Lawsuit re: Gay Weddings / Free Speech (the next one)

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

This seems like an odd situation... suing when they haven't actually been forced to do anything.  But, I do think that they should be allowed to say no to making a wedding video for a gay marriage.

If it goes to SCOTUS, I would think they would decide in favor of the filmmakers (as they did with the Denver cake maker).

While I have problems with the law itself (and think that it should be removed from the books), I also have concerns about the argument against it:  I feel like the personal expression and free speech arguments can be extended.  Could I argue that my work in commercial real estate is expressive and that I cannot lease to anyone who doesn't match my religious beliefs?

I do believe that a house owner has the right to decide to whom he will sell his home to. This is not often considered, but say a couple comes who you know will love the house and not simply live there. They have plans for it, and these plans seem to follow plans you had for the house if you had more money or time. Now say there is another couple and they need a place to life but honestly have no regard for either the neighborhood nor the house. In fact, they come across as indifferent --- maybe even callous. To whom would you sell this house that you lived in for say 40 years if you could choose?  

Edited October 19, 2018 by LittleNipper

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I do believe that a house owner has the right to decide to whom he will sell his home to. This is not often considered, but say a couple comes who you know will love the house and not simply live there. They have plans for it but these plans seem to follow plans you had for the house if you had more money or time. Now say there is another couple and they need a place to life but honestly have no regard for either the neighborhood the house. In fact they come across as indifferent --- maybe even callous. To whom would you sell this house that you lived in for say 40 years if you could choose?  

We actually had a very similar experience when my wife and I bought our first home.  The empty nesters who were selling it (and had raised their own children their) loved that we were a young couple looking for the home in which we would raise our kids.  Reportedly, our offer was selected over slightly better offers for that reason. 

To your point, this is no different, IMO, than the freedom of expression being argued for by the videographers (and the Denver cake maker). 

And, you are free to choose which offers/buyers to whom you want to sell your house EXCEPT that there are very strong non-discrimination laws when it comes to housing so you’ve got to be super careful that it doesn’t look like the kind of discrimination that is prohibited. 

[USU78]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are mostly used in patent law if I remember correctly.

It failed in this case. The court rightly or wrongly ruled the situation was too hypothetical and I tend to agree with that decision.

But I daresay you would agree with the old abortion cases mooted by delivery, n'est-ce pas? Ad hoc principles.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

But I daresay you would agree with the old abortion cases mooted by delivery, n'est-ce pas? Ad hoc principles.

If you are referring to Roe vs. Wade I think that was a bad legal decision. This is not even a controversial stance. Even jurists who believe abortion should be constitutionally protected are willing to admit it was decided on incredibly weak and dubious grounds.

Part of me believes we would be better of without Roe v. Wade where we could kick the decisions back to the states. It would be a little unfair though. Those who can afford to take time off work to travel will be able to just cross state lines to get an abortion. Illegal abortion clinics (and I use the word clinic here in the loosest possible sense) will multiply in many states.

So no, not ad hoc principles. I am not sure why anyone would think I am a big fan of abortion.

Edited October 19, 2018 by The Nehor

[california boy]

Another one of SMAC's "bullies"

Fired after writing an anti-gay book, ex fire chief set to receive $1.2M settlement

Quote

 

ATLANTA — Atlanta's City Council has voted to pay $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the city's former fire chief who was dismissed after he wrote a book that included anti-gay passages.

The City Council voted 11-3 Monday to approve the settlement, and it will head to Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms for her signature. The litigation preceded Bottoms' administration, but a city spokesman said in an email Tuesday that the city's legal counsel recommended a settlement to avoid paying millions of taxpayer dollars in damages and legal fees.

 

This issue is not going to go away.  And I'm glad of it.  Nobody likes bullies.  And some purported "christian" advocates have turned into bullies.

Quote

Former fire chief Kelvin Cochran sued the city and then-Mayor Kasim Reed over his January 2015 dismissal, saying he was fired because of his religious beliefs.

Cochran in late 2013 self-published a book for men's Bible study called "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" and gave it to some subordinates at work. The book includes passages that say gay people and those who have sex outside of marriage are "naked," meaning they are wicked, ungodly sinners

 

 

Yep.  The bullies have been trying to exceed the "proper scope" of anti-discrimination efforts for some time now.  It's sad to see the city council caved to his blackmail.  They were so afraid of this bully, they didn't even let it go to court and have a judge decide the merits of his case.  Bullies win again, unfortunately. 

Thoughts?

[Calm]

I wonder if he would have been fired if he hadn't given it to subordinates at work.  To me that could very well cross a line if they had felt pressured into accepting it or even talking on eggshells about the subject with him because of worrying he might take lack of interest the wrong way.

And if it was passed out at the office, that does cross the line for me.

It is not mention on the ADF site, only that he wrote a book.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I wonder if he would have been fired if he hadn't given it to subordinates at work.  To me that could very well cross a line if they had felt pressured into accepting it or even talking on eggshells about the subject with him because of worrying he might take lack of interest the wrong way.

And if it was passed out at the office, that does cross the line for me.

It is not mention on the ADF site, only that he wrote a book.

2

It looks like distributing the book to employees (bold mine) was the grounds for him being fired.  I found this on Wikipedia about the incident

 

Quote

 

Cochran was suspended for 30 days without pay starting November 24, 2014 for distributing to employees a book he had written, Who Told You That You Were Naked?, which expressed Cochran's religious views which included calling homosexualityand lesbianism a perversion and which mayor Kasim Reed considered to be discriminatory against LGBT people.^[4] On January 6, 2015, after returning from the suspension, he was informed that he would have to resign or be terminated.^[5][6]

 

2

 

[kllindley]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Another one of SMAC's "bullies"

Fired after writing an anti-gay book, ex fire chief set to receive $1.2M settlement

This issue is not going to go away.  And I'm glad of it.  Nobody likes bullies.  And some purported "christian" advocates have turned into bullies.

Yep.  The bullies have been trying to exceed the "proper scope" of anti-discrimination efforts for some time now.  It's sad to see the city council caved to his blackmail.  They were so afraid of this bully, they didn't even let it go to court and have a judge decide the merits of his case.  Bullies win again, unfortunately. 

Thoughts?

Not one of those who he gave the book ever voiced a complaint. He only did so after consulting the city ethics officer. I don't know if you are purposely trying to trust the facts, or if you are just relying on news sources that do it for you. Either way it's sad. This settlement came after rulings that the city's rules were unconstitutional. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by kllindley

[Calm]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

Not one of those who he gave the book ever voiced a complaint. He only did so after consulting the city ethics officer. I don't know if you are purposely trying to trust the facts, or if you are just relying on news sources that do it for you. Either way it's sad. This settlement came after rulings that city's rules were unconditional. 

Source please.

[kllindley]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Source please.

Absolutely:

Quote

In 2013, he sought and received permission from the city’s ethics officer to self-publish a Christian book. The book — Who Told You That You Were Naked? — in part argued that sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman was contrary to God’s will.

He distributed the book to a select few colleagues, mainly people who had already discussed their Christian faith with him. He also shared it with the mayor and three members of the city council. No fire-department employee ever complained to him about his book.

One employee did show the few pages of the book that dealt with sexuality to an openly gay Atlanta City Council member. Suddenly, it was as if Cochran had kicked up a hornet’s nest. Within days, Cochran was suspended without pay. Atlanta’s mayor openly condemned Cochran’s religious beliefs, and on January 6, 2015, the city fired him — without providing him the due process required by city rules or providing him any meaningful opportunity to contest the claims against him. In fact, the city fired him without finding evidence that he’d discriminated against anyone.

So, he sued, and in December 2017, an Obama-appointed judge ruled that key city policies were unconstitutional, including policies that the city claimed he violated.

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by kllindley

[Calm]

Quote

No fire-department employee ever complained to him about his book.

Given he was their boss, I would suspect only a small percentage of those who felt pressured into taking the book would ever publicly complain even after he was suspended and fired because not wanting to make waves, being nice, not wanting to hurt him or his career  even if they didn't appreciate being given his book, etc.

The laws are there for those as well as the ones who feel the ability to be vocal about it.  I am not claiming those he gave the book to felt that way and said nothing, just that the possibility is there and should be considered in judging the potential impact of his giving out the book.

It does sound like getting fired was overkill if there were no actual complaints though or other contributing factors, that it was about the content of the book and not that he handed it out to some employees.  I could see a reprimand and a probation to see if he created an uncomfortable environment at work for employees, there doesn't seem to have been that kind of investigation.

[The Nehor]

Quick correction. He was suspended without pay with instructions not to publicize what was going on until the investigation was complete. He went public and that is why he was finally fired.

You can argue about the justice of that (I have mixed feelings about it) but he would almost certainly would have gone through the regular process of dismissal with the ability to contest if he had not gone to the media so acting like they broke the rules and violated due process in firing him is very misleading.

City officials, probably rightly, argued that he had irreparably damaged his relationship with them by going public and launching a public relations campaign against the city and that is why he was fired. The city contends that, as far as the investigation showed, there was no violation of city ordinances due to the book existing, and was planning to reinstate him.

The Judge did find that the city had the right to ask for silence during the investigation due to long-established precendent regarding the First Amendment which weighs the interests of the individual and the public institution (city).

I think the city should not have settled but I do not have to worry about being reelected the in the media firestorm that would have followed.

 

The problems with the book, as I see it regarding the case, is that he often refers to himself as "fire chief" in the book which wanders into the area of suggesting government approval of the book though this is not why he was fired. On a personal note I find it disturbing that he considers women to be "a challenge" to men in his book and blames the Fall on Eve not asking Adam for help with the serpent with the blase assumption that Adam would have just killed the serpent and everything would have been fine.

Edited October 20, 2018 by The Nehor

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He was suspended without pay with instructions not to publicize what was going on until the investigation was complete. He went public and that is why he was finally fired.

You can argue about the justice of that (I have mixed feelings about it) but he would almost certainly would have gone through the regular process of dismissal with the ability to contest if he had not gone to the media so acting like they broke the rules and violated due process in firing him is very misleading.

City officials, probably rightly, argued that he had irreparably damaged his relationship with them by going public and launching a public relations campaign against the city and that is why he was fired. The city contends that, as far as the investigation showed, there was no violation of city ordinances due to the book existing, and was planning to reinstate him.

That is interesting. Source?

[kllindley]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given he was their boss, I would suspect only a small percentage of those who felt pressured into taking the book would ever publicly complain even after he was suspended and fired because not wanting to make waves, being nice, not wanting to hurt him or his career  even if they didn't appreciate being given his book, etc.

The laws are there for those as well as the ones who feel the ability to be vocal about it.  I am not claiming those he gave the book to felt that way and said nothing, just that the possibility is there and should be considered in judging the potential impact of his giving out the book.

It does sound like getting fired was overkill if there were no actual complaints though or other contributing factors, that it was about the content of the book and not that he handed it out to some employees.  I could see a reprimand and a probation to see if he created an uncomfortable environment at work for employees, there doesn't seem to have been that kind of investigation.

I agree that just because there were no complaints does not mean that there was no negative effect on the employees. On the other hand, his past performance on the job gives some insight into how he treated employees.

From the same source:

"After Cochran left Atlanta, the fire department struggled. So Atlanta’s mayor recruited him back, and Cochran turned the department around so thoroughly that it for the first time received the nation’s highest fire-protection rating. The cornerstone of his effort to transform the department’s morale was a “participatory management structure” that solicited input from “every rank, race, shift, and gender.”

He consciously included LGBT employees, granting — in his words — “every group a voice.”

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That is interesting. Source?

Most of it is from the ruling linked above.

[Calm]

Quote

Defendants contend that he was fired because he did not comply with the City’s pre-clearance rules for outside employment and for facilitating a massive public relations campaign against the Mayor and the City. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s speech made the City potentially vulnerable to employment discrimination claims and substantial disruption. 

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/CochranDistrictCourtDecision.pdf

adding details related to posts' comments:

Quote

However, on October 31, 2012, Plaintiff called Nina Hickson, the City of Atlanta Ethics Officer, for advice about a “non-city-related” book he was authoring. Id. ¶ 35. It is disputed what was said during this conversation, including whether Plaintiff discussed the book’s subject matter or if Hickson indicated Plaintiff would need Board of Ethics approval for such a book. Id. ¶ 44.5 

 

Quote

In early 2014, after the book was published, Plaintiff provided book copies to between 9 and 12 of his Christian subordinates at the AFRD, all of whom were either: (1) close personal friends who asked for a copy before it was finished; (2) employees who asked about the book once they learned of its publication; or (3) men who Plaintiff gave an unsolicited copy of the book. 

Quote

Plaintiff also contends that he provided Mayor Reed with a copy via Mayor Reed’s assistant, though Mayor Reed disputes that fact. 

Quote

one of the individuals who had received a copy of the book from Plaintiff during a work event—brought Plaintiff’s book to the attention of Stephen Borders, the President of the local firefighter’s union. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. Wessels had received the book in June or July 2014, but had only just read it. Wessels told Borders that some passages were disturbing to him—especially because Plaintiff referred to himself as the Fire Chief in the book 

Quote

Borders expressed concern to Wan about the content of the book and its distribution at work. 

Quote

stating that she and other LGBT firefighters she knew were extremely insulted and saddened by the book’s discriminatory text 

I don't think it is quite accurate to represent the case as having no complaints from those he gave the book to as Wessel apparently did even if he reported it to the union president and not the city plus there is the general complaint immediately above (without names it cannot be told how many, if actually any, firefighters were complaining, but I do think it is sufficient enough to challenge any 'no complaint' made).  They may not have complained to him, but that is, imo, irrelevant to his city job (though not any personal relationship he had).  How many employees actually feel comfortable complaining to their boss about their boss.  Most complaints are more likely to go through other avenues, I suspect, so I don't see the point that no complaints were made to him about it as relevant.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Plaintiff was suspended for 30 days without pay, told the City would investigate the matter, and advised that he would need to attend sensitivity training. Id. ¶ 88. It is disputed, however, what Plaintiff was told regarding what he could say publicly regarding his suspension: the City contends it told him not to comment publicly at all, but Plaintiff contends he was only told not to conduct media interviews. 

Quote

The City contends he was fired because (1) he did not comply with the Pre-Clearance Rules; and (2) he refused to comply with the directive not to comment publicly on his suspension, instead instituting a firestorm and “falsely perpetuating the narrative that [Plaintiff] was being punished for his religious beliefs, and encourag[ing] and facilitat[ing] a massive PR campaign against the Mayor personally.” 

It does look to me he was indeed falsely perpetuating that he was being punished only for his beliefs, when it was sharing them into the work place that was the trigger as far as I can tell from the reports.  I didn't quote his activities during his suspension, you can find them on page 10 and 11.

Quote

Taking the facts most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that the Pickering balance weighs in favor of the City. Although Plaintiff contends that the book was addressed to Christian men, the book was disseminated by a supervisor at the workplace—as opposed to completely off-campus—and was even distributed unsolicited to at least three individuals. At least one such employee felt the subject matter of the book was sufficiently concerning such that he gave 

the book to the union President, and the union President then disseminated it more broadly to City officials.

The potential Title VII implications that Plaintiff’s speech caused are also strong factors in the City’s favor. The City was concerned that Plaintiff’s book had exposed the City to hostile work environment liability if Plaintiff had treated subordinates differently based upon the views he had expressed in the book. Yancy Dep., Dkt. No. [129] at 68:2-20. In conducting a Title VII investigation, while the report revealed no actual evidence of discrimination, it was reported to Mayor Reed that firefighters throughout the organization were “appalled” by the book’s sentiments and that the book “eroded trust” among the AFRD. Report, Dkt. No. [107-11] at 4-5. It is also reasonably possible that an employee would have used the book as purported evidence of discriminatory animus going forward, even if that employee did not suffer actual discrimination.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s status as the Fire Chief—and thus the head of a safety agency—also favors the City. Because Plaintiff expressed his opinion that the death of all individuals who engage in homosexual and extramarital sex would be celebrated,7 it was not unreasonable for the City to fear public erosion of trust in the Fire Department....

Nor was it unreasonable to fear that Plaintiff’s employees—who are required to risk their lives daily—would be unwilling or unable to rely on Plaintiff’s leadership given his views about them. As the Eleventh Circuit has acknowledged, there is “a heightened need for order, loyalty, and harmony in a quasi-military organization such as a police or fire department.”...

It is undisputed that Plaintiff “accepted support” of a social media campaign aimed at reversing his suspension which led to Mayor Reed receiving thousands of emails, both for and against Plaintiff’s suspension. Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Stm’t of Facts, Dkt. No. [144] ¶ 68. Mayor Reed also received phone calls to his home in which he was called a racial slur, the Anti-Christ, and a terrorist. Some calls even included death threats. Id. ¶ 70. 

Quote

The Court finds that these Pre-Clearance Rules are not properly tailored in light of Defendants’ stated rationale that the policy’s aim is to prevent conflicts of interest...

And the Rules are also overinclusive. Section 2-280(d) applies to all outside employment even if it is plainly untethered from the employee’s job. This policy would prevent an employee from writing and selling a book on golf or badminton on his own time and, without prior approval, would subject him to firing. It is unclear to the Court how such an outside employment would ever affect the City’s ability to function, and the City provides no evidence to justify it...

When comparing the potential speaker and audience’s interests against the City’s failure to proffer any evidence to support its poorly tailored Pre-Clearance Rules, the Court finds that the NTEU balancing weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. The potential for stifled speech far outweighs an unsupported assertion of harm. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Prior Restraint challenge to the City’s Pre-Clearance Rules, and DENIES Defendants’ Motion on the same ground. 

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

The Court finds that the Pre-Clearance Rules are neutral and generally applicable. They apply to all employees and all outside employment. The Rules do not address religion and were not passed because of religious motivations. Rather, the Rules’ purpose is to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety, which is a legitimate government interest the Rules are designed to prevent. 

Plaintiff additionally argues that the Pre-Clearance Rules set out a “religious test” in violation of the Constitution. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 494 (1961) (stating that “limiting public offices to persons who have . . . a belief in some particular kind of religious concept” is a “historically and constitutionally discredited policy”); see also U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3 (“[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”). But this argument misses the mark. As stated above, the Pre-Clearance Rules are generally applicable. Plaintiff is not required to maintain a specific religion in order to receive permission for outside employment. The City’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claim. 

Quote

Defendant is correct under Georgia law. Because the Charter plainly states that a department head may be removed with or without cause, Plaintiff does not have a property interest in his employment. Plaintiff therefore cannot mount a procedural due process claim. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED on Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim. 

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

On 10/19/2018 at 8:49 AM, The Nehor said:

If you are referring to Roe vs. Wade I think that was a bad legal decision. This is not even a controversial stance. Even jurists who believe abortion should be constitutionally protected are willing to admit it was decided on incredibly weak and dubious grounds.

Part of me believes we would be better of without Roe v. Wade where we could kick the decisions back to the states. It would be a little unfair though. Those who can afford to take time off work to travel will be able to just cross state lines to get an abortion. Illegal abortion clinics (and I use the word clinic here in the loosest possible sense) will multiply in many states.

So no, not ad hoc principles. I am not sure why anyone would think I am a big fan of abortion.

Not what I was referring to. Did you think roe was the first time abortion ever came up? The old rule was, you've got to have a controversy or a case is mooted. It was practically impossible for an abortion case not to be mooted. Babies cannot wait.

[kllindley]

Thanks for taking the time to help clarify that, Calm.  I should have followed through to the actual ruling before commenting based on the news. 

I apologize. 

[kllindley]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quick correction. He was suspended without pay with instructions not to publicize what was going on until the investigation was complete. He went public and that is why he was finally fired.

You can argue about the justice of that (I have mixed feelings about it) but he would almost certainly would have gone through the regular process of dismissal with the ability to contest if he had not gone to the media so acting like they broke the rules and violated due process in firing him is very misleading.

Thank you for the correction. Like you said, I have mixed feelings about them requiring him not to talk about it, especially when the Mayor went public condemning Cochran first. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thanks for taking the time to help clarify that, Calm.  I should have followed through to the actual ruling before commenting based on the news. 

I apologize. 

Gave me something useful to do today, much more interesting than playing Wordscapes.  

The news commentaries were not terribly impressive; I can understand why many are viewing these as simplistic cases from various POVs when they are not.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thank you for the correction. Like you said, I have mixed feelings about them requiring him not to talk about it, especially when the Mayor went public condemning Cochran first. 

Yes, it does seem inappropriate to require  someone in one's employ to remain silent while publicly condemning them.  If he had kept to simply saying “[t]he contents of the book do not reflect the views of Mayor Reed or the Administration", that would have been appropriate, imo, but he said more:

"the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the Administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all of her citizens—regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race and religious beliefs".

And this comment makes it a personal issue, imo:

"I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community."

I think at that point Cochran had a right to defend why people should not be disturbed (though he wouldn't be particularly successful with me as that whole celebration when the unrepentant die thing disturbs me).

If Cochran had done all of his sharing info about the book and his religious views outside of the work environment and only gave books to employees who asked for them, I would be iffy about whether the City had a right to shut down what he was doing in his leisure time.  Most of the time I would say 'none of their business', but I can see while LGBT firefighters might be concerned that he valued their lives less than those he saw as saved (the celebrating deaths implies he prefers dead unrepentant sinners to living ones...hey, I wonder if he thinks that way about Latter-days Saints if he doesn't believe we are Christian; maybe it is all abstract for him as likely given his previous history of contributing to a diverse community, but maybe not) and his comment about Eve and women being written about as more issue than individual would make me wonder as an employee interested in work opportunities and promotion if he placed me in a sidekick role more often than leadership.  I have seen enough people who work hard at promoting tolerance and diversity misstep when it comes to an issue they don't think much about; assumptions are not questioned and empathy is lacking. And that might be minor in most situations given there could be time and procedures for change to occur, but in a job that involves life and death decisions....as the Court ruled, trust is essential.  So I can understand as well why the City might have believed the relationship was irreparable even if he hadn't been involved in campaigns challenging the leadership (though it appears the Mayor did not until Cochran supported those protesting, etc).

Edited October 21, 2018 by Calm

[RevTestament]

On 10/17/2018 at 1:16 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

This issue is not going to go away.  And I'm glad of it.  Nobody likes bullies.  And some purported "gay rights" advocates have turned into bullies.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.  The bullies have been trying to exceed the "proper scope" of anti-discrimination efforts for some time now.  It's good to see some correction on this issue.

The Larsens have put together a pretty good video on this issue:

Thoughts?

-Smac

 

On 10/18/2018 at 1:24 PM, Calm said:

The first one was dismissed, what about the appeal?

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how the law works.  Things that seem reasonable in abstract may not be workable in reality.  I can see courts discouraging or dismissing preenforcement suits because that takes up a lot of time on "what ifs" and courts are crowded enough on "what is", but if I were starting a business, it would be my wish to clear out any legal obstacles  prior to investing much money.  Otoh, lawsuits are costly in and of themselves, so it might be cheaper to test the waters by jumping in....unless you can get someone else to pay for the lawsuit.  Then it's a lot of cream, free positive advertising among the market you want to create or already engage in, some harassment that likely increases your credibility in your chosen market so endurable, some minimal time spent in court given a lawyer that does most of the work for you paid by donations and free press when you and the press show up at court at the same time, otherwise maybe stock photos that still get you and your company in the public eye.

By now everyone on this thread probably realizes that typically in order to bring a suit, the law has required a party have something called "standing." Traditionally, to have standing a party must be able to show several things - one of those is to show injury - another is some kind of legal relief awardable by the court. I tend to be somewhat politically "conservative" and agree with Smac that some gay rights activists have become bullies - using the legal system to try to destroy free speech rights in instances affecting gay issues. That analysis definitely does not apply to this case. There is no gay defendant getting bullied. 

This case is basically a legal effort to get a particular law off the books. In my opinion it is just not a workable scenario. There is no financially demonstrable injury. The court doesn't really have a way to see how the law has adversely or unconstitutionally affected the complainant. Alleging something will happen is not the same as the fact of it happening, and is virtually impossible "to prove." How do you prove allegations? I understand the inconvenience of actually getting fined or sued, but business involves risks. To allow this kind of peremptory challenge could flood the legal system with challenges from both sides - the LGBTQ community could also bring these kinds of challenges - making the issue an even bigger deal than it is now. I just don't see it as workable. It would fundamentally change our legal system. 

[Calm]

I agree these defendants do not merit the label "bully", but there is something off about constructing their argument around an unreasonable contract and then crying future harm because the government is going to force them to keep their unreasonable contract as written.

The article said something about their lawyer possibly trying to make the situation as parallel as possible to a prior case by throwing in that condition, so I won't insist it is a childish approach, but that is certainly the feel I get from that move.  If not childish, it's desperate.