Religious liberty at home and abroad

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: And now, religious liberty at the bakery and in hospice.

Last week, the Archdiocese of Montreal sued Quebec province to keep euthanasia out of Catholic services that provide medical care.

Quebec requires even religiously-affiliated centers to provide medical assistance in dying with no exceptions.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: We’ll get to that story in a moment.

But first, a religious liberty case out of Oregon is at the appeals court for the third time in just over a decade.

Joining us to talk about these cases is WORLD legal reporter, Steve West.

Good morning, Steve.

STEVE WEST: Good morning, Mary.

REICHARD: Well, remind us about the background to this case.

WEST: Well, it does have a long and tortured history. Aaron and Melissa Klein operated a bakery and custom cake design business in Oregon until 2013, when the state effectively shut them down. Two women visited the Kleins to ask about designing a custom cake for their wedding. Because of their biblical convictions about marriage, the Kleins politely said no. The woman filed a complaint, and ultimately, the state fined the Kleins $135,000. They eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court where justices sent the case back to be reconsidered after the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, because of the hostility the state agency showed toward the Kleins’ religious beliefs.

REICHARD: That should have ended it, but it didn’t. Am I correct?

WEST: That's right, the Oregon appeals court again found the Kleins discriminated against the women. The State agency reconsidered the fine and reduced it to $30,000. The Kleins ultimately made their way back to the Supreme Court again. And the court again sent the case back - this time to be reconsidered in light of their ruling last year in 303 Creative v. Elenis, where they said that Lorie Smith, the website designer in Colorado, could not be compelled to design websites for same-sex weddings.

REICHARD: So how did the three judge panel handle the arguments in the Klein case this time around?

WEST: It was what appellate lawyers call a “hot panel,” as the judges were very engaged, asking a lot of questions. They seemed eager to distinguish this case from 303 Creative, peppering Klein counsel James Conde with a host of questions–like this one from Judge Kristina Hellman, that seemed to betray her sympathies.

HELLMAN: If your clients are going to ask for an exception based on free speech, how are other citizens here supposed to know about that, so that they don’t go into a place of public accommodation that holds itself out as open to all, only to learn in exceptionally sort of humiliating ways that it is not actually open to them at all?

WEST: Conde countered with an argument familiar to free speech advocates.

CONDE: I’m sorry that that’s offensive to them, but I think the First Amendment protects offensive speech. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

REICHARD: Was the state’s attorney also grilled?

WEST: Not so much. At one point, it turned into a culinary discussion as they asked him about the reach of their ruling. What about sheet cakes? Three-tier cakes? A simple cake with a flower but no message? This is where Carson Whitehead made a comment that judges could seize on to pull this case out of the 303 Creative orbit.

WHITEHEAD: It would be an awkward, you know admittedly and awkward thing for a public accommodation to have tiers of service, which makes me wonder if you’re this kind of private cake service, maybe it’s not a public accommodation at all and this is a completely different case.

REICHARD: How do you expect the court to rule this time?

WEST: It doesn’t look good, with judges trying to find a way to distinguish this case. Which also means it may not be over for the Kleins. In rebuttal, Klein attorney James Conde summed up the case’s impact on his clients.

CONDE: This case has been going on for over a decade. [The state agency] A bully in the process has destroyed the client’s business, denigrated their religion as prejudice, and fined them over $100,000 for quoting the Bible in a conversation about religious truth. I think 303 Creative should end this case.

REICHARD: Well, let’s turn to the case out of Canada. Why did Roman Catholic Archbishop Christian Lépine appeal to the high court in Quebec last week?

WEST: Many of us have watched with concern as Canada has expanded its provision of euthanasia to those facing terminal illnesses and soon to those with mental illness by what lawmakers euphemistically call Medical Assistance in Dying—MAiD. The Montreal Catholic diocese offers palliative care–hospice–to those facing terminal illness—not death. They were forced to sue here because the provincial government refused to exempt them from the law because of their religious convictions.

REICHARD: What makes this case significant for religious liberty in Canada?

WEST: Canada has a Charter of Rights that, similar to our Constitution, guarantees religious freedom. This case provides the court with an opportunity to affirm that constitutional right. It’s about the right of conscience—will it be protected? If not, the church will have to stop providing care and comfort for the dying—something it has always done.

REICHARD: Final question here, Steve, how do you keep your hope when reporting on stories like these, where it seems no happy ending is in sight?

WEST: You know, every day, if not every hour of the day, I have to remind myself of the larger story that’s going on, that the Lord is at work in the world, redeeming the world, and setting all things right. And that’s ultimately our hope.

REICHARD: Steve West is a legal reporter for WORLD, and you can keep up stories like this in his weekly Liberties newsletter. We’ve included a link in today’s transcript. Steve, thanks so much!

WEST: My pleasure, Mary.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.