Christian calligraphers lose lawsuit to suspend Phoenix discrimination law over same-sex wedding invitations

Jardine Malado Thursday, September 22, 2016

Gay marriage wedding cards in a Target store. | Wikimedia Commons/Joelk75

The owners of Brush & Nib studio lost their case to suspend the implementation of a public accommodations law in Phoenix that would require them to make invitations for same-sex weddings.

In February 2013, the Phoenix City Council approved a law that would make it illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Offenders could be criminally prosecuted and face a fine of $2,500. Only religious organizations, small private landlords, private clubs and senior housing are exempted from the ordinance.

The plaintiffs, Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, filed a lawsuit to overturn the law last May. On Sept. 19, the Superior Court of Maricopa County denied their request for preliminary injunction against the public accommodations law.

Duka and Koski were represented by Jonathan Scruggs from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The calligraphers had not been approached to design same-sex wedding invitations but they wanted to overturn the law beforehand so that their refusal would not be deemed illegal.

"Artists shouldn't be threatened with jail time and other penalties simply for making art that is consistent with their beliefs," Scruggs said in a statement. "That's why we asked the court to suspend enforcement of the Phoenix ordinance against our clients while their case goes forward," he added.

"Because the city must allow artists the freedom to make personal decisions about what art they will and will not create, and because the ordinance's additional requirement that artists stay quiet about their views is clearly unjust and unlawful, we will consult with our clients about appealing the court's decision," the lawyer continued.

Judge Karen Mullins argued that the law did not violate the calligraphers' freedom of speech and religion because they were still free to express their disapproval of same-sex marriage.

Mullins added that merely printing the invitations does not equate to an endorsement of same-sex marriage. She stated in her ruling that the plaintiffs will probably lose their case to overturn the law but she also refused the city's request to dismiss the case.