Adamson argues based on his First Amendment freedoms. He has made it clear that he is willing to assist any customers with their promotional needs, “regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation." However, because of his dedication to religion, he will not print a message that violates his beliefs, regardless of who the individual is. While what he refuses to print includes messages in support of the LGBTQ+ community, it also involves messages promoting violence, or anything else that is not accepted in his religion.
For GLSO, the argument is that there is an anti-discrimination law in place protecting exactly this type of discrimination. They feel entitled to business from Hands On Originals and do not think Adamson should receive an exception from a law that is purposefully enacted. The compelling state interest is there to protect marginalized groups and must remain to be effective.
Looking at the Sherbert Test, established under Sherbert v. Verner, it must be determined if there is a burden on an individual’s religious freedom, if there is a compelling state interest for that burden, and if there is a less restrictive means of accomplishing the goal. In this case, Adamson feels as though “he would likely be forced to close or sell the business that he worked so hard to build” if the court did not rule in favor of him. This is because he cannot operate the business in a way that complies with his religious beliefs if he was forced to print the shirts and attend training. In terms of a compelling state interest, it falls on the fact that there is a legitimate law against this type of anti-discrimination. The local government feels as though they have a right to protect the LGBTQ+ community and any discriminatory acts against them. Finally, there is a less restrictive means that was offered by Adamson, which is to provide a referral to a comparable competitor.
The Kentucky Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Hands On Originals. The basis behind the decision is that the Lexington-Fayette County anti-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity only protects individuals, not organizations. Because of this close analysis of the law itself, GLSO does not have a legitimate claim against Adamson to force him to print them shirts.
In the end, I agree with the decision made by the Kentucky Supreme Court, which sided with Adamson. No individual is entitled to a specific printer, simply because they want that vendor. Adamson is a private vendor, with no funding from the state. This is important because it indicates that he is not speaking on behalf of the government, but instead showcasing his own freedom of speech and religion rights. Additionally, he offered another vendor with a comparable price match, showcasing his dedication to making sure the client could have their shirts printed by someone. This is an example of how a less restrictive means can be applied to the situation. Adamson is approving and sourcing a vendor of similar quality for the client, putting in work, but not violating his individual rights. It is not that Adamson is refusing the client because of who they are, but instead refusing their message. Given his assistance in finding another option, one could argue that Adamson is still serving the client. He is just not the one printing to t-shirts himself given his devotion to his religious beliefs. Finally, it can be helpful to look at the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The baker was able to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs, among other reasons. While this case specifically had many different details that went into the decision, making it complex and not a straightforward precedent, it is still helpful to consider.
The counter argument, favoring the GLSO, is that the anti-discrimination laws are Constitutional. As determined in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the court set the precedent that religious beliefs do not excuse individuals from following valid laws. Since the anti-discrimination laws are valid, and maintain a compelling state interest, Adamson should theoretically have to abide by the rule. However, in cases following Smith, such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, some justices moved to suggest that Smith should be overturned s a precedent. This indicates the direction that the Supreme Court is moving in, which is how they would likely rule on this case if it was brought before them. Ultimately, the court ruled correctly in favor of Hands On Originals, given the facts of the case.
https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/aaron-baker-gay-lesbian-services-organization-v-hands-originals-inc-0
https://freedomforallamericans.org/hands-on-originals-v-baker/
https://www.becketlaw.org/case/handsonoriginals/#:~:text=The%20law%20protects%20the%20freedom,speech%20and%20our%20pluralistic%20society.
https://adflegal.org/blaine-adamson-story?sourcecode=10002749&utm_source=native&utm_medium=ad&utm_campaign=830-31433&utm_content=Blaine&mwm_id=359180895249&sourcecode=10006838&creative=359180895249&keyword=freedom%20of%20religion%20cases&matchtype=b&network=g&device=c&gclid=CjwKCAjwsJ6TBhAIEiwAfl4TWDNVFcGJu569vXBvfmlAIoHRI8gRL_3WogKPcOz51HHOJz49RmKRXBoC9kUQAvD_BwE
9 comments:
Great analysis first of all. I wholly agree with your conclusion on the constitutionality of the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision in favor of Mr. Adamson. the similarities are so much in line with the case you referenced, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and if this were to be taken up to the SCOTUS I could see the decision being the same. No one should ever be forced to partake in any event that goes against their conscience or religion, period. While there may be anti-discrimination laws, when one asks another to partake in a ceremony or celebration of something that goes against their faith, they should not be coerced by the state of all things to partake. That is the definition of tyranny.
You provided a very comprehensive analysis. I believe the court should rule similarly to how it did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. Both of these cases are similar in that they deal with individual religious freedoms in private business. I believe that Adamson should win in this suit for two main reasons. First, Adamson made it clear that printing these shirts would violate his religious convictions. He was not discriminating against GLSO’s sexual orientation, rather, he was refusing service based on the message being printed on the shirt. The message on the shirt clearly violated his religious beliefs. As a reasonable alternative, he offered to refer GLSO to another printer for the same price. To me, this alternative option eliminates any substantial burden on the part of GLSO because they have alternative means for achieving their needs. Conversely, forcing Adamson to violate his religious convictions would prove to be a much more substantial burden. Second, Molly states that the Lexington-Fayette County anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination of sexual orientation and gender idenity only for individuals, not organizations. Adamson is a private vendor receiving no public funds, so GLSO has no valid ability to force him to print their shirts. The result of this case would be very different if Adamson worked for the state and received public funding.
This case reminds me a lot of Masterpiece Cake shop in which the rulings from the Court seem to be consistent. All in all, I agree with your standing on the case. Due to the fact that Hands On Originals is a private business and is not required to serve organizations, I think they have the right to serve who they want. Challenging this argument, there is a definitely a compelling state interest here where private companies choosing not to sell to certain minority groups may be viewed as discrimination, but from a Constitutional standpoint, I agree with the Court.
Similar to the other comments, I agree entirely with your take on this case. The facts of this case extremely parallels with those of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Once again, we see individuals who own private companies being coerced into complying with state anti-discrimination laws that conflict with their religious convictions. Similar to designing cakes for a same-sex marriage, being forced to print t-shirts in support of the LGBTQ+ community for a pride celebration forces the private business owner to essentially commemorate and indirectly partake in celebratory events that breach their religious convictions. It could be challenging to generally evaluate if private businesses are bound to state anti-discrimination laws because their businesses operate within the state borders. Nonetheless, because Mr. Adamson's business has no connection to the government or receiving funding on top of the fact that it infringed upon his religious rights, he has jurisdiction how the company operates and who serve is extended to. It is also important to note his willingness to ensure the customers received equivalent services with the same price and quality of work.
Like the other commenters, I was immediately reminded of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. This case seems very similar, which makes it easier to interpret. I agree with the points you made and would side with Hands on Originals. Some of the most compelling arguments to me are that there are less restrictive means that can be used to achieve the same outcome here. The owner gave the customer other alternatives for where they could get clothing made. Additionally, the owner was willing to serve any customer, but he was specifically considering the message he would have to print, which contradicted his religious values. This would go against his First Amendment rights, and this is a private business. Therefore, I agree with Molly's evaluation.
I agree with your analysis and the above commenters. I find it important that Hands On Originals was not discriminating against the sexual orientation of customers (as would be prohibited via the anti-discriminatory act) since he offered to sell other items to the group. He denied services for an event which he rejects due to his religious convictions. As a private business owner, Hands On Originals need not endorse the views of others. Further, the owner found a comparable price for other clothing designers. As you stated, GLSO is a group, not an individual. Therefore, this entity does not maintain the same freedom protections as an ordinary citizen. My only concern is the slippery slope issue that may prevent further protections for LGBTQ individuals. There are movements to expand protections for this group (such as including sexual orientation in Title IX) but these may be difficult with the current exceptions to anti-discrimination laws. That being said, I agree that Hands On Originals should win this case due to the private business and lack of direct discrimination.
Great analysis of the case. This is a really interesting case following the timeline of precedent from the Sherbet test that you referenced. I agree with the commenters above. It comes down to the fact that he is a private business owner that receives no funding from the state and therefore can use the Free Exercise clause strongly and concretely. I agree with Bella's point above that there could be cause for concern for a slippery slope, but until there are more constitutional rights detailing provisions against LGBTQ religion, it is hard to fight against the Free Exercise clause.
Similar to the comments above, I immediately was reminded of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that we discussed earlier this semester. Using this case as precedent, I would argue that the business owner has the right to refuse his service under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Given the fact that it is a private business, the owner is able to set his own rules. Additionally, he offered an alternative business that offered the same service for the same price. Therefore, the ensuring that the protestors could still get shirts elsewhere. Due to these things, I would say that forcing Mr. Adamson to go against his views would be a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Similar to most other commenters, this reminds me of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and a few others that we discussed in class. These cases made it much easier to try and decipher what the correct interpretation is for this case. Though it is always a close call, looking at the facts of this case I think that their free exercise was being violated. This is unfortunate as there is a cause for a slippery slope argument; yet I do not think it is strong enough to make the point that they should be forced to give service.
Post a Comment