Gifford v. McCarthy

In September 2012, a same-sex couple attempted to book their wedding at Liberty Ridge Farms—a rustic event space in upstate New York. The farm’s owners refused to rent the venue to the couple, saying that same-sex marriages are “not what we wanted to have on the farm.” The couple filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging that the owners of the venue illegally discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation.

Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers

In March 2013, Robert Ingersoll sought to buy flower arrangements for his wedding from his favorite florist, Arlene’s Flowers, which is a for-profit florist shop. The store’s owner informed him that she would not serve him on this occasion, because she believed Ingersoll’s marriage to a man was a sin.

Duncan v. Nevada

In June 2015, the Nevada governor signed into law S.B. 302, which created the Education Savings Account Program. Through the program, parents may receive money from the state's public-school fund, which is deposited into an Education Savings Account, to pay for their child's education at a religious private school. Once the private school receives this funding, there are no prohibitions on how the public funds may be used, meaning that private schools are free to use these funds for religious instruction. 

School of the Ozarks v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Houses of worship are exempt from these requirements, and the Department of Health and Human Services later created a broader accommodation for certain nonprofit organizations.

DeBoer v. Snyder

Michigan law does not allow same-sex couples to adopt children. A same-sex couple with adopted children initially challenged this law in January 2012, and later expanded their lawsuit to challenge the Michigan Marriage Amendment.

Bourke v. Beshear

In 1998, the Kentucky legislature passed a law limiting the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, and prohibited the recognition of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in other states. Eight years later, the state amended its constitution to codify these prohibitions.

Bostic v. Schaefer

In 2006, Virginia amended its state constitution to limit the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, and also prohibited the creation or recognition of civil unions short of marriage. Support for the amendment came primarily from religious groups, and its supporters couched their arguments in religious terms. In July 2013, two same-sex couples challenged Virginia’s marriage ban. The federal trial court ruled in their favor, and the state appealed to the U.S.

Bishop v. Smith

In November 2004, Oklahoma amended its state constitution to limit the state’s recognition of marriage to heterosexual marriage and making it a crime to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. The amendment was supported with religious arguments and appeals to scripture. In response, two lesbian couples sued to invalidate the amendment.

After nearly a decade of litigation, the federal trial court held that Oklahoma’s marriage ban is unconstitutional. The state appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Ohio amended its state constitution in 2004 to restrict the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, and further prohibited the recognition of a legal relationship that “approximate[s] the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” Support for the amendment came mostly from religious organizations, and their arguments were couched in explicitly religious terms.
 
Several same-sex couples and an adoption agency challenged Ohio’s marriage ban.

Tanco v. Haslam

In 2006, Tennessee amended its state constitution to limit the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, and also prohibited the recognition of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in other states. Proponents of the amendment grounded their support in biblical terms. Representative Bill Dunn, one of the amendment’s most prominent supporters, went so far as to write a newspaper article justifying the amendment using quotations from Scripture. 
 
Three same-sex couples sued to invalidate Tennessee’s marriage ban.

Pages