Hensley’s legal journey began in December 2019 when she filed a lawsuit alleging unfair punishment by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in response to her refusal to perform same-sex marriages. She is currently appealing the dismissal of her suit, claiming that the warning issued by the commission violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As a result of her religious objections, Hensley directs same-sex couples seeking marriage to another officiant. She argues that the commission’s demand for equal treatment infringes upon her religious beliefs. Although the 303 Creative ruling was based on the web designer’s First Amendment rights rather than a religious freedom law, Hensley’s lawyer states in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court that the case is instructive because it rejects the notion of compelling interest in forcing wedding vendors to participate in both same-sex and opposite-sex ceremonies.

See also: US Supreme Court’s Ruling in Web Designer Case Sparks Concerns for LGBT Rights

However, some legal experts, including Dale Carpenter, a Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law professor, believe that 303 Creative may not directly support Hensley’s case. Carpenter points out that there is a distinction between Hensley, a government official acting in her official capacity, and the private business involved in the 303 Creative case. Nevertheless, Hensley’s case is expected to not be the last to reference the 303 Creative ruling, with Carpenter anticipating a rise in similar cases in the coming years.

Take the first step towards finding your dream job – submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search today.

The complex legal dispute will likely require significant time to be resolved as it progresses through the judicial system. It will involve trial courts, appellate courts, and potentially several years of litigation. While Hensley’s reliance on 303 Creative faces challenges due to the differing circumstances of the plaintiffs involved, the case sets a precedent that could have implications for similar situations.

The First Liberty Institute, a religious liberty group, provides Hensley’s representation. The outcome of this case has the potential to impact the delicate balance between LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom, making it a subject of keen interest and close scrutiny. As legal battles like this continue to unfold, they contribute to the ongoing national dialogue surrounding the intersection of personal beliefs, civil liberties, and equal treatment under the law.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.