arizona’s, public accommodations anti-discrimination ordinance.

 

Although Brush & Nib had not received any requests to produce invitations for a same-sex wedding since such marriages became legal in Arizona, the owners had determined, based on their religious beliefs, that they would not provide their goods and services for such ceremonies.  Represented by ADF, they sued in the state trial court in Phoenix, seeking a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the ordinance against them in case such a customer should materialize in the future.

 

As described in the Court of Appeals’ opinion by Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, the owners “believe their customer-directed and designed wedding products ‘convey messages about a particular engaged couple, their upcoming marriage, their upcoming marriage ceremony, and the celebration of that marriage.”  And they did not want any part of it.  They “also strongly believe in an ordained marriage between one man and one woman, and argue that they cannot separate their religious beliefs from their work.  As such, they believe being required to create customer-specific merchandise for same-sex weddings will violate their religious beliefs.”

 

They not only wanted to be assured that they could reject such business without risking legal liability; they also wanted to post a public statement explaining their religious beliefs, including a statement that they would not create any artwork that “promotes any marriage except marriage between one man and one woman.”  They haven’t posted such a statement yet out of concern that it would violate a provision of the Phoenix ordinance, which forbids a business from posting or making any communication that “states or implies that any facility or services shall be refused or restricted because of . . . sexual orientation . . . ,  or that any person, because of . . . sexual orientation . . . would be unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable, or not solicited.”

 

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Karen Mullins rejected the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that the business did not enjoy a constitutional exemption.  The Court of Appeals held up ruling on ADF’s appeal until the Supreme Court issued its Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling on June 4, then quickly incorporated references to it into the opinion by Judge Winthrop issued on June 7.

 

After reviewing the unbroken string of state appellate court rulings from around the country that have rejected religious and free speech exemption claims in such cases over the past several years, Judge Winthrop wrote: “In light of these cases and consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, we recognize that a law allowing Appellants to refuse service to customers based on sexual orientation would constitute a ‘grave and continuing harm,’” citing the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

He continued with a lengthy quote from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the Supreme court in Masterpiece Cakeshop:

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, ‘[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.’ Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Newman v. Piggy [Piggie] Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) (per curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish–American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (1995) (‘Provisions like these are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments’).”

 

The cases cited by Justice Kennedy in the quoted paragraph evidently sent a strong message for lower courts. Piggie Park is a classic early decision under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, holding that a restaurant owner’s religious opposition to racial integration could not excuse him from serving people of color in his barbecue restaurant.  Hurley was the famous St. Patrick’s Day Parade case from Boston, where the Supreme Court upheld the 1st Amendment right of parade organizers to exclude a gay Irish group from marching under their own banner proclaiming their gay identity.  The quoted language from that decision made clear that state’s may pass laws forbidding sexual orientation discrimination by businesses, but in this case the Court found that the parade organizers were not a business selling goods and services, but rather the non-profit organizers of an expressive activity who had a right to determine what their activity would express.

 

The points are clear: States can forbid businesses from discriminating against customers because of their sexual orientation, and businesses with religious objections will generally have to comply with the non-discrimination laws. The “win” for baker Jack Phillips involved something else entirely: the Supreme Court’s perception that Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission did not give Phillips a fair hearing because members of the Commission made public statements denigrating his religious beliefs at the hearing.  Justice Kennedy insisted for the court that a litigant’s dignity requires that the tribunal deciding his case be neutral and not overtly hostile to his religious beliefs, and that was the reason for reversing the state court and the state agency.  Kennedy’s discussion of the law clearly pointed in the other direction, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed in her dissent.  And the Arizona Court of Appeals clearly got that message.

 

Turning to ADF’s free speech argument, Justice Winthrop wrote, “Appellants argue that [the ordinance] compels them to speak in favor of same-sex marriages. We disagree.  Although [it] may have an incidental impact on speech, its main purpose is to prohibit discrimination, and thus [it] regulates conduct, not speech.”

 

The court found this case similar to Rumsfeld v. FAIR, a case in which the Supreme Court rejected a free speech challenge by an organization of law schools to a federal law that required schools to host military recruiters at a time when the Defense Department’s policies discriminated against gay people. The law schools claimed that complying with the law would violate their 1st Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court said that the challenged law did not limit what the schools could say, rather what they could do; that is, conduct, not speech.

 

“We find Rumsfeld controlling in this case,” wrote Winthrop. The court found that the “primary purpose” of the city ordinance is to “prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating based on certain protected classes, i.e., sexual orientation, not to compel speech. . .  Like Rumsfeld, [the ordinance] requires that places of public accommodation provide equal services if they want to operate their business.  While such a requirement may impact speech, such as prohibiting places of public accommodation from posting signs that discriminate against customers, this impact is incidental to property regulated conduct.”

 

Further distinguishing this case from the Hurley decision, the court said that requiring the business to comply with the law “does not render their creation of design-to-order merchandise for same-sex weddings expressive conduct. The items Appellants would produce for a same-sex or opposite-sex wedding would likely be indistinguishable to the public.  Take for instance an invitation to the marriage of Pat and Pat (whether created for Patrick and Patrick, or Patrick and Patricia), or Alex and Alex (whether created for Alexander and Alexander, or Alexander and Alexa).  This invitation would not differ in creative expression.  Further, it is unlikely that a general observer would attribute a company’s product or offer of services, in compliance with the law, as indicative of the company’s speech or personal beliefs.  The operation of a stationery store – including the design and sale of customized wedding event merchandise – is not expressive conduct, and thus, is not entitled to First Amendment free speech protection.”

 

The court also rejected an argument that the ordinance violated the right of expressive association. “We do not dispute that some aspects of Appellants’ operation of Brush & Nib may implicated speech in some regard,” wrote Justice Winthrop, “but the primary purpose of Brush & Nib is not to convey a particular message but rather to engage in commercial sales activity.  Thus, Appellants’ operation of Brush & Nib is not the type of expressive association that the First Amendment is intended to protect.”  Certainly not like a parade, which the court in Hurley described as a “quintessential” expressive activity.

 

However, the court found that the portion of the ordinance dealing with forbidden communications used vague language that was overbroad and unclear about which statements might constitute violations. “We are unable to interpret [the ordinance’s] use of the words ‘unwelcome,’ ‘objectionable,’ ‘unacceptable,’ and ‘undesirable’ in a way that would render [it] constitutional,” wrote Winthrop.  “The presence of one invalid prohibition, however, does not invalidate all of [the ordinance].”

 

“Here, by striking the second half [of the offending section] – which bans an owner of a place of public accommodation from making a person feel ‘unwelcome,’ ‘objectionable,’ ‘unacceptable,’ and ‘undesirable’ based on sexual orientation – does not render the remainder of the ordinance unenforceable or unworkable. . .   The remainder of [the provision] operates independently and is enforceable as intended.”

 

Turning to the free exercise of religion issue, the court had to deal with the state’s Free Exercise of Religion Act, which prohibits governmental entities in Arizona from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the rule is both “in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest.” The statute’s language is taken verbatim from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court rejected the argument that requiring the business to provide goods and services for same-sex weddings imposed a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of the business owners. “Appellants are not penalized for expressing their belief that their religion only recognizes the marriage of opposite sex couples,” wrote Winthrop.  “Nor are Appellants penalized for refusing to create wedding-related merchandise as long as they equally refuse similar services to opposite-sex couples.  [The ordinance] merely requires that, by operating a place of public accommodation, Appellants provide equal goods and services to customers regardless of sexual orientation.”  They could stop selling wedding-related goods altogether, but what they “cannot do is use their religion as a shield to discriminate against potential customers,” said the court.  Although providing those goods and services to same-sex couples might “decrease the satisfaction” with which they practice their religion, “this does not, a fortiori, make their compliance” a substantial burden to their religion.

 

And, even if it did impose such a burden, the court found that the city of Phoenix “has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination, and has done so here through the least restrictive means. When faced with similar contentions, other jurisdictions have overwhelmingly concluded that the government has a compelling interest in eradicating discrimination.”  The court quoted from the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Arlene’s Flowers, but could just as well have been quoting Justice Kennedy’s language in Masterpiece Cakeshop, quoted here.

 

Finally, the court rejected an equal protection challenge to the ordinance, finding that it did not treat people with religious beliefs about marriage differently than others, and that the owners of the business could not claim that they are members of a “suspect class” for purposes of analyzing their equal protection claim. “Phoenix has a legitimate governmental purpose in curtailing discriminatory practices,” wrote Winthrop, “and prohibiting businesses from sexual orientation discrimination is rationally related to that purpose.”

 

A spokesperson for ADF promptly announced that they would seek review from the Arizona Supreme Court, which has discretion whether to review the decision. Seeking review, however, is a prerequisite to petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.  ADF is clearly determined to get this issue back before the Supreme Court.  It represents Arlene’s Flowers, whose petition is now pending, and it also represents a videography company in a case similar to Brush & Nibs, affirmatively litigating to get an injunction to allow the company to expand into wedding videos without having to do them for same-sex weddings.  The district court’s ruling against them in that case is now on appeal in a federal circuit court. One way or another, it seems likely that this issue will get back to the Supreme Court before too long.

 

California Judge Issues Unprecedented Ruling in Favor of Baker Who Declined to Make Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple

Posted on: February 8th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

Breaking a consensus among courts that has developed over the past several years that people with religious or moral objections to same-sex weddings are not entitled to exempt their business from selling goods or services for such events, Kern County (California) Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled on February 5, 2018, in Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, BCV-17-102855, that Cathy Miller, owner of Cathy’s Creations, Inc., doing business as Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, is entitled to a First Amendment exemption from complying with California’s law that bans sexual orientation discrimination by businesses.  Judge Lampe is the first to rule in favor of a business in such a case.

Miller refused to make a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, who came to her bakery in August 2017 to plan for a celebration to take place in October.  They had selected a design of a cake in the display case, but since their celebration would not be until October, the transaction would be for Miller to prepare a cake specifically for their event.  “The couple did not want or request any written words or messages on the cake,” wrote the judge in his opinion.  Nonetheless, Miller refused to make it because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage, and offered to refer them to another bakery in town that was happy to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Eileen and Mireya filed an administrative complaint, charging Miller and her business with a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s law that prohibits discrimination by businesses.  The Department of Fair Employment and Housing, with is charged with enforcement of the law, filed suit against the bakery, asking the court to issue an injunction requiring that Miller’s business not refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Miller’s defense relied on two provisions of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, one forbidding laws that abridge freedom of speech, and the other forbidding laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.   Judge Lampe decided that this case could be resolved most easily by reference to the free speech provision, and did not render a ruling on whether the free exercise of religion clause would protect Miller in this case.

The judge accepted Miller “cake artist” argument, the same argument that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado is making in his case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Miller and Phillips argue that when they are contracting to produce a cake for a specific event, they are engaging in a creative effort that communicates a message of endorsement for that event.  Under this theory of symbolic speech, they argue, requiring them to make the cake when they do not approve of the event is compelling them to voice a particular message.

They rely on past decisions in which the Supreme Court has found that government officials had violated free speech rights by compelling people to voice particular messages with which they disagree, such as the famous “flag salute” cases first decided during World War II and most recently reiterated in  Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), in which the Court famously reversed direction on this issue, overruling its own prior precedent to find that the government cannot compel a student to recite the pledge of allegiance.  Although there are circumstances where the courts have held that government requirements did not impose a substantial burden on free speech, the compelled speech argument has taken on particular weight in several important LGBT-related rulings.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), for example, that Massachusetts civil rights authorities could not compel the organizers of the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade to include an LGBT rights contingent in the parade with a banner proclaiming their identity.  The court said this would unconstitutionally compel the parade organizers to include a message in their event that they did not want to include.  Similarly, although more controversially, the Court later ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 US 640 (2000), that the BSA was not required to allow an openly gay man to service as an adult leader, because that would be compelling them to implicitly send a message of endorsement for homosexuality which they did not want to communicate to their members or the public.  Unlike the unanimous parade decision, however, the Court split 5-4 in the Boy Scouts case, with a minority rejecting the contention that the BSA’s free speech rights would be unconstitutionally burdened.

Despite these rulings, the Court concluded that Congress did not unconstitutionally burden the free speech rights of law schools when it required them to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities, reasoning that the schools were free to communicate their disagreement with the anti-gay policies then followed by the Defense Department and that hosting the recruiters was not necessarily sending a message of agreement with their policies.  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006).  And the Court concluded that a state university law school was not violating the free speech or free exercise rights of conservative Christian students when it required a Christian Legal Society chapter to allow gay students to be members if CLS wanted to be an officially recognized student organization.  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).

It is difficult to follow a consistent thread of reasoning through these cases, each of which presents a slightly different factual context, which is why there is some suspense about how the Supreme Court is going to decide the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  So far, however, lower courts have been unanimous in ruling that bakers, florists, photographers, videographers, non-religious wedding venues are all required to comply with public accommodations laws (in states where they exist) and provide their services and goods to same-sex couples celebrating their unions.

Judge Lampe, the first to depart from this consensus, accepted Miller’s compelled speech argument.  “No public commentator in the marketplace of ideas may be forced by law to publish any opinion with which he disagrees in the name of equal access,” wrote the judge.  “No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.”

But, he wrote, this case is different. “The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked.  The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake.  The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.  For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”

Judge Lampe acknowledged that there was a clash of rights here, and no matter which way he ruled, somebody would feel insulted. “The court finds that any harm here is equal to either complainants or defendant Miller, one way or the other. If anything, the harm to Miller is the greater, because it carries significant economic consequences.  When one feels injured, insulted, or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self-inflicted.  The most effective Free Speech in the family of our nation is when we speak and listen with respect.  In any case, the court cannot guarantee that no one will be harmed when the law is enforced.  Quite the contrary, when the law is enforced, someone necessarily loses.  Nevertheless, the court’s duty is to the law.  Whenever anyone exercises the right of Free Speech, someone else may be angered or hurt.  This is the nature of a free society under our Constitution.”

The judge acknowledged that the case is more difficult if it is treated as a free exercise of religion case, because the Supreme Court has ruled that neutral state laws of general application do not include within them a constitutional exemption for religious dissenters. “Whether the application of the Unruh Act in these circumstances violates the Free Exercise clause is an open question,” he wrote, “and the court does not address it because the case is sufficiently resolved upon Free Speech grounds.”

Interestingly, the judge’s approach mirrors that of U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before the Supreme Court. In briefing and argument, the Solicitor General placed the government’s support for Jack Phillips’ right to refuse to make the wedding cake entirely on Free Speech grounds, and disclaimed taking any position on his right of free exercise of religion – despite the Trump Administration’s more general position, expressed in a “religious freedom” memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that religious free exercise rights should be treated as superior to just about any other legal claim.

Perhaps Judge Lampe’s decision is truly an outlier in the ongoing controversies stemming from the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2015 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, but on the other hand it may be an accurate prediction of how the Supreme Court will deal with the issue, at least in cases where the goods or services at issue could be plausibly described in terms of expressive content.

Supreme Court Will Consider Religious and Free Speech Exemptions to Anti-Discrimination Law in Colorado Wedding Cake Case

Posted on: June 26th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

On June 26 the United States Supreme Court granted a petition filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the anti-gay “religious” law firm, on behalf of Jack Phillips and his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, to determine whether the Colorado Court of Appeals correctly denied Phillips’ claim that he is privileged under the 1st Amendment to refuse an order to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 (cert. granted June 26, 2017).

The petition was filed last July 22, and had been listed for discussion during the Court’s conferences more than a dozen times. The addition of Donald Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, to fill a vacancy on the Court was likely the catalyst for a decision to grant review, although it the ultimate disposition of the case could heavily depend on the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing justice” on the Court in cases involving LGBT issues.  However, in an interesting twist, one of the main precedents that stands in the way of a victory for Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop is an opinion written in 1990 by Justice Antonin Scalia, whose death led to Gorsuch’s appointment.

The petition asks the Court, in effect, to reverse or narrow its long-standing precedent, Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that individuals do not have a constitutional right based on their religious beliefs to refuse to comply with “neutral” state laws of general application. Neutral state laws are those that do not directly concern religious beliefs or practices, but whose application may incidentally affect them.  In response to this decision, both Congress and many state governments have passed statutes allowing persons to claim religious exemptions from complying with statutes under certain circumstances.

The question which the Court will consider, as phrased by ADF in its petition, is: “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?”

The Court has addressed the free speech aspects of this issue in the past.  In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), the Court ruled that a state’s public accommodation law would have to give way to the 1st Amendment expressive association rights of the organizers of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, who refused to allow an LGBT group to march under its own banner in the parade.  The Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice David Souter, that a parade is a quintessential expressive activity, and the organizers of the parade have a right to exclude groups whose presence would convey a message that the parade organizers do not wish to convey.

By a bare 5-4 majority, the Court extended that ruling in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the Court, holding that the Boy Scouts of America, like the Boston parade organizers, is an expressive association and could refuse to allow an openly gay man to serve as an assistant scoutmaster because this would communicate to its members and the public a view as to homosexuality that the BSA did not want to communicate.  The ruling sparked two dissenting opinions, sharply contesting the majority’s weighing of rights in allowing the Boy Scouts to discriminate and challenging the view that BSA could be characterized as an “expressive association.”

Interestingly, the winning parties in both of these cases have over time come to see the wisdom of allowing at least some LGBT people to participate in their activities.  The Boston parade organizers have allowed some LGBT groups to participate in their parade in recent years, and BSA voted to allow its local troops to permit participation by LGBT people as members and adult leaders, although troops sponsored by religious organizations have continued to exclude LGBT people in some places.

The Court has yet to return to the religious objection aspect of this case.  A few years ago it refused to review a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court holding that a wedding photographer did not have a 1st Amendment right to refuse to provide her services to a lesbian couple seeking photographic documentation of their commitment ceremony.  Since then, courts in several other states have rejected religious exemption claims by various businesses that provide wedding-related services, including a recent New York ruling refusing a religious exemption to a farm that had hosted and catered weddings.  The more recent Hobby Lobby case, in which the Supreme Court held that a closely-held corporation could refuse on religious grounds to cover certain contraceptive methods under its health care plan, was litigated in terms of a statutory exemption provided by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and thus was not grounded on a constitutional claim.

A recent appellate ruling by a Kentucky court, however, upheld the right of a company that makes custom t-shirts to refuse an order from a gay organization for shirts to publicize the organization’s Gay Pride festival.  The 2-1 ruling was premised on the court’s conclusion that the denial of services was not based on the sexual orientation of anybody, but the concurring judge also cited the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while the dissenter found a clear violation of the a municipal anti-discrimination law and no right to a religious exemption.

In the case granted review by the Supreme Court, Charlie Craig and David Mullins were planning to go out-of-state to marry, because in 2012 Colorado did not yet allow same-sex marriages.  However, they planned to follow up with a celebration near their home in order to more easily involve their family and friends, and went to Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for the occasion.  The owner, Jack Phillips, declined their order, citing his religious objection to same-sex marriage.  When Craig and Mullins publicized this refusal, they were offered a free wedding cake by another bakery which they accepted, but they also decided to file a charge of sexual orientation discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.  The Division ruled in their favor, approving an administrative law judge’s decision that rejected Phillips’s 1st Amendment defenses of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech and found that Phillips had violated the state’s statutory ban on sexual orientation discrimination by businesses.

ADF appealed the administrative ruling to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which rejected both of Phillips’ constitutional arguments.  The court held that baking and decorating a wedding cake is not speech or artistic expression, as Phillips had argued, and that the Commission’s order “merely requires that [Phillips] not discriminate against potential customers in violation of [the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] and that such conduct, even if compelled by the government, is not sufficiently expressive to warrant First Amendment protections.”  The court deemed the Act to be a “neutral law of generally applicability,” and thus within the scope of the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith precedent.  Colorado does not have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could arguably create a statutory exemption to the anti-discrimination statute.

Because the Supreme Court granted review on both the free speech and religious exercise claims, there might result a split decision by the Court.  If it wants to adhere to a broad view of Employment Division v. Smith, it can easily follow the route taken by various state courts that have refused to allow businesses to claim a constitutional religious exemption from complying with anti-discrimination laws.  Or, it could use this case to back away from the Employment Division holding or narrow it in some way.

The Court is unlikely to rule for Phillips on the free speech argument if it sticks with its precedents, since the recognized constitutional exception is for organizations or activities that have a primary or significant expressive purpose. Both Hurley and Dale involved non-profit organizations, not businesses, that were engaged in activities that the Court found (by only a narrow margin in the case of the Boy Scouts) to have strong expressive association claims.  It is unlikely that a business whose primary activity is selling cakes could make a similar claim.  But the Supreme Court can be full of surprises, and there have been significant changes in its membership since these cases were decided.  The Court might bow to the argument by ADF that people of strong religious convictions who wish to incorporate those convictions into their businesses have a right not to be compelled by the government to undertake activities that would express a view contrary to their religious beliefs.  This would potentially tear a big hole in the protection against discrimination provided by the public accommodations laws most of the states, and not just those that ban discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision will be defended before the Supreme Court by the state’s attorneys. Lambda Legal and One Colorado, with cooperating attorneys John McHugh and Anthony Giacomini of Denver-based Reilly Pozner LLP, filed an amicus brief in response to the petition.  Given the wide-ranging interest in the issues underlying this case, it is likely that the Court will receive a mountain of amicus briefs.  Oral argument will be held sometime next winter.

 

New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer in Sexual Orientation Discrimination Case

Posted on: August 23rd, 2013 by Art Leonard No Comments

The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled on August 22 that a wedding photography business violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act by refusing service to a lesbian couple for their same-sex commitment ceremony.  The court held that the photography business owners’ religious and free speech rights were not unconstitutionally violated by this result.  The case is Elane Photography v. Willock.

 The case arose when Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography LLC by email to inquire about booking the company for a commitment ceremony with her same-sex partner.  Elane declined the business.  Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of the business with her husband, told Willock that they only did “traditional weddings,” and when Willock pressed her, she replied specifically that they “do not photograph same-sex weddings.”  Misti Collinsworth, Willock’s partner, then contacted Elane about photographing a wedding, without mention the gender of the participants, and Huguenin sent her pricing information and an invitation to meet to discuss her services.  When Collinsworth did not respond, Huguenin again e-mailed to try to set up a meeting.

Willock and Collinsworth contracted with somebody else for their ceremony, and filed a discrimination charge against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.  New Mexico’s Human Rights Act forbids discrimination because of sexual orientation by public accommodations.  Throughout this case, Elane has conceded that its business comes within the statute’s definition of public accommodation, but has argued that it is privileged under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act to decline to photograph same-sex ceremonies, as a matter of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion.  The Commission ruled against Elane, which appealed to the state courts.

The trial court and the court of appeals rejected Elane’s arguments, and now the state’s Supreme Court has agreed with the lower courts, in an opinion by Justice Edward L. Chavez.  This may not be the last word, since Elane could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to consider Elane’s constitutional defenses.

First the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected Elane’s argument that it was not discriminating based on sexual orientation, as such, but rather was refusing to involve itself in a particular event, a same-sex ceremony, that did not turn on the sexual orientation of anybody.  The court was unwilling to indulge this attempt to draw a line between status and conduct, finding that this approach had been specifically rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Martinez case, which involved a law school’s refusal to extend official recognition to a Christian student organization that excluded gay people from membership.

Elane’s more serious arguments were the First Amendment claims, since it seems clear that requiring the business to provide photography services for same-sex ceremonies does, to some extent, involve the people who run the business in “expressive activities” that violate their personal religious and moral views.  But the court found that a substantial body of legal precedent has held that commercial businesses can be required to comply with religiously-neutral anti-discrimination laws, such as the New Mexico statute in this case. 

In the context of free speech, the court analogized this case to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the federal government’s requirement that law schools receiving federal funds allow military recruiters on their campuses, despite the law schools’ opposition to the military “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in effect when that case was decided.  The schools complained that allowing recruiters on campus might appear to students to be an endorsement of the military’s policies, and would violate the expressive rights of the schools, but the Supreme Court held that the schools were free to disclaim any approval of the military policy and were not being compelled to endorse it through conduct.

A similar analysis applied to the free exercise claim.  The court noted that federal appeals courts have recently split over the question whether a business corporation can make any claim to free exercise of religion, an issued that seems headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But the court found no need to try to resolve that question, because it concluded that requiring Elane to offer photography services on a non-discriminatory basis did not impose an unconstitutional burden on free exercise.  “Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs,” wrote Justice Chavez. “They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Richard C. Bosson gave an eloquent explanation of the rationale for the court’s opinion. 

“On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

“In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm specializing in defending religious liberty and opposing gay rights claims, provided representation to the Huguenins in this case.  Julie Sakura and Sarah Steadman of Santa Fe and Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law profession from the University of Pennsylvania, represented Willock.  The case attracted considerable amicus support, including briefs from law professors, an association of wedding photographers, a New Mexico small businesses association, the ACLU of New Mexico, and the ACLU’s national LGBT Rights Project.