I think I would advise them that so long as they make clear that they are going to provide equal service to LGBT persons, they are free under the order as interpreted consistently with the First Amendment to argue against the law’s requirement that they do so (whether or not there’s a nonzero risk as a predictive matter that they might have to litigate the precise boundaries of their First Amendment right should they be hellbent on pressing all the way up against them).
If they are publishing in newspapers, interviewing on radio or television, or displaying signs at their home, they should be fine. (Signs in the workplace could implicate whether they’re equally treating their customers, which is related to but somewhat different from the hostile environment issue Eugene raised, insofar as the latter may rely on the actions of third parties (“or even a restaurant patron,” Koontz wrote in the article Eugene linked), but I am not convinced individuals have an unqualified First/Fourteenth Amendment rights to use their places of business to advance their ideological positions.) Cf. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/cake_wars_oregon_did_not_gag_an_anti_gay_bakery.html David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>> on behalf of Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net<mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Date: Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Re: Baker in Oregon told not to advocate against public accommodation law So would you advise the client to ignore the logic of the ruling? On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:41 AM, David Cruz <dc...@law.usc.edu<mailto:dc...@law.usc.edu>> wrote: Nor should some aspect' of the reasoning supporting an order lead is to embrace a facially implausible and certainly not inevitable interpretation of that order in contradiction of the (incorporated) First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. > On Jul 3, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Michael Worley > <mwor...@byulaw.net<mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>> wrote: > > A "cultural norm" cannot contradict the first amendment rights of freedom of > speech. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
