State Chapters > Arizona

The Arizona Supreme Court Strikes a Powerful Blow for Free Speech and Religious Freedom

(1/3) > >>

PeteS in CA:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-free-speech-religious-freedom/

The Arizona Supreme Court Strikes a Powerful Blow for Free Speech and Religious Freedom


--- Quote ---Free speech and religious liberty are on a winning streak. Last month the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that Christian wedding photographers could not be compelled to use their artistic talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings. Today, the Arizona Supreme Court reached a similar holding, this time on behalf of Christian calligraphers and painters Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski. The case, brought by my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, is similar to multiple other wedding vendor cases. The plaintiffs do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (they happily serve gay customers). They merely refuse to produce art that advances ideas they find objectionable.

Duka and Koski operate a limited liability company called “Brush & Nib Studios.” The company’s Operating Agreement declares its beliefs quite clearly — stating that it will not create “custom artwork that communicates ideas or messages . . . that contradict biblical truth, demean others, endorse racism, incite violence, or promote any marriage besides marriage between one man and one woman, such as same-sex marriage.” As with all these cases, the core question is whether the custom artwork at issue constitutes constitutionally protected speech (the court was interpreting the Arizona constitution, but applied federal free speech precedents). If so, then the state’s demand that the plaintiffs produce art for same-sex marriages constitutes a form of compelled speech, among the most egregious forms of First Amendment violation. Compelled speech violates the fundamental principle that “an individual has autonomy over his or her speech and thus may not be forced to speak a message he or she does not wish to say.”


--- Quote ---Ultimately, the City’s analysis is based on the flawed assumption that Plaintiffs’ custom wedding invitations are fungible products, like a hamburger or a pair of shoes. They are not. Plaintiffs do not sell “identical” invitations to anyone; every custom invitation is different and unique. For each invitation, Duka and Koski create different celebratory messages, paintings and drawings; they also personally write, in calligraphy or custom hand-lettering, the names of the specific bride and groom who are getting married. In short, Plaintiffs do not create the same wedding invitation for any couple, regardless of whether the wedding involves a man and a woman or a same-sex couple.
--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---

I'll have to wander over to ADF's website to see if they have a piece giving the background to this case.

PeteS in CA:
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2019/09/16/huge-win-for-brush-nib-studio!-arizona-supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-two-phoenix-artists

HUGE WIN for Brush & Nib Studio! Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Two Phoenix Artists


--- Quote ---Jail time and fines.

Those are the real threats Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, the owners and artists of Brush & Nib Studio, faced under a Phoenix law. Why? Because they would only imagine and create custom artwork expressing messages and celebrating events consistent with their core convictions.

Joanna and Breanna could not contradict their deeply held beliefs. And they did not want to abandon the artwork they love and the studio they worked so hard to create. So Joanna and Breanna took a stand—not just for themselves, but for everyone’s freedom to express messages consistent with their beliefs.

Today that stand was rewarded! The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joanna and Breanna, recognizing that Phoenix cannot force artists to express messages or celebrate events that violate their beliefs. Praise God!
...
But soon after launching their studio, Joanna and Breanna discovered that Phoenix interprets its law to require them to create custom artwork expressing messages that violate their convictions.

According to Phoenix, if Joanna and Breanna design and create custom wedding invitations to celebrate marriages between a man and a woman, they must do the same to celebrate same-sex weddings. If they politely declined, Phoenix law threatened criminal penalties—including up to six months in jail and $2,500 in fines for each day that Phoenix decided they were not in compliance.

But Alliance Defending Freedom represented Joanna and Breanna in court, arguing that this coercion violates fundamental protections for freedom of speech and religion. ...
--- End quote ---

IIRC, Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski filed this lawsuit before the gay activists targeted them, before the City of Phoenix came after them. This case is an example of why the SPLC has labeled the Alliance Defending Freedom a "hate group". The ADF defends freedoms the SPLC feels should not be, and wins.

roamer_1:
No, this is not the right direction.

The right direction is that a business is property. And the owner of the property has the right to do business as he pleases, with whom he pleases.

Every sale is a private contract between voluntary participants.

That is the very basis of capitalism, which is the very basis of trade, time immemorial.
If it is not voluntary and is instead coerced, that ruins everything and it becomes crony-capitalism which will always fail.

Cyber Liberty:

--- Quote from: roamer_1 on September 16, 2019, 10:27:29 pm ---No, this is not the right direction.

The right direction is that a business is property. And the owner of the property has the right to do business as he pleases, with whom he pleases.

Every sale is a private contract between voluntary participants.

That is the very basis of capitalism, which is the very basis of trade, time immemorial.
If it is not voluntary and is instead coerced, that ruins everything and it becomes crony-capitalism which will always fail.

--- End quote ---

I don't think I'm following you.  The AZ Supremes decided the company cannot be forced to comply.

roamer_1:

--- Quote from: Cyber Liberty on September 16, 2019, 11:58:28 pm ---I don't think I'm following you.  The AZ Supremes decided the company cannot be forced to comply.

--- End quote ---

Yes, but because it is artistic expression, not because transactions must be voluntary.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page