Masterpiece Cakeshop

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Journalists need to ask if Colorado has 'good' and 'bad' religious preschools

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Journalists need to ask if Colorado has 'good' and 'bad' religious preschools

I was never a Ronald Reagan fan, but — let’s face it — he would have to rank No. 1 among American politicians when it comes to having the “gift of gab.”

Thus, with a tip of the hat to the Gipper, let me make this observation: You know that there are church-state experts — on the new illiberal side (cheering) and on the old-liberal side (groaning) — who are watching recent events in Colorado and saying, “There you go again.”

This brings us to this long, long, wordy headline from The Denver Post that served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). Read this one carefully:

Denver Archdiocese sues Colorado over right to exclude LGBTQ people from universal preschool

State’s non-discrimination requirements “directly conflict with St. Mary’s, St. Bernadette’s, and the Archdiocese’s religious beliefs,” the lawsuit says.

The Post team has, naturally, framed this case in precisely the manner chosen by Colorado officials, while paying as little attention as possible to recent decisions made by the (#triggerwarning) U.S. Supreme Court.

In particular, journalists may want to look at that recent decision —  Carson v. Makin. The key: The high court addressed the state of Maine’s attempts to give public funds to parents who sent their children to secular or religiously progressive PRIVATE schools, but not to parents who picked private schools that support centuries of Christian doctrines on marriage and sex (and other hot-button topics, such as salvation, heaven and hell).

Now, back to the Denver Post:

The Denver Catholic Archdiocese along with two of its parishes is suing the state alleging their First Amendment rights are violated because their desire to exclude LGBTQ parents, staff and kids from Archdiocesan preschools keeps them from participating in Colorado’s new universal preschool program.

The program is intended to provide every child 15 hours per week of state-funded preschool in the year before they are eligible for kindergarten. To be eligible, though, schools must meet the state’s non-discrimination requirements.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Can journalists imagine 'mirror' cases in which 303 Creative protects liberals?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Can journalists imagine 'mirror' cases in which 303 Creative protects liberals?

If you follow Robert P. George in social media, you probably know several things about this legal scholar.

(1) He is a political philosopher and professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University.

(2) George is a doctrinally conservative Roman Catholic.

(3) He is a skilled Americana musician (think folk, gospel and bluegrass) who plays the banjo and a 12-fret acoustic guitar (I’m a big fan of the latter).

(4) In the public square, he is relentlessly irenic, seeking ways to view issues through the lens of those with whom he disagrees. This approach has been demonstrated during years of joyful and informative pro-tolerance dialogues with his close friend Cornel West, a liberal’s liberal known for decades of provocative classroom work at Princeton, Harvard and Union Seminary.

From a GetReligion point of view, it’s also important that — based at Princeton — George lives right on the edge of what could be called the Archdiocese of The New York Times and he pays close attention to mainstream news coverage of religion and public life.

This is why George played a key role in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which was a follow-up to my recent post with this headline: “After 303 Creative: Can readers find Twitter voices (hello David French) that help us think?”

After the latest wave of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, George posted a Mirror of Justice commentary in which he noted that Times editors seemed remarkable unaware of the actual contents of the majority opinions. The headline on the Gray Lady’s initial 303 Creative story was, in GetReligion terms, a classic: “Web Designer Wins Right to Turn Away Gay People.”

The problem was that Justice Neil Gorsuch — author of the court’s landmark Bostock decision (.pdf here) backing trans rights — said the opposite of that in his 303 Creative majority opinion (.pdf here).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Covering the 303 Creative decision: Why do reporters keep ignoring the fine print?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Covering the 303 Creative decision: Why do reporters keep ignoring the fine print?

Judging from the recent coverage on the US Supreme Court’s decision on 303 Creative v. Elenis, you’d think that a pogrom against LGBTQ Americans is in process.

Many of the headlines came out and said that SCOTUS was allowing businesses to turn away gay customers, period. That’s false and that’s clear in the majority opinion. The truth was that you cannot compel people to create and deliver a message demanded by these customers if you don’t agree with that message (in this case for reasons of religious doctrine and practice).

I’ll start with the Denver Post, in whose backyard the whole case developed.

First, a note to the Post editors: Underneath the headline (“Colorado wedding website designer can refuse gay customers, U.S. Supreme Court rules”) the subhead spells Justice Neil Gorsuch’s name wrong. Being that Gorsuch, the writer of the opinion, is very well known by locals — as he was a longtime Colorado resident before ascending to the high court — the Post might want to correct that.

The First Amendment allows a Colorado graphic designer to refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in a decision that could have a sweeping nationwide impact.

The high court ruled for Littleton graphic artist Lorie Smith, who said her Christian faith prevents her from creating wedding websites for same-sex couples. Smith, who runs the business 303 Creative, wanted to make wedding websites only for straight couples.

I skimmed the article and didn’t see anything about religious beliefs being the reason behind Smith’s decision until well into the piece.

Also, note that — once again, we’re talking about the printed content of the majority decision — declining to do same-sex wedding content is not the same thing as the ability to refuse customers, period.

She challenged Colorado’s public accommodation law, which says that if she offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide them to all customers. Businesses that violate the law can be fined, among other penalties.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

On the face of it, 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, sounded unimpressive.

A Christian web designer living near Denver was suing her state civil rights commission for the right to create wedding web sites without having to include creative content about same-sex weddings in the mix. She hadn’t been approached by any gay couples yet — but because she might be, she launched a pre-emptive lawsuit with the aid of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm with an impressive track record of 11 wins at the Supreme Court level.

Yet, the more I read about the case and the issues it was trying to raise, the more intrigued I got. And the hearing on Monday didn’t disappoint. It lasted some two and one-half hours, which is long by Court standards. Covering hour-long hearings at the high court is difficult at best; I can only imagine how tough it was for reporters to sift through 150 minutes of speech — and all the tangents that were involved — to sum up how the hearing went.

Which is why I am merely critiquing the first drafts of what I hope will be more in-depth articles as time goes on. I’ll start with how CBS covered the story:

The Supreme Court's conservative bloc appeared sympathetic Monday to a Colorado graphic designer who argues a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates her free speech rights by forcing her to express a message that conflicts with her closely held religious beliefs.

During oral arguments in the case known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court seemed to move closer to resolving a question it has left unanswered since 2018, when it narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding: whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.

An editorial comment: It's a minor annoyance that the plural “they” is used for a singular “artist.” Just write “he or she” for heaven’s sake.

One issue with reporting on this case is that it takes a ton of backstory to explain that this case isn’t just about a web designer, but also a cake designer-baker in a previous Supreme Court case.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Much to learn in ongoing cases with cannabis church and yet another Christian baker

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Much to learn in ongoing cases with cannabis church and yet another Christian baker

A cannabis church (It’s California) keeps fighting for freedom of worship.

Another Christian baker wins what may be a temporary (It’s California) First Amendment victory in her fight to stay in business, even though she declined to create a one-of-a-kind, artistic wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

What connects these two stories? That was the topic at the heart of this weeks “Crossover” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which was recorded this week while I was on grandfather duty. This post is a day late because I’ve been driving back to East Tennessee and it’s really hard to write in a car in cross winds on the High Plains.

The connecting link in the podcast is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 — or RFRA for short. This was a crucial piece of liberal (in the old sense of the word) church-state law backed by a stunningly broad coalition of religious and legal groups during the Bill Clinton administration. Try to imagine: There were only three “nay” votes in the U.S. Senate. Would that happen now? Clearly, the answer is “nay.’

These days, many reporters act as if “RFRA” was some kind of dirty, four-letter term that cannot be spoken in elite newsrooms. If you want some additional info on this syndrome, click here (“Covering a so-called 'religious liberty' story? Dig into religious liberty history”) or here (“Religious Left returns to RFRA: Washington Post explores a crucial Florida abortion showdown”).

The key is that RFRA doesn’t guarantee a victory for citizens who claim that their First Amendment rights have been violated. RFRA states that people have a right to argue that case and that — following some guidelines that have developed over the years — courts have to take these arguments seriously.

So let’s start with this Religion News Service headline: “Shuttered cannabis church takes fight to reopen to California Supreme Court.” Here’s the overture:

A cannabis church in Southern California — which was shut down by the county of San Bernardino over accusations it was illegally functioning as a dispensary — is taking its fight to reopen to the state Supreme Court, arguing that it uses cannabis for religious healing.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Fellowship of Christian Athletes wins an 'equal access' case, even if LATimes missed that

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Fellowship of Christian Athletes wins an 'equal access' case, even if LATimes missed that

Once upon a time, back in the days of the Bill Clinton White House, there was a strong church-state coalition that stretched, basically, from the Assemblies of God to the Unitarians. The legal activists in this coalition didn’t agree on everything, but they did agree on some basic First Amendment principles that helped defend believers in a wide variety of religious minorities.

If you know the history of that era, you can sense that a few important words are missing from the recent Los Angeles Times report (behind a paywall) that ran at Yahoo!News with this aggressive headline: “Court says San Jose school district must recognize Christian club that excludes LGBTQ kids.”

That headline, of course, could have noted — somehow — that the this victory for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes was based on the same legal principles that defend the First Amendment rights of LGBTQ support groups at the same school.

The key is that there are two crucial words — “equal access” — that are missing from this rather solid story, which includes enough quoted material from voices on both sides for readers to figure out what is going on (if they have a background in church-state studies). Hold that thought.

First, here is the Times overture:

In spring 2019, a teacher at Pioneer High School in San Jose posted a message on his classroom whiteboard questioning a "Sexual Purity" statement that a club for Christian student athletes was requiring its leaders to sign.

The club's statement said sexual relationships should exist only between married, heterosexual couples. The teacher wrote that he was "deeply saddened" that a club on the public school campus made its leaders "affirm" those ideas, and he asked students what they thought.

The resulting firestorm led to the San Jose Unified School District rescinding recognition of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes for excluding LGBTQ students in violation of the district's nondiscrimination policy. In response, the club and its international parent organization sued in federal court, alleging religious discrimination.

On Monday, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes won a major victory when a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the club be reinstated as an official student group for the current school year while litigation between the parties continues in the lower district court.

Shutting down the FCA violated the “nondiscrimination policy”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: What's the SCOTUS story? New Colorado case focuses on free speech, not religious liberty

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What's the SCOTUS story? New Colorado case focuses on free speech, not religious liberty

Here we go again?

That’s a logical question, in light of the news that — once again — church-state activists on left and right are preparing for more U.S. Supreme Court arguments involving the state of Colorado, a traditional Christian believer, LGBTQ rights and the First Amendment.

That was the news hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). But to understand that conversation, it really helps to dig into a key passage or two in the majority decision in that 2019 SCOTUS case focusing on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (full text .pdf here).

So, all rise. The writer is, of course, then Justice Anthony Kennedy:

The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.

The result was one of those narrow decisions much beloved by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Then, what you hear in this next passage is the sound of Kennedy punting the crucial religious-liberty decision in this First Amendment case into the mists of the future:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

As Mississippi abortion case arrives, key religion stories vote views of Jews, evangelicals

, , , , , , , ,
As Mississippi abortion case arrives, key religion stories vote views of Jews, evangelicals

Let’s start with the basics, for those who have not been following weeks of heated commentary in the mainstream press.

On today’s docket at the U.S. Supreme Court is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case out of Mississippi some say is designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion.

It involves a 2018 Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, with few exceptions. If decided favorably, states with more restrictive laws (i.e. Texas) would be able to enforce them. Abortion would not be outlawed, but it would be greatly limited — which is why it’s annoying to hear broadcasts, such as the Fox TV item featured at the top of this post, saying the case could “end Roe v. Wade.”

Well, not quite. Because of its new “heartbeat” law, abortions in Texas are down 50% from what they were this time last year, to give you an idea of what may lie ahead.

As for me, I’d like to think that SCOTUS would actually make a decisive ruling on something that has divided the American public for 48 years and resulted in 60 million abortions. These justices have dithered a lot in similar cases and I’m guessing they will bail on this case as well — as they did with Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2017 in refusing to rule on the merits of the case. I do realize the makeup of the high court has shifted since then. I’m guessing they’ll refuse to give Dobbs a definitive ruling and base their decision on some technicality.

So yes, I’m a pessimist. Key members of this court appear to shun clarity. But at least abortion is on the table again in terms of public discussion, with religion as one of its many permutations, which makes covering this case important for religion reporters.

On the left, this Slate piece argues that abortion rights are in dire peril:

On the eve of Dobbs — before a tsunami of protesters descend upon the court, before nerve-racking oral arguments before a partly empty courtroom, before months of tense deliberations behind the velvet curtains — the smart money counts five votes to gut Roe. …


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Coverage of the Arlene's Flowers story may be over, but many more cases are on the way

, , , , , ,
Coverage of the Arlene's Flowers story may be over, but many more cases are on the way

Last week, a famous set of court cases: Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Ingersoll and Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., was settled, allowing both sides to retreat with some feeling of vindication.

The case concerned Barronelle Stutzman, owner of a flower shop in eastern Washington state who was friends with a local gay male couple — but who refused to provide flowers for their same-sex wedding because of her traditional Christian beliefs about marriage.

The gay couple sued her and then the state attorney general, Bob Ferguson, also sued her, saying she couldn’t discriminate on basis of religion. It wasn’t about discrimination, she said. After all, she’d served gay customers before and had employed gay florists in her shop. But her religious beliefs gave her no choice but to refuse to create floral arrangements for the wedding rite.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court, which had just ruled on a similar Colorado case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, remanded it back to Washington state for further consideration in light of their favorable decision on behalf of the owner of the cake shop. But, true to form for those of us living in this ultra-blue state, the Washington Supreme Court ruled again against Stutzman.

The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas agreed to take the case. However, that was one justice short of what was needed. (An essay at First Things asked questions about why certain other conservative justices bailed on taking this case).

Now 77 and more than ready to retire, Stutzman settled this month, paying Robert Ingersoll, one of the two men, $5,000 and freeing herself of additional legal costs. You may remember that she raised some $174,000 through GoFundMe before the managers of the website rejected her beliefs and shut her down.

Here's how the Tri City Herald, the local paper, covered the Stutzman’s finale:


Please respect our Commenting Policy