Brush & Nib is a calligraphy studio in Phoenix that does wedding invitations. That city has nondiscrimination protections. The company hadn’t violated those laws, but wanted to, citing their religious faith. So they joined up with Alliance Defending Freedom (the same organization that represented the cakeshop owner) and sued the city.
The court gave a firm no and used the cakeshop ruling in their reasoning. While some may have religious objections to same-sex weddings,
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.And.
Allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.They also said that though invitations have words on them, this is not a form of speech. What is at stake is conduct, the refusal to serve the LGBTQ community.
The ADF lawyer whined as he referred to the Supreme Court ruling:
In Monday’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” Phoenix’s position contradicts this principle and violates our clients’ artistic and religious freedom.
So, dude, you’re saying in the balance between discrimination against religious belief and discrimination against LGBTQ lives, religious belief should win. I’m pleased the Arizona Court didn’t buy that comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment