The Seventh-day Adventist Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL) departments come in for regular beatings in Fulcrum 7. In the belief that the beatings may stop when morale improves, what follows is a morale boosting good word for some current religious liberty work of the Church. Currently pending before the Supreme Court for a decision on the merits is 303 Creative v. Elenis, 21-476 (2022).
In 303 Creative, Lorie Smith, a graphic artist and web site designer, decided to start a business in which she would create web sites for couples who were planning to be married. She believed that God’s design in marriage was a beautiful thing, so, consistent with her religious faith, she determined that she would create wedding web sites only for heterosexual couples.
Unfortunately for Lorie’s religious freedom, she lives in Colorado which is notorious for fighting to force business owners to violate their faith. The state’s public accommodation law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), takes sides when it comes to citizen speech, promoting speech it favors and suppressing speech it disfavors. Colorado favors pro-homosexual speech and disfavors religious speech which does not support homosexual activity. Specifically, Colorado takes the position that if Lorie creates web sites that celebrate heterosexual marriage, she must create web sites that celebrate same-sex marriages. To be clear, Lorie’s religious beliefs do not prevent her from providing services to homosexuals. If a homosexual customer desires to pay to create a web site promoting the heterosexual marriage of friends, she would create it. At the same time, she would refuse to create a web site that promoted anything that she thought was contrary to the will of God. The issue is not about sexual orientation, it is about running a business in a way that pleases God.
Lorie would like to explain on her web site her religious beliefs about why she cannot promote same sex marriage through her business, but this is also prohibited by Colorado law.
Religious liberty powerhouse, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), agreed to provide attorneys to defend Lorie’s First Amendment rights. To avoid incurring crushing fines by the state, ADF lawyers filed suit in federal court before she launched her business. Her case has now reached the Supreme Court where her lead lawyer is Kristen Waggoner, a Regent University School of Law graduate. Kristen is also the new President of ADF.
One of the most egregious violations of a citizen’s free speech rights is forcing the citizen to promote speech that the government dictates while preventing speech that reflects the citizen’s true views. As Thomas Jefferson famously declared while speaking of religious freedom, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Compelled speech characterizes the most repressive regimes in the world.
Yet, this is precisely what Colorado is fighting to defend: keeping Lorie from running her business if she will not promote Colorado’s views on same sex marriage while remaining silent about her own views. More than coercing her speech, Colorado wants to cause her to use her hands and mind to create web sites promoting same sex marriage. Consider the precedent that would be created if Lorie and the ADF lost:
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. Revelation 13:16–17.
While readers understand the clear religious liberty importance of Lorie’s case, it is being argued as a First Amendment free speech case. (The author is currently working on a brief to the Supreme Court whose purpose is to re-establish rigorous protections for the exercise of religious beliefs under the First Amendment so that cases like Lorie’s do not have to be argued as speech cases.)
For those who might doubt some of the foregoing statements about whether Lorie’s speech is being coerced, a majority of the judges on the lower court panel agreed that Colorado was forcing Lorie’s speech and this coercion turned on the content of her speech. Content based coercion of speech, where the state represses your speech specifically because of what you are saying, is historically anathema under the First Amendment. Despite this admission, the majority ruled that this coercion was constitutionally appropriate.
Although the readers of Fulcrum 7 will be interested in learning about this momentous case presently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the primary reason for this article is to reveal to readers the conflict between the religious liberty efforts of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the anti-freedom efforts of Adventist Forum (the publisher of Spectrum magazine and its related web site), Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, and certain supposed members of the Adventist Church whose names are republished below.
When Lorie’s case was accepted for review by the Supreme Court, the Seventh-day Adventist Church joined together with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Colorado Catholic Conference, The General Council of the Assemblies of God, The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and Samaritan’s Purse to urge the Supreme Court to vindicate Lorie’s free speech rights. Their brief pointed out the connection between protecting her speech rights and her religious freedom. To those Fulcrum 7 readers and contributors who have repeatedly panned the Church for its religious liberty work, this joint brief places the Church on the correct side of a critical First Amendment case.
Unfortunately, not all those who claim to be Seventh-day Adventists agree. Adventist Forum, Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, along with Seventh-day Adventist ministers (or their spouses), professors, and administrators who work or worked in the church or church-affiliated institutions joined together in filing an opposing brief with the U. S. Supreme Court. The goal of their opposition brief is to force Lorie to choose between her religious beliefs and her business, and to force her to promote the same sex marriage views of the State of Colorado.
Thankfully, although both organizations use the name “Seventh-day Adventist” or “Adventist,” their brief states, “Both organizations are independent of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” And, their brief states that one of its purposes is to show the Supreme Court that the brief of the Seventh-day Adventist Church “does not represent the views of many Adventists.”
Consider the reason for making this last statement. Does the Supreme Court do the bidding of the Adventist Church? Should First Amendment protections turn on a poll of Adventists? Of course not. What relevance could such a statement have except to tarnish the reputation of the Church? In the same chapter in 1 Corinthians which condemns homosexual practice (1 Corinthians 6:9) Paul also condemns embarrassing the body of believers by bringing conflict within the church before adjudicators who “have no standing in the church” (1 Corinthians 6:1-4). Apparently, remedial Bible study is needed in certain quarters.
It is one thing for Spectrum and Kinship to argue for the rights of same-sex couples; it is a different matter to argue that Lorie’s religious speech should be coerced. As they wrote in their brief, “she cannot deny … to same-sex couples” web sites created by her “or post a sign” expressing her religious views on why she cannot promote same sex marriage even if Lorie is “motivated by … a sincere religious belief.” (Brf. p. 4.) Spectrum and Kinship argued,
“If this Court rules for [Lorie], nothing would stop another artistic business from refusing to serve Seventh-day Adventists or Jews because the owner objects to their religious practice of worshiping on Saturday rather than Sunday. That cannot be the law” (Brf. p. 6.)
Really? Do Fulcrum 7 readers want to live in a world where those opposed to Adventists on religious grounds should be forced by the state to promote our views? Should the Pacific Press be forced to create cover graphics for Spectrum magazine, material promoting Kinship, or articles attacking Ellen White? Let’s turn this gun around. Should the business owners who fund Spectrum be forced to post on their web sites this article and be prevented from expressing their own views on same sex marriage? It is the law that this sort of compelled speech by the state is prohibited by the First Amendment.
Also note the subtle way in which the Spectrum/Kinship brief misstates the issue. Lorie does not intend to refuse to “serve” homosexuals. She refuses to promote homosexual marriage – or any other view that she believes will displease God. While it is true that that Adventists would object to being denied service because of their religious beliefs, they would hardly expect to be able to coerce a Catholic publisher to print the Great Controversy.
If those reading this article take the time to read the Spectrum/Kinship brief they will be astonished to find that it makes the same sort of religious freedom arguments made above in this article. How can that be? Here is how the deception begins:
“This case implicates the religious freedom not only of petitioners, but also of LGBTQ persons and others who sincerely believe in the sanctity of same-sex marriage—a belief that is entitled to the same respect and consideration under the First Amendment” (Brf. p. 6).
Do Spectrum/Kinship believe that same sex marriage is sanctified? The “sanctity of marriage” view of those who agree with Lorie is that marriage between a man and a woman is the only arrangement sanctioned by God. Homosexuals do not claim that same sex marriage is the exclusive arrangement sanctioned by God. That is the subtle shift that makes this argument deceptive. If the typical homosexual opened a business like Lorie’s, he could hardly claim that his belief that same sex marriage was “sanctified” prevented him from creating websites for heterosexual couples. His religious speech would not be coerced. It is because Lorie believes that God exclusively sanctifies heterosexual marriage that her speech is coerced.
What the Spectrum/Kinship crew really stand for is that same sex marriage is an allowable choice, just as being a Republican, Democrat, Independent, conservative, or liberal is a choice allowed in a free society. Thus, when a Trump supporter asks a business owner who loves Biden to create a pro-Trump poster, no one would think a refusal coerced the speech of the Trump supporter.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15).
The Spectrum/Kinship brief contains this description of the interest of those supporting its brief: “As with many theological issues, amici have diverse views on same-sex marriage” (Brf. p. 2).
If that is literally true, then some of these amici supposedly believe in heterosexual marriage but inexplicably want their names used to coerce the speech of a fellow Christian who wants to please God in all she does, including running her business. What follows is a republication of the list from the brief of those lending their names as amici to the arguments made in the Spectrum/Kinship brief:
James Boyle, President and Chief Executive Officer, Centura Health (ret.) and former Chief Executive Officer, Shawnee Mission Medical Center.
Mark F. Carr, Ph.D., M.Div., Former Professor and Director of the Master of Arts degree in Clinical and Biomedical Ethics at a Seventh-day Adventist university.
Janna Voegele Chacko, M.D., Graduate of and former Instructor of Medicine at Loma Linda University School of Medicine.
Stephen Chavez, Administrative Board Chair, Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church, Takoma Park, Maryland.
Lillian Rosa Correa, Wife of Seventh-day Adventist pastor.
Rene Drumm, Ph.D., Former Professor in Social Work Department at Seventh-day Adventist universities.
Dave Ferguson, Seventh-day Adventist pastor (ret.).
Marlene Ferreras, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Practical Theology at a Seventh-day Adventist university.
Lawrence T. Geraty, Ph.D., President Emeritus and Executive Director, University Foundation, La Sierra University.
Eileen Gemmell, Wife of Seventh-day Adventist pastor.
Carrol Grady, Wife of Seventh-day Adventist pastor.
Jennifer Helbley, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry at a Seventh-day Adventist university.
Sharilyn Horner, Senior Lecturer, La Sierra University.
Todd J. Leonard, Senior Pastor, Glendale City Seventh-day Adventist Church, Glendale, California.
Leif Lind, Associate Pastor, Glendale City Seventh-day Adventist Church, Glendale, California.
Janet Gillespie Mallery, Ed.D., Adventist Professor at a Seventh-day Adventist university (ret.).
Paul Mallery, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at a Seventh-day Adventist university.
Leslie R. Martin, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at a Seventh-day Adventist university.
Jarrod McNaughton, MBA, FACHE, Former President, Kettering Medical Center and Executive Vice President, Kettering Health Network.
Larry A. Mitchell, Th.D., Former Associate Professor, Pacific Union College Department of Religion; Director of Government Relations, Adventist Health (ret.).
Bryan Ness, Ph.D., Professor of Biology at a Seventh-day Adventist liberal arts college.
Robert N. Randall, D.Min., Senior Pastor of Thousand Oaks, California, Seventh-day Adventist Church (ret.).
Jill Kleinert Rasmussen, MSW, LCSW Professor of Social Work at a Seventh-day Adventist university (ret.).
Richard Rawson, Former hospital Chief Executive Officer with Adventist Health and Loma Linda University Health.
Alan J. Rice, Senior Vice President, Adventist Health (ret.).
Robert J. Robinson, Adjunct Faculty, Pacific Union College.
Charles Sandefur, Seventh-day Adventist Pastor (ret.); former Field Secretary, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and former President, Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA).
Wayne Malcolm Schafer, QC Former Adjunct Professor, Burman University.
A. Gregory Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Religion and Social Science, Pacific Union College.
Mitchell A. Tyner, Associate General Counsel, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (ret.).
Rita J. Waterman, Associate Vice President, Corporate Communication, Adventist Health (ret.).
Not on the list of amici is the author of this article, Bruce N. Cameron, J.D. He is the Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law at Regent University School of Law and is on staff with the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. He is a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court and has been litigating religious liberty and free speech cases for the past 46 years. Readers may be interested to know that in a relatively recent independent survey of the top “law firms” litigating First Amendment rights before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Alliance Defending Freedom was ranked first followed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in a tie for second place.
****
Bruce N. Cameron is the Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law at Regent University School of Law and is on staff with the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation.