Supreme Ct. puts 2 Oregon religion cases in play

By Oregon Legal Watch,

After the United States Supreme Court decided on the side of religious liberty in the much watched  303 Creative v. Elenis case, Wall Street Journal Editorial writer, Nicole Ault said,

“Many similar cases are pending around the country, and the ruling ought to resolve them, in part because it affirms that speech is still protected by the First Amendment even when it is for sale. At least three wedding photographers—in New York, Louisville, Ky., and Virginia—are in federal court fighting public-accommodations laws that would force them to shoot same-sex weddings against their beliefs. They are threatened with crippling fines and, in the New York case, incarceration. The New York and Virginia cases have been on hold pending the outcome of 303 Creative. The ruling may also help Mr. Phillips, now facing a complaint for refusing to bake a cake celebrating a “gender transition.” He lost in state trial and appellate courts and is waiting to hear if the Colorado Supreme Court will take his case. Another couple, Aaron and Melissa Klein, are Oregon bakers who face fines for refusing to bake a same-sex wedding cake. They lost in state court and asked the justices to hear an appeal. On Friday the high court sent the case back to Oregon for reconsideration in light of 303 Creative.The justices didn’t address whether baking celebratory cakes is speech. But Justice Gorsuch wrote that Colorado’s logic “would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.” … the next battleground is transgender ideology. “Biological reality is being debated in the public square,” Ms. Waggoner says. An Oregon woman sued the state for rejecting her application to adopt children from foster care because she wouldn’t pledge to “respect, accept and support” the “gender identity” of children in her care. A professor sued Ohio’s Shawnee State University for ordering him to refer to a male student by feminine pronouns. The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor.”