News (All)

By Patrick McCormick and Richard DeMaio

What do a baker and the President of the United States have in common? After reading two of the most highly anticipated opinions of the October 2017 term, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Trump v. Hawaii, some might say the ability to restrict access based on religion. In these opinions, the Court grappled with sensitive issues balancing First Amendment religious freedoms against the public interest. Both opinions analyzed whether laws were neutral toward religion in light of public officials’ statements evidencing religious animus. Weeks after finding that expressions of hostility to religion by state officials during an administrative hearing toward a baker who declined to serve a same-sex couple violated the baker’s freedom of religion, the Court deemed anti-Muslim statements made by President Trump and his advisors as irrelevant to claims of religious discrimination.

In Masterpiece, the Court weighed in on when a public accommodation law must yield to a business owner’s First Amendment rights. As is common in many states, Colorado law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses serving the public. Despite this law, Jack Phillips, a conservative Christian baker, refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because he said doing so would violate his sincerely held religious beliefs. A Colorado civil rights agency ruled that the baker violated the state’s public accommodation law. If the baker wanted to bake cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would have to do the same for same-sex weddings. A Colorado Court upheld the ruling. The baker appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of the baker, 5-4. The opinion hinged on statements made by commissioners of the Colorado agency. The “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by statements made by commissioners of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1729 (2018). During hearings, commissioners “went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust” and “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” Id. The opinion focused so heavily on the religious animus displayed during the hearings that the Court did not even rule on the main issue in the case—whether the Colorado law compelled the baker to endorse a message that violated his sincerely held religious beliefs. Instead, the opinion left open the possibility that a business owner’s religious beliefs might have to yield a state’s public accommodation law in a future case.

The opinion noted that while “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” society has also recognized “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” Id. at 1727. But in this case, where a state commission bears the responsibility of enforcing anti-discrimination laws, such laws must be enforced in a fair and neutral manner not tainted with religious animus. Based on this, the Court held that the Colorado Commission violated the free exercise clause.

Despite religiously charged statements being the death knell in Masterpiece, weeks later in Trump v. Hawaii, the Trump administration’s travel ban survived scrutiny. The travel ban restricted immigration to the United States by citizens of eight countries, most of which are predominantly Muslim. Both during his campaign and throughout his presidency, President Trump and his administration issued numerous statements evidencing religious animus towards Muslims. President Trump issued a formal statement “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2417 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). This statement was maintained on his website until May 2017, several months into his presidency. President Trump also asserted that “[w]e’re having problems with the Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country.”  Id.

Unlike in Masterpiece, the majority in Trump disregarded the Trump administration’s repeated anti-Muslim statements and instead relied on national security justifications to uphold the travel ban. The majority noted that ordinarily it would only consider whether the travel ban is neutral on its face. However, even looking beyond the text of the travel ban and the Trump administration’s inflammatory statements, the Court held that the ban still survives because it is based on a legitimate purpose: “preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.” Id. at 2421.

Justice Sotomayor lamented the seemingly contradictory holdings of Masterpiece and Trump in her trenchant dissent in Trump. Justice Sotomayor cited Masterpiece, questioning how the Court could find that just weeks earlier state commissioners’ statements regarding religion were persuasive in finding a violation of the First Amendment, but in Trump the majority completely disregarded the administration’s anti-Muslim statements. Justice Sotomayor complained that the majority “blindly accept[ed] the government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security.” Id. at 2448.

It is difficult to reconcile how the Court came to such divergent conclusions finding that public officials’ statements were relevant in Masterpiece, but irrelevant in Trump. It is true that both cases involved allegations of religious animus based on officials’ statements. However, the cases involved completely different claims and circumstances. Masterpiece concerned the free exercise clause, while Trump concerned the establishment clause. This point is critical because each claim invokes different levels of scrutiny. The free exercise clause can trigger strict scrutiny for per se violations. Had the free exercise clause been raised on appeal in Trump, perhaps there would be a different outcome. The anti-Muslim statements may have been deemed per se violations, triggering strict scrutiny when determining whether the government’s national security justification was genuine. However, Trump was merely an establishment clause case affording the government a much more deferential level of scrutiny. Moreover, the statements in both cases arose under different circumstances: in Masterpiece, an adjudicatory hearing to enforce an anti-discrimination law, and in Trump, pre- and post-presidential campaign statements about foreign affairs. In Masterpiece, the statements of the commissioners were intertwined with the application of the Colorado law. On the contrary, in Trump, while the administration’s statements were distasteful, they did not affect the application of the travel ban. On its face, the ban is neutral toward religion and justified by national security interests, which is all that is needed to pass muster under an establishment clause test.

The government bears the constitutional duty to make and enforce laws in a manner neutral toward religion. The government should never compel an individual to endorse a specific message just because the individual has a sincerely held belief contrary to the government.  Likewise, the government should never treat individuals unjustly regardless of whether they follow Christ, Allah, someone else, or no one at all. Considering the divisiveness of the current social and political landscape there will surely be protégés to Masterpiece and Trump. There will be another business owner who rejects a customer based on sincerely held religious beliefs, and the travel ban will continue to be argued over in the court of public opinion along with the administration’s family separation policy, and who knows what the Court will decide then. For now, it is certain that the same-sex couple in Masterpiece did not get their cake, but President Trump got his travel ban.

A friend of famed golf course architect Devereaux Emmet once remarked, “Emmet could not possibly conceive of any other use [for] any given piece of real estate…except to lay out golf links on it.” And so, when Emmet and a group of NYC businessmen purchased 140 acres of land in East Setauket in 1915, that’s exactly what he did. Over 100 years later, St. George’s Golf and Country Club – the course Emmet designed for his closest friends and relatives to enjoy – boasts his original timeless design, repeatedly earning a coveted spot on Golfweek’s Top 100 Classic Courses in America (sharing the honor with some of the most famous courses in the nation). If you’re looking for a hidden gem among Long Island golf courses – as well as close friendships, a family atmosphere, business opportunities, impeccable service, and the best steak anywhere – St. George’s checks all the boxes.

Devereaux Emmet observed the building of the celebrated National Golf Links of America in Southampton, and golfers can feel the similarities at St. George’s, says General Manager Brian Curtin. Curtin may be partial, but Golfweek agrees, first bestowing the honor of Top 100 Classic Courses in America on St. George’s in 2011 and every year since – a remarkable recognition given that there are approximately 6,000 classic courses in the United States (built before 1960). St. George’s prioritizes the pace of play, offering the ability to play a round in a reasonable amount of time (two and a half to three hours for a twosome, four hours or less for a foursome). Tee times aren’t required – another unique feature – and the club offers tournaments for players of all skill levels (the Junior PGA League, ages six to 12, recently won the Long Island championship). St. George’s is fortunate to have dynamic instructors and mentors in Head Golf Pro Chris Crenshaw and First Assistant Golf Pro Nick Banks, who make it their mission to adapt to each student’s learning style.

While the golf gets top billing, the dining experience merits its own spotlight. Head Chef Bill Kakavas has created delicious meals at St. George’s for the past 25 years, getting to know the members and their palates. His seasonal menus feature a blend of traditional comfort food (a 24-ounce T-bone steak) and modern food trends (Mediterranean branzino filet with stewed zucchini) to appeal to a multi-generational membership. Dinner is served Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays from April to January 2, and the newly added pub menu on the other evenings has been a huge success.

Members rave about the dedicated staff, headed by Food and Beverage Manager Joelle Battelli. She encourages bartenders to get creative; members can try something new with the cocktail of the day. Reflecting the club’s commitment to creating custom-tailored experiences, members help curate the wine list and enjoy the use of the club for private events for family celebrations, office parties, and golf outings. CMM’s Joe Campolo, who joined St. George’s in 2012, pointed out, “With such a great resource, why go to another restaurant?”

Frank Morgigno, CEO of Applied Technologies of NY, President of St. George’s since last fall, has prioritized initiatives to welcome the new members who represent the club’s future. His efforts are paying off: in the past year, the majority of new families are junior members (through age 39). A variety of memberships at different price points appeal to a diverse membership; family, individual, and weekday memberships are offered, and even a “social” membership for those who don’t golf. Indeed, there’s plenty to keep you busy at St. George’s even if you’re not a golfer. The House Committee plans a packed calendar every year featuring the traditional St. Patrick’s Day Party and Labor Day Clam Bake to new events such as Motown Night, Hawaiian Luau, and Western Night. The recent addition of yoga has been a hit, and under Morgigno’s leadership, the board is exploring plans for a new fitness center, bocce ball and tennis courts, a fire pit, and day care services.

At this exciting time in the life of the club, General Manager Brian Curtin is responsible for the clubhouse, pro shop, and office staff. As a teenager he worked in kitchens as a dishwasher and after college worked his way up, working two stints at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club (first as Banquet Manager and then as Sous Chef), at Lido Golf Club (Executive Chef), owning his own catering business, and serving as General Manager at Great Rock Golf Club before joining St. George’s as General Manager in 2016. Members and staff agree that his deep level of experience has already made an extraordinary impact.

With all the club options on Long Island, why St. George’s? As Curtin recently explained, it’s truly a hidden jewel. “To see the excitement of people when they’re here… we take great pride in that,” he says, as well as in the attention to detail of the department heads and staff, all of whom make a point to get to know new members right away and make them feel welcome. Social and business opportunities also abound: as Morgigno explains, “It’s not cliquey – everyone is friendly. You’ll develop great relationships and find someone to play with.”

Learn more at http://www.stgeorgesgolf.com/Home.aspx.
 
Joe Campolo, St. George’s President Frank Morgigno, and General Manager Brian Curtin enjoy the fresh air on the spacious back deck. Next photo: St. George’s Golf and Country Club was designed by pioneering golf course architect Devereux Emmet in 1915. According to Golf Club Atlas, “This was going to be [Emmet’s] course for his friends and relatives and he spent his time getting it right. St. George’s defining characteristic is startlingly unique holes on American soil.”
 
The bar is a welcoming spot to catch up with friends and build new relationships. Bartenders are encouraged to get creative with unique “cocktails of the day.” 
 
Joe Campolo and Brian Curtin enjoy the sunshine and the view. Next photo: St. George’s Golf and Country Club formally opened on June 23, 1917 with an exhibition amateur-professional match to benefit the Red Cross. Over 100 years later, St. George’s still features the same original design.
 
Recent restoration projects to the links style course, including tree removal, fairway expansion, and asphalt cart path removal, beautified the grounds and honored the original design. In 2011, St. George’s was honored with inclusion in Golfweek Magazine’s list of Top 100 Classic Courses in America and has received the distinction every year since – a remarkable recognition given that there are approximately 6,000 classic courses in the United States (built before 1960). St. George’s shares the category with well-known names including Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, National Golf Links of America, and Maidstone Club.
 
Whether you’re hosting a golf outing, a private party, or just enjoying a quiet meal, the dining and hospitality staff at St. George’s work tirelessly to deliver impeccable service. The recent addition of Joelle Battelli as Food and Beverage Manager has further helped create flawless events.  Executive Chef Bill Kakavas has created delicious meals at St. George’s for the past 25 years. He spends time getting to know the members and creating menus that blend traditional comfort food with modern dishes. 
 
The St. George’s wine list is curated with the recommendations and preferences of the membership in mind. Next photo: CMM’s Joe Campolo bumped into Flexible Systems’ Marty Schmitt at the club on a recent morning.
 
The club’s 101-year history is on full display: Ward Melville, St. George’s President 1937-1945.

 
Frank Melville, Jr., St. George’s President 1929-1934. St. George’s honors its past while always moving forward, introducing new initiatives to appeal to the club’s future leaders.