If you’ve browed BooksOnline.Club, you probably know by now that we are selective in the eBooks and audiobooks we agree to host. Our mission statement describes our commitment to truth, honesty, and integrity. You’ll also notice that we are not ashamed of the Gospel, and our religious convictions prohibit us from hosting books we believe violate our religious and ethical convictions. With that in mind, someone might ask if it is legal for us to turn authors or publishers down. Can we reject books? The answer is yes. We can, and just so there is no confusion, we have included our well established legal authority to reject books. Should you need clarification on the state of the law, you’ll find this article helpful.

Several U.S. court cases have addressed the tension between religious liberty and public accommodation laws, particularly in situations where Christian business owners have declined to offer services based on their religious convictions. Below are key cases that have shaped this legal landscape, focusing on instances where courts have ruled in favor of protecting religious exercise when it conflicts with providing services to customers whose beliefs or actions violate those convictions. These cases often involve balancing the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause against anti-discrimination laws.

1. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
   • Background: Jack Phillips, a Christian baker in Colorado, refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled against Phillips, finding that his refusal violated the state’s public accommodation law.
   • Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled in favor of Phillips. The Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated hostility toward his religious beliefs, violating his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, emphasized that the government must remain neutral and not exhibit animus toward religion when enforcing laws.
   • Significance: While the ruling was narrow and did not broadly establish a right to refuse service based on religious convictions, it affirmed that religious beliefs must be treated with respect and not dismissed outright in favor of anti-discrimination laws. It left open the broader question of whether religious convictions can universally trump public accommodation requirements.
2. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)
   • Background: Lorie Smith, a Christian web designer in Colorado, sought to expand her business to include wedding websites but refused to create them for same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs. She preemptively challenged Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, arguing that it would compel her to violate her faith by forcing her to express messages inconsistent with her convictions.
   • Ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith’s favor, holding that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects her right to refuse to create custom websites for same-sex weddings. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, framed the issue as one of compelled speech rather than solely religious exercise, stating that Colorado could not force Smith to express messages that contradicted her beliefs.
   • Significance: This case extended protections beyond just religious liberty to include free speech, offering a stronger precedent for Christians (and others) to decline services involving expressive acts that violate their convictions. It applies specifically to custom, creative services rather than generic goods or services.
3. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)
   • Background: Catholic Social Services (CSS), a faith-based foster care agency, refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents due to its religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Philadelphia ended its contract with CSS, citing the city’s anti-discrimination policy. CSS sued, arguing that this violated its Free Exercise rights.
   • Ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of CSS, finding that Philadelphia’s actions burdened the agency’s religious exercise without a compelling governmental interest. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that a law is not “generally applicable” (and thus not exempt from strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause) if it allows for individualized exemptions, as Philadelphia’s policy did. The city’s refusal to extend such an exemption to CSS was unconstitutional.
   • Significance: While not a direct business-customer relationship, this case reinforced that religious entities can refuse certain actions conflicting with their beliefs when government policies lack neutrality or broad applicability. It indirectly supports private actors by emphasizing robust Free Exercise protections.

Key Legal Principles Established

• Free Exercise Clause: These cases highlight that laws burdening religious exercise must be neutral and generally applicable. If they are not, they face strict scrutiny, requiring the government to show a compelling interest achieved by the least restrictive means (e.g., Fulton).
• Free Speech Overlap: When a service involves expressive conduct (e.g., cake design, web design), the First Amendment’s speech protections may provide an additional basis to decline service (303 Creative).
• Narrow Application: The Supreme Court has not universally ruled that Christians can always refuse service based on religious convictions. Rulings often depend on specific circumstances, such as government hostility (Masterpiece) or the nature of the service (303 Creative).

Limitations and Context

• These cases do not grant an absolute right to refuse all services. For example, they do not clearly protect refusal of non-expressive, off-the-shelf goods (e.g., selling a pre-made cake). The Court has avoided a sweeping ruling that pits religious liberty directly against public accommodation laws in all scenarios.
• Earlier cases like Employment Division v. Smith (1990) established that neutral, generally applicable laws (e.g., drug laws) do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they burden religion, limiting the scope of religious exemptions unless laws show bias or allow exceptions.

Conclusion

The primary cases establishing protections for Christians refusing services due to religious convictions are Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018), 303 Creative (2023), and, to a lesser extent, Fulton (2021). These decisions provide legal grounding in specific contexts—particularly where government overreach or expressive conduct is involved—but the broader question of refusing service in all situations remains unresolved and case-specific. For a definitive answer in a particular scenario, legal outcomes may still hinge on local laws, the nature of the service, and judicial interpretation.