Jennifer and her spouse had been the guardians of 10-year-old Anthony for the past three years. Last November, the couple formally adopted Anthony.

It was a big event for all involved, and the couple decided to throw a party to celebrate the occasion. They planned to formalize the adoption at the county courthouse, and then have family and friends over for a party immediately after to legal proceeding.

Jennifer decided to hire Rosie Lee, a party planner who had planned numerous adoption parties in the past. Jennifer paid Rosie $300 up front and agreed to pay her another $300 on the day of the party.

After the agreement was finalized, Rosie asked for information regarding the people involved in the celebration, so that she could personalize the celebration (by putting their names on the cake, invitations, etc.). Jennifer informed Rosie that her spouse's name was Mary, which was the first indication to Rosie that a gay couple was adopting Anthony.

Rosie immediately returned the $300 down payment and informed Jennifer that she would not be involved in the celebration, as the couple's lifestyle was contrary to Rosie's religious beliefs.

Jennifer was frustrated but was willing to accommodate Rosie. Jennifer informed Rosie that she could arrange the invitations, decorations, and anything else in such a way that, on their face, there was no indication that any gay people would be involved in any way. That way, Rosie would not be expressing any endorsement for anything in which she did not believe.

Rosie continued to refuse to assist the couple. The couple filed a complaint with the State of North Idaho (the location of the events) Anti-Discrimination Commission, alleging a violation of the North Idaho Anti-Discrimination Act, which provides, in pertinent part:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person to refuse to any individual or group because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place or public accommodation.

During the administrative proceedings, it was revealed that the com

post an analysis of the relevant constitutional issue(s) and a conclusion as to how this matter will ultimately be resolved.mission previously denied a complaint filed under the same act, in which it was alleged that a baker refused to bake a cake that included hateful speech directed at gay people.