T-Shirt Maker Sued for Discrimination

Blaine Adamson, a t-shirt maker from Kentucky, has spent the last five years battling a court case that threatens his religious freedom. Blaine and his company, “Hands on Originals”, was sued in 2012 after refusing to print t-shirts that promoted the gay pride festival happening in Lexington, Kentucky at that time. Adamson makes it extremely clear: by refusing to print t-shirts for the festival he is not discriminating against homosexuals, but is simply exercising his religious freedoms. He claims that he should not have to print messages that he does not fundamentally support. Adamson is a devout Christian; he wants his work to reflect the moral framework that his religion provides.

Adamson’s reasoning focuses on the messages he is promoting through these t-shirts, not whom he serves or with whom he works. Adamson supports this claim by referencing his past experiences with homosexuals. He argues that he is not homophobic because he has both served and employed homosexuals. Adamson states, “We’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages (The Daily Signal).”

This incident is not the first time Adamson has refused to print messages he does not support. In the past, he has also refused to print messages that are anti-religious and anti-homosexuality, in addition to those that promote homosexuality. For example, he refused to print a shirt in the past that had “Homosexuality is a sin” written on it, as his fundamental beliefs also do not promote slogans that demote other groups. Furthermore, he has, however, created custom shirts for homosexual people so long as he agreed with the message he was printing. For example, he printed t-shirts for a band in which the lead singer was a lesbian because the message of the band was not controversial with his religious beliefs. Finally, customers have asked him to print designs that portray Jesus in a negative manner, in which he also declined to create those as well. To this point, Adamson is respectfully showing that he will not print anything that does not align with his religious and personal moral framework, not just specifically pride gear. Additionally, Adamson once again clarifies that it is not about those he works with, but rather the messages they want printed.

Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO), the group that is suing Adamson, believes that his actions are discriminatory. The Humans Right Commision sided with GLSO, and required Blaine Adamson to print the shirts despite his religious beliefs. They found Adamson guilty of discriminating illegally (Alliance Defending Freedom).  A different judge then supported Adamson’s case, however, and agreed, in May of 2017, that he has the freedom to print what aligns with his religious beliefs and personal morals, as is outlined in the constitution. That wasn’t all, though, as in September of 2017, it was reported that the government has appealed this case for the second time, and it is now being taken to the Kentucky Supreme Court on a date to be determined.

Recent laws have been placed in Kentucky regarding LGBTQ discriminatory acts. LGBTQ groups are concerned, as “Governor Matt Bevin [signed] SB 17 into law, a measure that allows student groups at colleges, universities, and high schools to discriminate against LGBTQ students (Human Rights Campaign).” The Humans Rights Campaign continues to support their claim that this law is unjust by saying, “While of course private groups should have the freedom to express religious viewpoints, they should not be able to unfairly discriminate with taxpayer funds.” These new laws protect Mr. Adamson, as he refused to make the pride t-shirts due to his religious morals.

This case can be closely compared to the Jack Phillips case, in which a baker refused to create a cake for a homosexual marriage, as those practices also did not align with his religious beliefs, and was also sued based of off discriminatory practices. The main argument surrounding Mr. Phillip’s case also applies to Mr. Blaine Adamson’s case. Some have said that Mr. Phillip’s cakes are artistic masterpieces that are extremely personal expressions of his, just like Mr. Adamson’s t-shirts. This case would be different if Mr. Phillips had denied a homosexual customer a pre-made baked good or cake, as that would be a case of clear discrimination. However, since they were asking him to exercise his artistic abilities to create a cake that does not align with his morals, this is a question of religious freedom and personal expression. The same principles surrounding this case, which will be tried soon, are found in the t-shirt case with Mr. Adamson.

I support Adamson, and believe that the first amendment supports him too. As “Hands on Originals” is a private company, they have the right to only promote and sell objects that align with their private beliefs. Particularly due to the fact that Adamson has a track record of supporting and serving homosexuals. Alliance Defending Freedom makes the point, would anyone force a homosexual couple to promote anti-gay slogans through their work?

Adamson makes his resting claim, saying: “All we are asking for is that the government not force us to promote messages against our convictions. Everyone should have that freedom. (The Daily Signal).”

Other Sources not already cited:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5583724061001/christian-t-shirt-maker-sued-for-not-making-pride-gear#sp=show-clips

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/client-stories-details/jack-phillips

http://religionandamericanlaw.blogspot.com/2018/01/can-cake-discriminate_28.html

Freedom of Choice: For the Future?

With the decision of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission being announced in June, there is a similar case being argued in Minnesota. Carl and Angel Larsen are devout Christians, who place God at the helm of their livelihoods. They cherish many values with their Christian faith, marriage being one of their most closely held ones. They own Telescope Media Group, which is a small media business they run themselves. Disappointed in the current state of marriage and hoping to expand their business ventures, they wish to make marriage videos, in which “… to use their wedding cinematography to reanimate the hearts and minds of people about the goodness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

However, they are unable to start making marriage videos because of Minnesota Statute 363A.17.

“It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade or business or in the provision of a service:

(3) to intentionally refuse to do business with, to refuse to contract with, or to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person's race, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, or disability, unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.”

They are now arguing that they should not have to abide by the Minnesota Statute because it restricts their Free Exercise rights guaranteed with the First Amendment. They have yet to release marriage videos, and they face a REAL payment of a civil penalty to the state, triple compensatory damages, punitive damages up to $25,000, and even up to 90 days in jail if they chose to deny same-sex couples. They are filing a lawsuit to attain a court order allowing them to be punishment free. Leading this info into a suffice question, does Telescope Media Group have the right to be exempt from Statute 363A.17 because their Free Exercise rights are infringed upon?

The answer to this case is very tricky in many situations, due to the many repercussions that could arise from this case. The Larsens under the First Amendment are guaranteed the right to Free Exercise of their religion, however the Constitution conflicts with the Statute put into place. The full scope of this case and siding with the Larsens could potentially set future precedent for people who actually intend to be malicious in values to deny same-sex couples public service, however if you side the other way, you could potentially harm the future structure and interpretations of the Free Exercise Clause. This is particularly harmful because that structure is a deep foundation for the population of Americans who are religious. Both create a slippery slope, that can create negative impacts.

 A couple things I looked at are the implications and a similar case. The first thing I looked at was the implications of why the statute was made, and I don’t see evidence to suggest that it was made to target a certain religious affiliation into complying, I think it is in place to protect people from being discriminated against. However, as I also mentioned before this reminds me of the baker who refused to bake a cake for the same-sex couple. The resemblance I see between the two is in the passion they put into their works of art. They start from scratch and then mold their works into a finished project that is riddled with the time they put into this work. So, I see plausible reasonings for both sides in this case.

Coming to an answer in this case, leaves me with the conclusion that I agree and side with Telescope Media Group and their ability to use their first amendment rights. Their Free Exercise rights are being hindered because of Minnesota Statute 363A.17. A common belief of their faith is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and their purpose for making wedding videos is to rejuvenate those sentiments. I think for those purposes they are not acting off of discrimination, but off their faith. Do you think that the reasonings they have given are plausible to be used in court?

Flower Fiasco

Strikingly similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case currently under review by the Supreme Court, Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington deals with the balance between freedom to exercise religion and discrimination. 

Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, has been reported to have a long history of serving and employing homosexuals through her business.  She is also a Christian, and in 2013 she cited  her "relationship with Jesus Christ," as her reason for refusing longtime customer Robert Ingersoll, and his partner Curt Freed service for his upcoming wedding. 

She was sued by the Washington State Attorney and the American Civil Liberties Union, on the grounds of  consumer protection and discrimination respectively, the case was then consolidated into Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington. Stutzman's defense was based in free speech, free exercise, free association, and also in the state's constitution, which states, "Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment." On February 16, 2017, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman, she had violated anti-discriminatory laws and that her flowers do not endorse same sex marriage. From the majority summery;  "The Superior Court granted judgment to the State and the couple, rejecting all of Stutzman's claims. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed."

Stutzman has appealed to the Supreme Court. The Alliance Defending Freedom has picked up her case and argues similarly to the Cakeshop case. They argue that her artistic expression and religious expression are being violated by the state of Washington. The Alliance Defending Freedom's has declared that its mission is "to protect the right of creative professionals to use their God-given talents in ways that are consistent with their beliefs." The alliance is advocating combining the Cakeshop and Flower cases as they are similar in nature. 

There is no federal law forbidding discrimination against gay couples, although states and counties like Washington have forbidden it. That being said cases like this one have wide ranging influence, as if the Cakeshop and Flowershop were found not-guilty, it may start a slippery slope involving how much freedom of expression overrides discrimination laws. What if someone claimed that they could't serve African- American's due to their religious beliefs? If religious expression triumphs over anti-discrimination against gay couples, is the 1965 Civil Rights Act at risk of being overruled in favor of the free expression clause?

I do not agree with  Stutzman's actions, but I do respect her claims. She is an artist by trade and her business is being threatened by the State. Jefferson would agree with the Judge that ruled her flower arrangements as not endorsing homosexual marriage, as he believe the magistrates' job was to step in in matters of religious conflict.  Reynolds v. United States also established that the government could regulate practices of the individual, as long as beliefs are not forced on them. With these precedents and overall speculation it seems unlikely that a case like this or the Cakeshop case will do well in the court. Any case that will potentially allow more discrimination is unlikely to succeed in today's climate. That being said, if the case goes either way without the judges allowing a slippery slope going either way, so allowing discrimination charges to be leveraged against legitimate denials of service or allowing discrimination due to free exercise of religion I will be satisfied. I think a part of the Flowershop cases's downfall was the direct admittance of not serving the gay couple due to heir sexuality, instead of claiming some other reason for the lack of service. This may just have been a case that Washington pursued to fight de jure discrimination. 

I believe that this case and the Cakeshop case will not succeed due to precedents in past cases, although it may seem like the wording of the first amendment itself defends the owners. Although the first amendment is the ultimate jurisdiction on the matter, it is undefined and its meaning has been improved upon, generally at the expense of religious expression. Throughout our nation's history, it seems like we are more adherent to Jefferson's ideals in state over religious practice. The only unknown factor may be Judge Gorsuch's reading of the Constitution being very grounded in textualism. 

Does the "Good Book" lead to good classes?

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky has notified the Kentucky Department of Education of numerous constitutional violations that have occurred under the new "bible literacy" courses. In 2017, the Kentucky general assembly passed House Bill 128 in order to establish a series of optional courses which examine the old testament and the new testament and their impact on literature. The ACLU-KY found many of the courses being offered do not fail to abide by constitutional standards established by the establishment clause of the first amendment. During their investigation they found many practices which indicated teachers were using these new courses to impart religious lessons rather than inform and instruct students on how the bible and its text has influenced more modern literature.

The ACLU-KY has uncovered practices such as the use of online Sunday school courses, worksheets and course material directly taken from Sunday school lessons, and rote memorization of the bible. They claim these practices fail to fall under the objective and academic standards set out by HB-128. The ACLU-KY argues if the law's purpose is truly to educate students about the cultural impact of the bible, it would not include a curriculum full of Christian educational material. They sent requests to all 173 school districts in order to gain a better understanding of the practices being implemented under this new law. ACLU-KY attorney Heather Gatnarek has stated she hopes their,  "investigative findings demonstrate the need for clear, concise, and controlled guidance for teachers in addition to a plan for monitoring these course so students' and parent's constitutional rights are not violated." The ACLU has offered to assist the KDE in creating and enforcing these standards to ensure student and parent rights are not violated by this new law.

I believe the constitutionality of the current practice of this law are impacted by the actual religious content of the school, and by the fact these courses are electives. In regards to the first question. I believe the current content of these courses is a clear violation of the establishment clause. The legal precedent sent by Engel v. Vitale would indicate requiring students to perform actions such as wrote memorization of the bible and completion of Sunday school material would be a violation of the establishment clause. As Justice Black indicated in the case, "by using its public school system as a way to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the state of New York has a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause." This would indicate using the public school system to encourage overtly religious acts such as rote memorization of holy texts and completion religious school exercises is also a violation of the establishment clause. In this light, if practices continue the way that they have, then the ACLU-KY would have an obligation to bring the KDE to court to protect the religious rights of students and parents of Kentucky.

However, I am still unsure if their case would be as air tight as one would expect. This is due to the optional nature of elective classes. The ACLU's joint statement of current law on religion in public schools indicates teachers and school administrators cannot encourage or solicit religious or anti-religious sentiment or actions from their students.  Furthermore, employees of the school system may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, there are no points in the joint statement which clearly address how teachers are interact with students who choose to challenge their religious thoughts and beliefs. The optional nature of the class may allow for some legal leeway which allows Kentucky teachers to continue with their current practices in these courses. However, due to my lack of knowledge on the legal precedent around cases of optional religious classes in public school, I'm not sure if the elective status of the class would create an exception to the establishment clause.

Prayers and Coercion in Louisiana Public Schools

On December 18, 2017 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worked in conjunction with the ACLU of Louisiana to file suit in federalcourt against Louisiana’s Webster Parish School District. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Christy Cole whose daughters, K.C. and Ana Lopez-Cole, attend Lakeside Junior and Senior High which is a public school within Webster Parish School District, and the ACLU is arguing that the Webster Parish School District is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by means of daily school sponsored Christian prayer, proselytizing, and attempts to coerce students to participate in Christian prayers regardless of the student’s religious beliefs.

Full descriptions of events and allegations against the school board have been cataloged and highlight specific and repeated instances where the Establishment Clause has been violated by the School Board. These accounts show that Christy Cole has had a long standing battle with the School Board over their apparent violation of the Establishment Clause, and that she has attempted to bring the issue to the attention of many authorities within the school district before taking legal action. Since the issue is now being reviewed in federal court, the question that must be answered by the judiciary is whether or not the practices of schools in the Webster Parish School District violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Christy Cole’s daughters, K.C. and Ana Lopez-Cole, have been students in the Webster Parish School District since elementary school, and they and their mother allege that school sponsored prayer and proselytizing has been happening since their careers as students began. According to the Cole family and other students the Central Elementary School as well as Lakeside Junior and Senior High School have a deeply ingrained practice in which students are selected to read the Pledge of Allegiance and a Christian prayer, consisting of The Lord’s Prayer and other bible verses, over the school’s PA system every morning. Many teachers at the schools also require students to pray as a group before lunch every day. The Cole sisters were selected on multiple occasions to read the Pledge of Allegiance and morning prayers, however they faced repercussions from the school after reading the pledge but refusing to read the prayer. Ms. Cole complained to the school about the mandatory prayers, but instead of an answer school officials mocked Ms. Cole and insinuated that she is not Christian and therefore cannot understand Christians or Christian practices. Ms. Cole informant school officials that she is in fact a practicing Christian and against school sponsored prayer regardless of the faith promoted. The principal then admitted that he “would remove his own son from school if he were forced to observe Islamic Prayer”. A few years later Ana Lopez-Cole describes witnessing a heated dispute between a group of teachers and students about the card game “Magic: The Gathering” in which teachers exclaimed that the game was “against the bible” and “of the devil”. The schools have also been known to bring in evangelizers, such as a ministry of Christian bodybuilders known as Team Impact and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), to speak to and proselytize to students during school assemblies. During K.C.’s eighth-grade year students were taken into the gym for an assembly with the FCA when the school was put on lockdown during the event because of a security incident. During the lockdown students were not allowed to leave the gym and an adult representing the FCA used the time during the lockdown to deliver a sermon to the students. Ms. Cole continued complain to the school board about the frequent instances of school sponsored prayer and received a response from Johnny Rowland who at the time was the Lakeside Principal but now serves as the Superintendent of Webster Parish Schools. Mr. Rowland told Ms. Cole that “I will stop when someone makes me stop”. In September of 2017 Lakeside participated in “See You At The Pole” and event whose own website describes it as “a day committed to global unity in Christ and prayer for your generation”. Lakeside’s 2017 graduation ceremony was even held in Pentecostal Church and was presided over by a minister who delivered an invocation and closing benediction.

For the reasons dictated above and for the additional examples listed in the formal petition to the court, I believe that the practices of schools in the Webster Parish School District very clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The fact that a public school district is enforcing daily prayers by punishing students who do not participate shows blatant coercion to conform to specific religious practices on the part of school administrators, and the proselytizing performed by religious groups during school assemblies where students are not allowed to leave shows a clear intent on the part of the Webster Parish School Board to establish and promote a specific religion as well as prevent Non-Christian students from expressing their religious beliefs. I believe that this case presents a very clear choice for the judiciary to make in defense of religious liberty and the First Amendment. The courts should look to the precedent set by Engle v. Vitale (1962) in which prayer to begin school in New York State was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause.