The appeals court correctly recognized that a nondiscrimination ordinance cannot be applied i n a way that overrides constitutional and other statutory protections. That principle ensures fundamental fairness by allowing the ordinance to operate as intended without impinging on long-established rights (as the drafters of the ordinance no doubt intended). Appellant finds fault with the application of that common-sense principle here but does so by mistakenly conflating two different lines of precedent. The relevant cases are those that establish that the government cannot require individuals or other private entities to make or endorse speech to which they conscientiously object, for religious or other reasons. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994) (“Laws that compel speakers to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message are subject to … the most exacting scrutiny”).
Read the full PDF version of the report by clicking the button below.
