About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (June 19, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbafv0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Supreme Court Vacates Another Opinion Applying Antidiscrimination Laws to Religious Objectors June 19, 2019 On June 17, 2019, in Klein v. Oregon Bureau ofLabor & Industries, the Supreme Court vacated a state court decision rejecting an Oregon bakery's claim to a religious exemption from state antidiscrimination laws. The bakery's owners had refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The state claims that this refusal violated statutes barring discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation. The bakers responded by arguing that the protections of the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses limit the reach of the state law. The facts of Klein echo the circumstances presented in 2018's Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which a Colorado baker had similarly argued that applying state antidiscrimination laws to compel him to make a cake for a same-sex wedding violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court apparently viewed the similarities between the cases as significant, leading it to vacate Klein in a short per curiam order and remand the case to the state court with instructions to reconsider its decision in light of'Masterpiece Cakeshop. (This action is typically referred to as a grant, vacate, and remand order or a GVR.) The Court took a similar action in 2018, issuing an almost identical GVR in Washington v. Arlene 's Flowers, Inc., a case involving a florist who raised religious objections to serving a same-sex couple. Following the Supreme Court's remand, the state court in Arlene's Flowers issued its own decision on June 6, 2019, affirming its previous decision against the florist. Although the Supreme Court has once again declined to resolve the competing claims presented by these disputes between religious business owners and states seeking to enforce antidiscrimination laws, it is likely that the Court will be presented with the issue again, through an appeal of Arlene's Flowers, Klein, or any number of similar cases. This Sidebar reviews the First Amendment principles at issue in these disputes, then discusses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Arlene 's Flowers, and Klein. Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment Many of the plaintiffs raising religious objections to complying with state and local antidiscrimination laws claim the protections of both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. With respect to the Free Speech Clause, they argue that their creative services-making cakes or floral arrangements for a wedding, or photographing the event-are speech, and that by forcing them to provide Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10311 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most