Affirming Free Speech in Arizona
Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
In a refreshing and robust affirmation of free speech, the Arizona Supreme Court commenced its ruling on Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix with clarity:
The rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person’s home or church, or private conversations with like–minded friends and family. These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their beliefs in public. This includes the right to create and sell words, paintings, and art that express a person’s sincere religious beliefs.
With these fundamental principles in mind, today we hold that the City of Phoenix (the “City”) cannot apply its Human Relations Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) to force Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studios, LC (“Brush & Nib”), to create custom wedding invitations celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01.
Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’ creation of custom wedding invitations that are materially similar to those contained in the record. We do not recognize a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations. Likewise, we do not, on jurisprudential grounds, reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ creation of other wedding products may be exempt from the Ordinance.
Duka and Koski’s beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some. But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone. After all, while our own ideas may be popular today, they may not be tomorrow. Indeed, “[w]e can have intellectual individualism” and “rich cultural diversities . . . only at the price” of allowing others to express beliefs that we may find offensive or irrational. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 641–42 (1943). This “freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much . . . [t]he test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” Id. at 642.
Given this reality, the government “must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions.” Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA), 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2379 (2018) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Rather, Plaintiffs are entitled to continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2607 (2015).
See https://www.azcourts.gov/
Professor of Law, Trinity Law School
Jeffery J. Ventrella leads TruthxChange, a ministry engaging in cultural apologetics that informs the public, equips the church, and protects the future. He also serves as Professor of Law for Trinity Law School, teaching Constitutional Law and international human rights. He also serves as Senior Lecturer at Arizona Christian University, teaching Constitutional Law and a course he designed, Law & Politics. He previously served as associate attorney general for the State of Idaho as well as senior counsel and senior vice president of academic affairs and training at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Upon joining ADF in 2000, he designed the curriculum for a number of ADF training programs, including the Blackstone Legal Fellowship (BLF), a unique training and professional development program for law students. He also helped design ADF International’s Areté Academy Europe, Areté Academy Asia, and Areté Latin America, which provide training for exceptional international advocates and cultural leaders who are on a path to future leadership in a variety of disciplines.
Dr. Ventrella has served as a research fellow and a member of an ad hoc graduate thesis committee for the department of philosophy and constitutional law at the University of the Free State, South Africa. He is also a distinguished fellow of law and culture for the Center for Cultural Leadership and a fellow with the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity. In 2014, TruthXchange appointed him a senior fellow. As an approved speaker for the Federalist Society, Dr. Ventrella serves as an appointed member of the society’s executive committee – guiding its religious liberties practice group. His book, The Cathedral Builder: Pursuing Cultural Beauty (2007), is part of the BLF core curriculum project. In addition, he also edits the BLF’s curriculum. He is the author of numerous monographs and has contributed to and/or edited ten books. Dr. Ventrella received a bachelor’s degree in music education, magna cum laude, from the University of Northern Colorado, where he specialized in trumpet performance. He holds a doctorate in church and state studies from Whitefield Theological Seminary and earned his J.D. from the University of California Hastings College of the Law. He has practiced law since 1985 and is a member of the Idaho State Bar serving on its professionalism and ethics and diversity sections. He is also admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, and the U.S. Supreme Court.