The Kentucky Supreme Court has delivered a victory for Hands On Originals owner Blaine Adamson, who has spent more than seven years in court defending his First Amendment freedoms. But the court did not reach a decision on the merits of the case because it determined that the plaintiff, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, lacked standing to sue.
In 2012, a representative from the GLSO asked Hands On Originals (a promotional printing company in Lexington, Kentucky) to print shirts promoting the local gay pride festival. The GLSO representative provided Blaine “a detailed description” of the shirt design, which included a rainbow-colored LGBT symbol and the words “Lexington Pride Festival.”
Blaine told the man that he could not accept the order because the shirt’s message conflicted with his religious beliefs, but he kindly offered to connect the GLSO to another business that would print the shirts for the same price.
The GLSO refused this offer and instead sued Hands On Originals for violating a local ordinance that prohibits discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation.
One of the six justices on Kentucky’s highest court, Justice David Buckingham, wrote a concurring opinion that cited over a dozen Supreme Court and federal appeals cases. He indicated that, had the court ruled on the merits, Hands On Originals would have had the upper hand. But these merits were not considered by the whole court, which ruled 6-0 that the GLSO lacked standing.
In short, Lexington law says that “an individual” may file a complaint with the commission. But the court determined “an individual is one single human.”
“But in this case, because an ‘individual’ did not file the claim, but rather an organization did, we would have to determine whether the organization is a member of the protected class, which we find impossible to ascertain,” the court said.
Because the court ruled on this basis, it did not reach the important First Amendment issues that Buckingham addressed. The failure to reach these broader questions leaves some citizens subject to targeting and harassment.
For example, cake artist Jack Phillips has been sued not just once, but a second time since winning his Masterpiece Cakeshop case at the U.S. Supreme Court last year. That’s three legal battles, one of which is still in progress. While the Supreme Court ruled resoundingly for Jack, it did so based on the government’s blatant anti-religious hostility toward him. It didn’t address the free speech rights of artists and creative professionals.
But these First Amendment issues for creative professionals are not going anywhere. The Supreme Court should provide clarity soon and, in fact, is perfectly situated to do so right now.
In September, ADF filed a cert petition for Barronelle Stutzman and Arlene’s Flowers. Barronelle is a floral artist and the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. She served Rob Ingersoll, who she’s described as “one of my favorite customers,” for nearly 10 years, using her artistry to help him celebrate holidays and special occasions. But when Rob asked Barronelle to use her expressive talents to celebrate his same-sex wedding, she was conflicted. “I didn’t want to hurt Rob’s feelings, and I wanted to tell him as gently as possible,” she said. But ultimately, she knew she could not create art to celebrate an event that violates her faith.
Barronelle has now been in court for over six years, and if the U.S. Supreme Court does not accept her petition, she could face bankruptcy. She simply wants to live a quiet and peaceful life according to her Christian faith, but she’s been dragged into a legal battle for freedom. Her case provides the Supreme Court a much-needed opportunity to affirm the First Amendment freedoms of all.
The scope of First Amendment rights for creative professionals is arguably the most hotly debated issue in our nation’s courts. All creative professionals, Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative, should be free to create art according to their beliefs without government coercion. The Supreme Court has the chance to address this question. It should take this opportunity so that the fear and uncertainty racking people like Barronelle Stutzman and Jack Phillips can finally be put to bed.
Ryan Everson is a communication integrity specialist with Alliance Defending Freedom (@AllianceDefends), which represents both Blaine Adamson and Barronelle Stutzman.
