Phoenix Art Studio Under Scrutiny For Denying Services to Same-Sex Couple

Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski are the owners of “Brush and Nib Studio” in Phoenix. They make custom artwork for a wide range of purposes, including weddings. Recently, these two women took quite a bit of backlash for refusing to make custom wedding invitations for a same-sex couple. In 2013, Phoenix passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations.  

The two women filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, due to the fact that the Phoenix city ordinance threatened them with up to six months in jail and/or a fine of $2,500 each day they refused to make the artwork. The women filed in state court to overturn the ordinance, claiming that religious liberty allows you to refuse to create custom artwork for a same-sex wedding. Initially, they lost in a court of appeals. Feeling as though the decision wronged them, they decided to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court, which heard the case in November of 2018.

This past September, in a 4-3 ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of the art studio, citing the right for a public accommodation to refuse services in accordance with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

This case isn’t particularly unique. Since Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which ruled that same-sex marriage is protected by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we have seen a push by anti-LGBTQ business owners to deny services to members of the LGBTQ community citing their religious beliefs.

We have already briefly discussed a case of this nature in class, even though we will analyze it further later in the semester. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) was a case involving the refusal to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple due to the religious beliefs of the cakeshop owner. Initially, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the “Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act,” ordered the bakery to accommodate the same-sex couple after finding them guilty of discrimination. However, after appeals in the state of Colorado upheld the decision, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips’ Free Exercise was being violated since the Commission did not apply religious neutrality to the case, and therefore overturned the commission's decision.

This case clearly has some overlap to the Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. City of Phoenix case since one could argue that both pertain to the same question: Does coercing business owner’s to serve same-sex couples despite their religious beliefs violate the shop owner’s constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion?

The decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) cited discrimination against the owner himself for not being able to practice his religious beliefs. This “religious hostility” by the state was considered a violation of the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, according to Justice Kennedy. Evidently, this case set a precedent for the decision made in Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. City of Phoenix just over a year later. Considering the decision made in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court held that the ordinance applied to the refusal to create custom wedding invitations for a same-sex couple “substantially burdens” the business owner’s right to the Free Exercise of religion.

I agree with the decision. First, the precedent set in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) shows a clear overlap to this one. I would argue that Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) was chosen correctly for basically the same Constitutional principles as Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. City of Phoenix, which I will describe more in the coming paragraphs. If the Arizona State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Phoenix, there would be a clear contradiction to a federal precedent set a year prior. While the Supreme Court claimed the Cakeshop case was to be examined on "narrow grounds," or in other words, specific to the case itself, it's impossible to ignore the implications that this decision can and did hold.

Second, looking at United States v. Ballard (1944), the Court cannot question the legitimacy of the owner’s beliefs, meaning that the courts do not have the right to coerce the actions of a private business owner if his or her “sincerely held beliefs” go against serving same-sex couples. In this decision, Justice Douglas stated, “The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position.” With that in mind, it would be unconstitutional to force business owners to serve same-sex couples if that goes against their religious beliefs. In Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. City of Phoenix, owner Breanna Koski specifically says that separating her beliefs from her distribution of artwork is impractical: "We cannot separate our art from our faith; they are deeply interwoven.” Furthermore, in my opinion, government intervention of this idea implies questioning the sincerity and applicability of both owner’s beliefs, which owner Joanna Duke sees as problematic: "Everyone should be free to live and work according to their beliefs,” she asserts.

I also think that there is an evident “substantial burden” in this case. Clearly, the two art studio owners were facing substantial pressure to violate their religion. The steep fines and/or jail sentence that could have been given to them forced them to choose between their religions, on the one hand, and life as they know it to be, on the other hand. At the very least, it could be argued that the state could have applied “less restrictive means” as opposed to the ordinance applied as it was originally. 

Lastly, applying the precedent of religious neutrality set in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), I would argue that not allowing the art studio owners to practice their religious beliefs goes against the principle of religious neutrality. The accommodationist perspective would say that this lack of religious neutrality towards the owner’s right to the free exercise of religion is unconstitutional.

Thanks in part to the Masterpiece case, the Arizona Supreme Court reached the right decision in preserving the religious liberty for Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski.