Christian Artists Can't Be Forced to Make Gay Wedding Invites, Arizona Supreme Court Rules
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the City of Phoenix could not use a criminal law to force a Christian arts studio to make wedding invitations for a gay wedding. Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, faced up to six months of jail time, $2,500 in fines, and three years of probation for each day the city would find them in violation of the law. "The rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person’s home or church, or private conversations with like-minded friends and family," Justice Andrew Gould wrote in the majority opinion for Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix . "These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their beliefs in public. This includes the right to create and sell words, paintings, and art that express a person’s sincere religious beliefs."
"With these fundamental principles in mind, today we hold that the City of Phoenix cannot apply its Human Relations Ordinance to force Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski ... to create custom wedding invitations celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs," Gould wrote.
Duka and Koski create custom artwork using hand painting, hand lettering, and calligraphy to celebrate weddings and other events. Phoenix interpreted the ordinance City Code Section 18-4(B) in a manner that would force artists like them to celebrate and promote same-sex marriage in violation of their beliefs.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) represented Brush & Nib in the case. While Phoenix claimed that Duka and Koski were discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, ADF attorneys explained that Duka and Koski decide what art they create based on the art's message, not the customer's personal characteristics.
"These women of deep religious faith gladly serve everyone, including those in the LGBT community; their faith simply prevents them from expressing certain messages for anyone ," the attorneys argued . "So this case is not about whether businesses can decline to serve an entire class of people. It is about whether artists can freely choose which messages their own art conveys."
"The government shouldn’t threaten artists with jail time and fines to force them to create custom artwork, such as wedding invitations, expressing messages that violate their beliefs, and that’s what the court has affirmed today," Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel with ADF, said in a statement on the ruling. "Joanna and Breanna work with all people; they just don’t promote all messages."
"They, like all creative professionals, should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Instead, government must protect the freedom of artists to choose which messages to express through their own creations," he added. "The court was right to find that protections for free speech and religion protect the freedom of creative professionals to choose for themselves what messages to express through their custom artwork."
"We are pleased that the city can no longer enforce its ordinance in a manner that violates freedom of expression or the ability of Joanna and Breanna to live and work consistently with their faith," Scruggs added. "Joanna and Breanna will now be able to create custom wedding invitations and to communicate about their beliefs without fear of government punishment, as any artist should be free to do. This isn’t just a victory for them. It’s a victory for everyone."
Artistic professionals — whether they be bakers, florists, or calligraphers — should not be forced to endorse ideas and events with which they disagree. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) decision legalizing same-sex marriage, wrote that "it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."
"The 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, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons," Kennedy wrote.
Yet LGBT activists have pushed a restrictive interpretation of civil rights law that redefines discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to include free speech refusals to endorse a gay wedding. The Arizona Supreme Court rightly defended free speech and religious freedom in this case, and other courts should follow suit.
Tags
Who is online
289 visitors
I used to make cakes as a business and would have no qualms about making any couple a cake they would be proud of.
Indeed. Can you imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker refused to make a cake for a Christian couple?
Good for you! I will send you a medal.
Yet another example of using religion to be bigots. Sad day for America.
CH4P, I voted this up and do honestly agree----to a certain degree.
With one caveat ( my own ) of course. And it is as follows---in the following paragraph.
The 'devout ones' should make a beautiful/powerful/strong sign kindly stating that they will not provide service or do business with any of those that they ( the business ) deems to be morally without redemption. In other words CH4P, lay the cards on the table and show people where and what you are.
And one more thing CH4P. God has nothing to do with this and neither does Jesus.
God considered homosexual acts between Hebrew males to be punishable by death. God appears to have an issue with homosexuality. But, then again, God also condoned the practice of owning human beings as property.
Looks like God's moral compass is flawed. Or, maybe, the Bible is just a book written by ancient men and does not actually reflect the mores and wisdom of the grandest possible entity, the supreme being, the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything.
Maybe we should think twice before adopting the mores and values found in the Bible in modern society.
The Bible is replete with contradictions. God loved His creations so much that he decided to wipe out all of them (except for Noah and his family) and, while He was at it, He wiped out all the land and air animals (I am sure they were very sinful) but left the sea creatures (with the fresh water species apparently going extinct unless Noah kept aquariums).
Yes, in spite of what is actually written in the Bible.