Is Religion an Excuse to Violate Anti-Discrimination Laws?

Kentucky Supreme Court hears religious freedom case over LGBT shirts

On August 24^th, the Kentucky Supreme Court heard arguments from a case, Baker v. Hand OnOriginials, over a gay patron suing the defendant for not printing shirts for a LGBT pride event due to his religious beliefs. Blaine Adamson, who owns Kentucky based printing shop Hands On Originials, was sued in 2012 for denying business to a Gay and Lesbian services organization. The group asked him to print shirts promoting information that he claimed, “violated his Christian faith”. He referred the group to other printing options in the area. The case went to a County Commission that rules on issues with fines relating to human right’s violations.

In 2014, the Lexington County Human Rights Commission ruled that Adamson was violating anti-discrimination laws and instructed him to print the shirts and to undergo extensive diversity training. Adamson challenged this decision in a county court and won. The case was then appealed to the State Supreme Court by the prosecution. Adamson is quoted saying, “I will work with any person, no matter who they are, and no matter what their belief systems are. But when I’m presented with a message that conflicts with my faith, that’s just something I cannot print.” Adamson’s representative in court, Campbell, claimed that the request to print presented a “substantial burden” on Adamson’s religious beliefs, as defined in Holt v. Hobbs. This case created an allowance for business professionals who were substantially hampered due to religious beliefs during their private business transactions. Campbell also argued that the diversity training claimed that it was wrong for him to operate his business in accordance with his religious faith, which violates his right to religious expression. On the opposing side, the Commission argued that allowing Hands On to choose what to print and what not to would be a violation of discrimination laws and would remove consumer’s right to free speech.

The main question posed in this dispute is the constitutionality of a private business freely expressing its religious faith by denying customers who wish to promote an idea that directly conflicts with the owner’s beliefs. This clearly questions the free exercise clause in the first amendment, which allows for all to express religious beliefs if they are not harming other citizen’s rights. Defining this harm has been excessively difficult in the past with the courts and discriminatory beliefs. In past cases, the court has ruled with the consumers, claiming that anti-discriminatory laws lay out requirements that must be followed, no matter the religious disputes. In the Sweetcakes case, a wedding bakery refused to make cakes for same sex weddings. The case went through the lower courts in Oregon and made it to the Supreme Court, where it was sent back to the lower courts to reconsider. The lower courts current decision upholds the $135,000 penalty against the bakery owners for violating anti-discriminatory laws. The fine is assigned to the business, rather than the business owner, which may be the court’s method of defining the issue as a private business matter rather than an individual rights dispute. The Supreme Court may reconsider the ruling in the future, but the current ruling slightly favors the costumer and the legitimacy of anti-discriminatory laws.

This case poses a particularly difficult question, as the product in dispute is one that is being literally printed and used to spread awareness of the issue. The owner claims that this is an exact violation of his religious beliefs, and that printing the shirts would be an endorsement of the LGBTQ organizations and their events

When observing Baker v. Hand On Originials, I agree with a portion of the court’s decision, while dissenting on the issue related to the required diversity training. Private business practices are extremely different than an employee or organization within the public system. As a private business, owners must adhere to anti-discriminatory laws set by the legislature within each state and the federal government. Freedom of exercise within the sphere of private business is hard to define in many cases, and the court has struggled in the past with defining the gray space on the issue. The wedding cake case outlines lower court opinions on the issue, and I believe the precedent should be followed in this case. Although individual choice and expression of faith is important, the creation of anti-discriminatory laws were meant to be followed no matter the owner’s religious beliefs. In every single case, whether it has to do with wedding cakes, T-shirts, or any other consumer product, anti-discriminatory laws must be followed and practiced by all businesses, no matter the denomination of the business leaders.

In the case of the diversity training, the county commission’s requirement for the business owner to attend intensive training due to his violation is unconstitutional and violates the owner’s rights. The business itself and its treatment of customers must not adhere to personal beliefs, but punishment through training may attempt to subdue the owner’s religious rights. Some may argue that this government program would favor non-denominational over religious individuals, therefore hindering religion in its entirety. Although the owner must follow the laws guiding his business, he holds the right to disagree with the practices of his consumers and what he produces for them. Forcing him to attend hours of diversity training claiming that his personal beliefs are not to be accepted, even within his own personal sphere of influence, encroaches upon his religious rights and is therefore unconstitutional.