Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. City of Phoenix - 448 P.3d 890 (2019 ) PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Study...

Description

Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. City of Phoenix - 448 P.3d 890 (2019)

II. Facts

Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski were owners of Brush & Nib Studios, LC (Brush & Nib), an art studio specializing in creating custom artwork for weddings, events, special occasions, home décor, and businesses. All the custom invitations feature Duka and Koski’s hand-drawn images and paintings, custom lettering and calligraphy, as well as their original artwork. Duka and Koski were Christians, and thus, they sought to operate Brush & Nib consistent with their religious beliefs. As a tenet of their faith, Duka and Koski did not believe that two people of the same sex can be married; thus, they believed that creating a custom wedding invitation that conveyed a message celebrating same-sex marriage, for any customer regardless of sexual orientation, violated their sincerely-held religious convictions. In 2013, The City of Phoenix issued a Human Relations Ordinance prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating against persons based in their status and sexual orientation. Duka and Koski subsequently filed an action to enjoin the City from enforcing the Ordinance, arguing that the same violated their right to free speech article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, and their rights under Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01. The trial court ruled that the Ordinance did not violate Plaintiff’s rights to free speech or free exercise of religion under the FERA. III Question Could the City of Phoenix impose its Human Relations Ordinance to force Duka and Koski to create custom wedding invitations celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs? IV. Answer No. V.Justice Gould authored the opinion of the Court, Justice Bales dissented. VI. The compelled speech doctrine is grounded on the principle that freedom of speech includes

both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. One who chooses to

speak may also decide what not to say. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech necessarily includes the freedom of deciding both what to say and what not to say. VII. Reasoning IX. Brush and Nib is similar in tat it deals with same sex marriage nd discrimination by a similar business. X. It is a different level of scrutiny applied in this case, the case ofDenolf v Knerr would require intermediate scrutiny. XI This case would be helpful to the petitioner, since the court help that the business could refuse service. XII. Under the different standard of scrutiny, the argument may get thrown out, which would help the respondent....