By James Esseks, Director, LGBT & HIV Project

The United States Supreme Court just agreed to decide a case about whether a business can refuse to sell commercial goods to a gay couple because of the business owner’s religious beliefs.  A win for the business could gut the nation’s civil rights laws, licensing discrimination not just against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, but against anyone protected by our non-discrimination rules.
In July 2012, Debbie Munn accompanied her son, Charlie Craig, and his fiancé, Dave Mullins, to the Masterpiece Cakeshop just outside of Denver to pick out a cake for their wedding reception.  When the bakery’s owner heard that the cake was for two men, he said he wouldn’t sell them a cake because of his religious beliefs.
Debbie was stunned and humiliated for Charlie and Dave.  As she has  said, “It was never about the cake.”  She couldn’t believe that a business would be allowed to turn people away because of who they are or whom they love.  They might as well have posted a sign in the shop saying “No cakes for gays.”
The Colorado courts agreed with Debbie and ruled that the bakery’s refusal was unlawful and rejected the bakery’s request for a religious exemption from the state’s longstanding non-discrimination law.
By granting review in Charlie and Dave’s case, the Supreme Court has placed a spotlight on supposed tensions between equality and religious liberty.  But the country has already found the right balance between these two important constitutional interests.
Under the Constitution, we each have the right to our own religious beliefs.  We are empowered to act on those beliefs --  but not when our actions would harm others.  That’s because religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against or harm other people.
When businesses open their doors to the public, they must open them to everyone on the same terms, regardless of race, color, national origin, disability, or – under many state laws – sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Even when a business owner’s religious beliefs may motivate her to discriminate, that doesn’t justify an exemption from our civil rights laws.  Providing commercial services, like selling cakes, doesn’t mean a business owner is endorsing anyone’s marriage.  It simply means they are following the rules that apply to us all.
Demands for religious exemptions from civil rights laws are not new.  In the past, businesses have repeatedly sought to pay women less than men because of a religious belief that men are “heads of household” and women should not work outside the home.  Other businesses have refused service to people living with HIV because of a belief that they are sinful.  Still others turned people away from restaurants because of their belief that they should not interact with people of a different race.  The courts rightly rejected all of these claims for religious exemptions, despite the fact that they were based on deeply held beliefs.
There’s no reason that religious exemptions should be any more acceptable when it comes to turning people away because of religious beliefs about sexual orientation or gender identity.  Courts across the country have agreed, including a decision from the Washington State Supreme Court in February.
The religious exemptions issue has gained prominence recently as civil rights protections for gay and transgender people have become more widespread.  States have proposed laws that would license discrimination by businesses, government workers, adoption agencies, and counselors.  Congress has considered similar measures. And President Trump has signed an executive order that signaled his intent to use religious exemptions to advance discrimination. But polling shows that both the American public and business owners themselves reject these overbroad exemptions and recognize them as discrimination.
Charlie’s mom was right:  It’s not about the cake. Or the flowers. It’s about not being turned away from a business because of who you are.  Religious freedom must be protected in America, but what’s going on here is pure discrimination.
This post originally appeared on ACLU National's Speak Freely blog: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/can-businesses-turn-lgbt-people-away-because-who-they-are-thats-supreme-court-now

By Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

Abandoning a longstanding constitutional protection for the separation of church and state, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that a church must be allowed to participate in a state program that provides direct taxpayer grants to improve school playground surfaces. The decision was very troubling. As we argued in our friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the government should not be funneling public funds directly to churches or other houses of worship, for any reason. Period.
Those who support government funding of religion are rejoicing over the ruling, eager to secure public dollars for a variety of religious purposes, including school vouchers that are barred under many state constitutions. But lawmakers shouldn’t take out their checkbooks just yet. As troubling as Monday’s decision was for the separation of church and state, it was based on explicitly narrow grounds. The court went out of its way to note that the ruling applies only to “express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” which the court appeared to view as a secular use of funds.
The decision did not address — and thus left in place — other restrictions on public funding of religion, including what the court characterized as “religious uses of funding,” which have long been prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court also affirmed that it is still proper for states to take into account the proposed use for government funds when awarding them. A state may still, for instance, enforce its state constitutional provisions protecting the separation of church and state by declining to provide taxpayer dollars for the training of ministers, even as part of a broader grant program.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that court should have gone further by holding that the First Amendment requires houses of worship and other religious institutions to be eligible for government funding programs regardless of whether the funds will be put to “religious uses.” The other seven justices, however, did not subscribe to this view, which would overturn longstanding precedent on this issue and completely upend — even more so than Monday’s decision — the First Amendment’s delicate balance between safeguarding the free exercise of religion while also protecting against its establishment.
Yesterday, in light of the Trinity Lutheran decision, the Supreme Court also vacated and remanded several state supreme court decisions pertaining to government funding of religious institutions, including a 2015 victory by the ACLU and allies against a Colorado school voucher program. Although the Supreme Court sent those cases back to the state courts for further consideration, it routinely takes this approach when it issues an opinion addressing an issue that relates to existing litigation. It gives the lower courts the first opportunity to determine what effect, if any, recent rulings may have on the case. But it doesn’t affect the limited nature of the Trinity Lutheran decision itself. The Colorado Constitution, for example, prohibits public funds from being used for religious purposes, directly or indirectly. School vouchers, which will fund religious education and indoctrination, as well as religious discrimination against students, plainly violate that provision. Nothing in the Trinity Lutheran decision requires the Colorado courts to abandon the state’s long history of protecting against the use of taxpayer money for such purposes.
While Monday’s narrow ruling does not provide a broad authorization for government funding of religion, it is nevertheless a stark warning for those of us who value the Constitution’s abiding protection for the separation of church and state. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wisely cautioned in her forceful dissent, whatever one thinks of the outcome in Trinity Lutheran, the real concern is “what it might enable tomorrow.” Never before has the court held that the government may provide direct cash aid to a church. If the court is willing to cross that constitutional line here, it does not bode well for upholding other Establishment Clause principles in the future.
This post originally appeared on ACLU National's Speak Freely blog:  https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/supreme-courts-troubling-decision-funding-church-playgrounds

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today announced it will review a decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals that found that a cake shop discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake. 

In 2012, Colorado residents David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a wedding cake.  Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed the couple that, because of his religious beliefs, it was his standard business practice to refuse to provide cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips had turned away several other couples for the same reason.

“This has always been about more than a cake. Businesses should not be allowed to violate the law and discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love,” said Mullins. His husband, Craig, added, “While we’re disappointed that the courts continue debating the simple question of whether LGBT people deserve to be treated like everyone else, we hope that our case helps ensure that no one has to experience being turned away simply because of who they are.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Colorado represent Mullins and Craig in the case.  Under Colorado law, businesses open to the public, including the Cakeshop, may not refuse service based on factors including race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation.

“The law is squarely on Dave and Charlie’s side because when businesses are open to the public, they’re supposed to be open to everyone,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project. “While the right to one’s religious beliefs is fundamental, a license to discriminate is not.  Same-sex couples like Dave and Charlie deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else, and we’re ready to take that fight all the way to the Supreme Court.“

more on this case