Religious Liberty Vs Civil Rights?

[thesometimesaint]

 

Isn’t that essentially what anti-discrimination laws do (at least those directed at individual business owners) --  force some people to follow the moral standards of other people?  

 

Shouldn‘t “your legal right to swing your arm ends at my nose”  apply equally to the business owner and to the patron?  And shouldn’t the aggrieved party have to demonstrate that he has been or will be actually harmed,  by the arm swinging (i..e., that the other guys fist has actually reached his nose)?   

 

In the case cited by the OP,  how has the patron actually been harmed, other than possibly some hurt feelings and trivial inconvenience?  Even that is questionable, if the patron knew ahead of time the business owner would refuse. As far as I can see, nobody even claims that the patron could not have easily obtained a comparable (or even better) cake from a nearby competitor.  

 

On the other hand, forcing someone to act against his moral conscience is doing harm.   

 

Suppose the patron has deliberately targeted the business owner because he know he had strong moral views against gay marriage and wanted to force him to act against  his moral conscience by threatening to destroy his livelihood -- shouldn’t his legal right to swing his arm end at the business owner’s nose?

 

BTW, suppose this business owner’s regular attorney believed that not accepting   “marriage equality” was immoral; therefore representing his long time client in this particular case would violate his own moral conscience?   Should he be forced to represent him anyway?

 

 

That happens any time we make any law. Not just anti-discrimination laws.

 

In this country we have established laws that say harm isn't just limited to swinging your arm. It also includes actions that are targeted to defined groups. IE; Jim Crow laws.

 

That moral exception was tried for a century in this country with "Separate but Equal". We call it Jim Crow and it was separate but hardly equal.

SEE Freedom Riders

 

Not if you are a business..

SEE Woolworth lunch counter demonstrations http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/freedom-struggle-2.html

 

Businesses, in this country, have no legal right to discriminate based on the owners morals. IE; The South for hundreds of years maintained that their moral code allowed rich white plantation owners to won slaves. That idea didn't work out all that well for the South. Then they tried Jim Crow and that didn't work out all that well either.

 

I believe in Zealous Advocacy. That if you are accused of a crime you have the absolute right to an attorney. That if you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed to you at government expense.

SEE  http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope.html

[Bob Crockett]

Yes they are, by permission of the government. Sovereign Immunity dictates that you can't sue the government without the government's permission.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

 

The Impairment of Contracts clause is in the constitution because His Royal Majesty was in the habit of claiming sovereign immunity as a means to get out of contracts with the colonies.  That clause permits courts to impose damages upon a government which enters into a contract and then abrogates it by passing some law or claiming sovereign immunity.

 

What is your point?  The Constitution has read out of the law sovereign immunities -- at least for contract.

[thesometimesaint]

The Impairment of Contracts clause is in the constitution because His Royal Majesty was in the habit of claiming sovereign immunity as a means to get out of contracts with the colonies.  That clause permits courts to impose damages upon a government which enters into a contract and then abrogates it by passing some law or claiming sovereign immunity.

 

What is your point?  The Constitution has read out of the law sovereign immunities -- at least for contract.

Do you even read what I post?  Here is the relevant paragraph.Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.^[1]. The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."^[2]

 

So no it doesn't. You can sue the US government only by permission of the US government. That statute also is applicable in the various states of the United States of America. At the Federal level you have to go before a Federal judge and get permission to sue the government. It is not hard to do by witness of how often that permission is given.

[jwhitlock]

I don't believe this story, at least as it is told. Mall owners don't want shuttered shops; it drives away business. People don't like shopping in a mall and seeing closed shops. Mall leases almost always dictated the hours of operations. It may be indeed the case that the story you cite involves a tenant with a early lease that might not contain that obligation, whereupon there is no "legal" pressure that can be brought to bear.

 

You're certainly entitled to believe or disbelieve anything you'd like.

 

Regarding the Kelo case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public agency could use eminent domain to condemn a blighted piece of property to sell it and turn it over to a developer. The right of eminent domain predates the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the power eminent domain but limits it. The power must be granted for a public purpose. Removing blighted property (this was being used as a dump) is a public purpose. That has been constitutional law for 48 years or so. The case has nothing to do with Sunday operation.

 

 

I wasn't aware that Susette Kelo's home, and the homes of her neighbors, was actually a blighted dump. In fact, the articles I read about it indicated that it was turned into a dump ->after<- the Supreme court decision. The owners were forced out and then the developer abandoned the project. The seized property was then turned into a dumping ground. Turns out, evidently, that all New London wanted to do was increase tax revenues by moving poor people off the property and trying to get wealthier businesses to occupy it. Seems ironic to me that after losing $78 million in the deal, the city was left with what they tried to misrepresent it as in the first place. Also sounds like it was abuse of eminent domain that wasn't protected by SCOTUS's "interpretation" of the Constitution.

 

However, I've probably misunderstood the whole thing, since I've been accused of lacking any real world understanding of legal issues.

[Bob Crockett]

Do you even read what I post?  Here is the relevant paragraph.Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.^[1]. The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."^[2]

 

So no it doesn't. You can sue the US government only by permission of the US government. That statute also is applicable in the various states of the United States of America. At the Federal level you have to go before a Federal judge and get permission to sue the government. It is not hard to do by witness of how often that permission is given.

But what is your point?   The federal government waives sovereign immunity when it enters into a contract.  (Its like when you sign a contract to buy a car on installment, you essentially grant somebody the right to sue you if you don't perform.) The Court of Claims exists to handle such disputes.  If the Department of Defense signs a contract to build a building, it can be enforced in the Court of Claims and the judge will order payment for damages.   It can't claim sovereign immunity after signing a contract; otherwise the Impairment of Contracts clause would hold the government liable.

 

Point please.  I get the law you're arguing, but it is like angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[thesometimesaint]

But what is your point?   The federal government waives sovereign immunity when it enters into a contract.  (Its like when you sign a contract to buy a car on installment, you essentially grant somebody the right to sue you if you don't perform.) The Court of Claims exists to handle such disputes.  If the Department of Defense signs a contract to build a building, it can be enforced in the Court of Claims and the judge will order payment for damages.   It can't claim sovereign immunity after signing a contract; otherwise the Impairment of Contracts clause would hold the government liable.

 

Point please.  I get the law you're arguing, but it is like angels dancing on the head of a pin.

 

The Federal government has never waived sovereign immunity. You need federal permission to sue the federal government. No federal judge will even hear your case without his(government) permission.  It is part an parcel of our laws.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/FedSovereign_21.pdf

[Bob Crockett]

The Federal government has never waived sovereign immunity. You need federal permission to sue the federal government. No federal judge will even hear your case without his(government) permission.  It is part an parcel of our laws.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/FedSovereign_21.pdf

You are quite mistaken.   The Court of Claims has been set up to hear contract claims.  You call it "permission" but the law calls it "waiver."  

 

But, again I ask, what is your point?   If the government can be sued anytime it enters into a contract, in the Court of Claims (and it state courts it is even easier), then what is your point? Cite me one example where the government signed a procurement contract and then reneged, citing sovereign immunity.  Sometime in the colonies after King George II.

 

I mean, why are you arguing this point?   We own real estate but only at the government's indulgence.  It can take it away any time it wants.  It didn't have to honor Spanish land grants.  It didn't have to honor Mormon title claims dating from 1847.  But it did and it has. 

 

We sue people over tort and contract, but only because the government has undulged us with a court system.  Without a coercive indulgent government we'd have no system of laws to enforce.  

 

In other words, any legal right we have is at the government's indulgence, including contract rights.  In the case of the US constitution, however, if the feds sign a contract and renege, the Impairment Clause would nail it in the courts. 

[thesometimesaint]

You are quite mistaken.   The Court of Claims has been set up to hear contract claims.  You call it "permission" but the law calls it "waiver."  

 

But, again I ask, what is your point?   If the government can be sued anytime it enters into a contract, in the Court of Claims (and it state courts it is even easier), then what is your point? Cite me one example where the government signed a procurement contract and then reneged, citing sovereign immunity.  Sometime in the colonies after King George II.

 

I mean, why are you arguing this point?   We own real estate but only at the government's indulgence.  It can take it away any time it wants.  It didn't have to honor Spanish land grants.  It didn't have to honor Mormon title claims dating from 1847.  But it did and it has. 

 

We sue people over tort and contract, but only because the government has undulged us with a court system.  Without a coercive indulgent government we'd have no system of laws to enforce.  

 

In other words, any legal right we have is at the government's indulgence, including contract rights.  In the case of the US constitution, however, if the feds sign a contract and renege, the Impairment Clause would nail it in the courts. 

 

The US has never waived Sovereign Immunity. To this day you need a Federal Judge to permit you to sue the Federal Government.

 

Take a look at the size of Deseret in1847 http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes/videos/how-utah-got-its-shape

[Bob Crockett]

The US has never waived Sovereign Immunity. To this day you need a Federal Judge to permit you to sue the Federal Government.

 

Take a look at the size of Deseret in1847 http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes/videos/how-utah-got-its-shape

You can say that all you want, but a large part of my practice involves suing the federal government (actually, I defend federal permits; other people sue).   It is called "waiver." The federal government has selectively waived sovereign immunity.  Since you like to cite non-law, here's wiki on it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity, which talks about the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Court of Claims.

 

You can define things your own way and I'll not argue again your personal definitions, but can't you indulge me with an answer as to why this argument is important to you?  Why the dodge?  Is this some sort of arch-right wing anti-tax argument?   

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You can say that all you want, but a large part of my practice involves suing the federal government (actually, I defend federal permits; other people sue).   It is called "waiver." The federal government has selectively waived sovereign immunity.  Since you like to cite non-law, here's wiki on it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity, which talks about the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Court of Claims.

 

You can define things your own way and I'll not argue again your personal definitions, but can't you indulge me with an answer as to why this argument is important to you?  Why the dodge?  Is this some sort of arch-right wing anti-tax argument?   

TSS arguing for anything right wing? Rofl. Bob you should get out more.

[Bob Crockett]

TSS arguing for anything right wing? Rofl. Bob you should get out more.

That's perverse.   You mean, spend more time in front of a monitor?  I have no clue who the sometimesaint is and barely remember reading anything's he posted, which is what most folks can say about me.  But, he doesn't want to answer my question.

 

I get it that he/she wants to define things to suit him/her, which is a common problem on this board, but I am really wondering why it makes a difference to him/her to say that the government has never waived sovereign immunity.  

[Daniel2]

This just in...

BREAKING: Supreme Court won’t hear anti-gay photographer case

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday it won’t take up a case in which a New Mexico photography business alleges its rights were violated when it landed in hot water for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony.

In orders published Monday morning, the court listed the case, Elane Photography v. Willock, without comment as among the cases it won’t consider.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Elane Photography, which was found to have violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo for the same-sex wedding ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth in 2006. (The wedding was only ceremonial because the incident took place before the state legalized same-sex marriage.)

Elane Photography filed lawsuit in state court, alleging that its refusal to photograph a same-sex wedding is protected on religious grounds. However, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the claims, saying the businesses service can be regulated because it’s a public accommodation.

Following that decision, Elane Photography asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the lawsuit based on First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution. The court was scheduled to consider whether to take up the case during its March 21 and March 28 conference. To grant a writ certiorari, or a take up a case, at least four of the nine justices on the court must agree to consider lawsuit. It’s unknown what the vote was on denying certiorari in this case.

Had the court taken up the case, justices could have found a constitutional right across the country for individuals to discriminate against LGBT people or refuse services for same-sex weddings ceremonies on the basis of religion.

More can be read here:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/04/07/supreme-court-wont-hear-n-m-photographer-case/#sthash.eUf38e91.dpuf

The ACLU responds:

"No court has ever held that businesses have a First Amendment right to discriminate, and it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has denied this attempt to overturn settled law," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "Selling commercial wedding photography services, like selling a wedding cake or a flower arrangement, does not mean that a business owner endorses a customer's marriage. The business is simply providing a commercial service. Everybody has the right to express their views on whatever subject they wish, and that includes business owners. But every business has to play by the same rules to protect customers from discrimination in the marketplace."

[Daniel2]

Two interesting articles related to this topic are in today's news:

COLORADO: Civil Rights Panel Rules That Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/05/colorado-civil-rights-panel-rules-that.html?m=1#disqus_thread

Breaking news from the ACLU:

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that a Lakewood bakery violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, because of the owner’s personal religious beliefs. At a public hearing today, the commission rejected the bakery’s appeal of an earlier finding of unlawful discrimination by an administrative judge.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

“What should have been a happy day for us turned into a humiliating and dehumanizing experience because of the way we were treated,” said Mullins. “No one should ever have to walk into a store and wonder if they will be turned away just because of who they are.”

Long-standing Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Last year, an administrative judge upheld the Colorado Civil Rights Division’s finding of illegal discrimination by the bakery. Today’s decision from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirms the prior ruling. The commission also ordered a change of policy, staff training, and quarterly reporting to confirm that the bakery is not turning away customers due to sexual orientation.

And from a diner that told two gay patrons not to come back because they "don't serve fags", which sounds reminiscent of the sit-ins from the Civil Rights movement:

Gays Plan Visit To Texas "We Don't Serve Fags" Diner, Owners Plan To Call Cops

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/controversial-texas-restaurant-becoming-a-highly-rated-gay-bar/

Members of the Dallas-area LGBT community say they are planning on a mass visit to the Texas restaurant that kicked out a gay couple, telling them, "We don't serve fags here." The owners say they are ready to call the cops if that happens.

“If there’s any problems, they will be taken care of appropriately,” says Christina Cheney, who is Big Earl’s daughter and the waitress who made the homophobic remark. “We are aware that they are attempting to come out here. We’re ready for them; we have informed the Sheriff’s department and the state.” Cathie Adams President of the Texas Eagle Forum says she’s disgusted by the protest. “I think that for the homosexual community to be targeting a restaurant and good people is ugly, it is uncalled for.” Adams says, “They’re pushing an envelope and they want to not only have tolerance – they want to shove things down our collective throats.” She say she would never broadcast her personal life in public. “As one who has been married for 45 years to my husband, I don’t think that it’s my role to stand in the street corner and start talking about the style of private life my husband and I have.”

[BCSpace]

Here's another case of a baker being harassed by homosexuals:

 

Christian baker ordered to endorse same-sex 'wedding' - Colorado Civil Rights Commission issues demand even though state doesn't recognize 'gay marriage'

[Daniel2]

Here's another case of a baker being harassed by homosexuals:

Christian baker ordered to endorse same-sex 'wedding' - Colorado Civil Rights Commission issues demand even though state doesn't recognize 'gay marriage'

Fascinating, BCSpace... thanks for sharing a link with an alternate view on the same case that I had shared in my post just prior to yours. It is truly amazing to see how different media outlets report about the same situation. Reminds me of the film "Vantage Point"--a film I highly recommend.

Here's another perspective of this same incident--told from the unique perspective of the straight mother of this "baker-harassing homosexual" (per your post, BC):

It Was Never About the Cake

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-munn/it-was-never-about-the-ca_b_4414472.html

Posted: 12/09/2013 3:57 pm

Today I celebrate the decision from Colorado administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer who found that my son and his now-husband could not be discriminated against by a bakery.

I have an incredible son named Charlie Craig, the oldest of my three sons who now lives in the Denver area. I have, like any other parent, encouraged him to be himself, to find his strengths in life and to have an open mind, and to always deal fairly with others. In high school Charlie was always helping out friends in trouble, I used to tell him that he had a "social worker's heart." When Charlie "came out of the closet" he was living in Iowa, and he said over the phone that he needed to tell me something very important. He told me he thought he was gay, and that it might be just a phase, but that he was attracted to men, and had been for a while. I listened and cried silently as he opened up to me. I could tell from his voice, he was nervous. I told him I loved him more than all the sands on a beach times two. It was something I would say when he was young and struggling through normal times as a teenager.

In 2004, I was told that I had Stage 2 breast cancer. I had my first chemo treatment the day after Christmas and Charlie was there holding my hand as they started the infusion of chemicals into my IV. He had moved back to Wyoming to help me through this time and to help care for his younger brothers while I fought the cancer. In the spring of 2005 he enrolled at the University of Wyoming in Laramie to finish his degree in Sociology. He came home to help take care of me, and was moving to the town where a young man was tortured and killed for his sexual orientation in 1998. He assured me that things have changed and that there was a supportive gay community there and not to worry. He was right and he went on to graduate. His brothers and I sat proudly during the commencement ceremony.

Charlie was living in Denver when he met and fell in love with David Mullins. They became engaged and started planning their wedding, which would be held in Provincetown, Massachusetts, and a delayed hometown reception in Colorado.

In July of 2012 my son and his fiancé invited me to join them at a bakery for a cake tasting and to discuss a design that was recommended by their event planner. What should have been a fun and special moment turned into a day I will never forget. The three of us walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop, and a man at the counter motioned for us to sit at a small table and then joined us. When the man asked whose wedding this was for, and my son said "it is for our wedding," the man said that he does not make cakes for same- sex couples' weddings or commitment ceremonies. When my son said "really?" the man tried to justify his stance by saying he will make birthday cakes or other occasion cakes for gays, just not a wedding cake.

I just sat there in disbelief. All of the levity that we felt on the drive to the bakery was gone. As I left that bakery, my heart was breaking for my son and his fiancé. What should have been a joyous occasion had turned into a humiliating occasion.

We did go on, and I witnessed the marriage of my son to his true love. At Charlie and David's reception, I met the most amazing woman, Lora, of Lora's Donuts and Bakery Shop who ultimately supplied their cake. She told me when she read about what happened at Masterpiece Cakeshop she wanted to reach out and help address the hurt, and she did. I can honestly say the cake was a true masterpiece and was a beautiful complement to the celebration of David and Charlie's love.

The decision that Judge Spencer made has renewed my hope that no other couple in Colorado will face discrimination by a business owner based on their sexual orientation. It was never about the cake. It was about my son being treated like a lesser person.

And from "the harassing homosexual," himself (the day prior to the ruling):

In Colorado, Freedom Should Mean Freedom for Everyone

https://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief-lgbt-rights/colorado-freedom-should-mean-freedom-everyone

05/29/2014

By Charlie Craig at 4:54 pm

It's an old tradition that a year after a couple's wedding, they eat a slice of their wedding cake.

What's less traditional?

Almost two years after getting married, sitting in court listening to legal debate about whether a bakery was allowed to discriminate against me and my husband because of the owner's religious beliefs.

This, of course, is not a hypothetical.

In July 2012, I went with my then husband-to-be Dave and my mom to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a cake for our wedding reception. Because same-sex marriage wasn't – and still isn't – legal in Colorado, we planned to get married in Massachusetts and then have a reception in Colorado, where we live. Before we even told the shop owner what kind of cake we wanted, he told us that because of his religious beliefs, he didn't make cakes for same-sex couples' weddings.

Dave and I ended up getting a fantastic wedding cake, baked by another baker who was horrified by the way we were treated at Masterpiece. But the reason we decided to speak out, to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, and to end up in court today is about more than just a cake. It's about making sure that Masterpiece and other businesses don't discriminate against customers because of who they are.

I've learned that what's allowed in Colorado is very clear: Long-standing state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses like Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service on classes such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Last year, an administrative judge ruled that the cakeshop had violated the law when it discriminated against my husband and me.

Tomorrow the full Civil Rights Commission will meet to either affirm or reverse that opinion. We hope they make a stand for equality and send a clear message to all Colorado businesses that freedom means freedom for all.

[Daniel2]

The ACLU has an interesting write up about the increasing occurrences of attempts to claim religious exemptions when it comes to discriminating. I couldn't help but think of the contrast found in Elder Oaks' talks on the topic:

Using Religion to Discriminate

https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;

Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;

Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;

Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;

Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

Using Religion to Discriminate Against Women

In medical care

Across the country, we are seeing hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacies, and other health care entities discriminate against women by denying basic care – like birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion – in the name of religion. Many of these institutions receive taxpayer funding. The ACLU works to ensure that women are not denied information and the health care they need because of the religious views of their health care providers.

Challenges to the Federal Contraceptive Coverage Rule

In employment

We have seen a recent spate of cases in which religiously affiliated schools have fired women for getting pregnant while single or for using IVF. These cases are suggestive of a past when women were routinely pushed out of the workplace because of pregnancy. Such discrimination is now illegal, even if religiously motivated.

Using Religion to Discriminate Against LGBT people

In services

In many states, businesses are barred by law from discriminating against customers based on their sexual orientation, as well as based on race, religion, or other legally protected categories. Increasingly, we see business owners claiming that they do not have to follow these laws but can instead refuse to provide services – including lodging, wedding dresses, and photography services – because the owners object to same-sex relationships. In addition, we see social service organizations that receive government funding deny services to same-sex couples. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business or run a publicly funded social service agency open to the public, those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.

Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock

Baker and Linsley v. Wildflower Inn

Wathen v. Beall Mansion Bed and Breakfast

Catholic Charities v. DCFS

In medical care

The ACLU has seen instances of students training to become mental health professionals and medical practices that have refused to treat lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. While we’re all entitled to our own religious beliefs, licensed medical providers should adhere to professional standards and not use their religion to discriminate against clients who come to them for help.