It would seem that the anti-lgbt hate group Alliance Defending Freedom is taking the fight against pro- lgbt laws a step further. In the past, an incident would happen, such as the case of Melissa and Aaron Klein or Barronelle Stutzman, which would cause strife between pro-lgbt ordinances versus the so-called personally held beliefs of business owners to discriminate against lgbts. But now, ADF is trying to eliminate the "middle man," so to speak.
Via a case in Phoenix, the group is making the claim that pro-lgbt laws and ordinances automatically will lead to religious discrimination, therefore such laws and ordinances shouldn't exist in the first place.
According to the American Family Association's phony news site, One News Now:
Alliance Defending Freedom works to preserve and defend religious freedom, calling it "our most cherished birthright." Toward that end, ADF is representing Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio in Phoenix who specialize in hand-painting, hand-lettering, and calligraphy for weddings and other events. ADF filed suit on the artists' behalf against a local ordinance that forces the business owners to use their artistic talents to promote same-gender "wedding" ceremonies.
The ordinance also forbids them – under threat of fines and jail time – from publicly stating religious beliefs that might "imply" anyone would be "unwelcome" in their business because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco tells OneNewsNow the lawsuit is designed to temporarily block enforcement until a full hearing can be held on the ordinance, which could force Duka and Koski to violate their faith.
Duka and Koski filed their case in May of last year with the help of the ADF as sort of a first salvo. According to ThinkProgress, it didn't go well for them:
With support from the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, co-owners of the Brush & Nib calligraphy studio, filed suit in May challenging Phoenix’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. Though they have not yet been asked to provide invitations or other designs for a same-sex wedding, they want to overturn the law so that their eventual refusal to do so won’t be illegal.
. . .Judge Karen Mullins rejected the artists’ claim that being required to serve same-sex couples violated their freedoms of speech and religion. She denied them a preliminary injunction as the case proceeds, sending a not-so-subtle hint that their pro-discrimination claims aren’t going to get very far. ADF had argued that if Brush & Nib is forced to create products that are used in a same-sex wedding, it would constitute compelled speech. Mullins countered that “the only thing compelled by the ordinance is the sale of goods and services to persons regardless of their sexual orientation.” Duka and Koski are perfectly free to publicly state their religious views concerning same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual activity — so long as they don’t publicize an intention to discriminate in their business.
Since that time, religious and conservative publications have been pushing Duka and Koski as martyrs for their faith, making sure to emphasize the possibility that the two could go to jail, while pushing a false idea that the religious liberty argument is about "Christians" vs. lgbts.:
Christian Artists Threatened With Fines and Jail Time for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Invitations
The War On Wedding Vendors Is Ultimately A War On Free Thought
Christian Artists Face Prison for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Invitations
In reality, this "religious liberty" argument is about a group of people bogarting a religion and exploiting it to excuse their personal biases and false entitlements. Today's article in One News Now is simply more of that same bluster and balderdash. And bear in mind that neither woman is in any danger of going to jail. As far as it is known, to this day, no gay person has come to their business asking for wedding services.
Even so, the case is going in front of an Arizona appeals court, so we will be hearing about it again. It's cases like this which have religious right groups and personalities practically salivating when thinking of what type of judges Trump could appoint to the bench.