Lawsuit re: Gay Weddings / Free Speech (the next one)

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

On Tuesday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a case examining whether the State of Minnesota can force a Christian media company to make videos celebrating same-sex weddings, in violation of its religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman. Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) recounted one particularly memorable admission in the case.

As with similar religious freedom cases, the State of Minnesota insisted that if a small Christian company — in this case Telescope Media Group — wants to serve weddings involving one man and one woman, it has to serve same-sex weddings as well. Doing so would violate the religious beliefs of the owners, Carl and Angel Larsen, who aim to glorify God with their company by celebrating weddings that fit the Bible's definition.

While Minnesota claims to be protecting LGBT people from discrimination, in reality it is forcing Christian business owners to violate their consciences by promoting an event that violates their consciences.

A few crucial questions revealed that Minnesota's true goal is to coerce small businesses like this one to express a message the owners disagree with.

"The state was asked whether a Muslim tattoo artist could be forced by the state to tattoo the words, 'My God is the only God' on a Christian customer," Tedesco told PJ Media in an interview after oral arguments on Tuesday. "The answer was yes, that the state has the power to force a Muslim tattoo artist to tattoo a message they disagree with."

"They say anybody who creates speech for a living can have their speech compelled by the government," he explained, a position "completely inconsistent with the First Amendment."

This issue is not going to go away.  And I'm glad of it.  Nobody likes bullies.  And some purported "gay rights" advocates have turned into bullies.

Quote

The Larsens brought a lawsuit against Kevin Lindsey, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, and Lori Swanson, attorney general of Minnesota, to challenge a Minnesota law that forces them to violate their religious beliefs.

"Minnesota law forces the Larsens to produce videos promoting a conception of marriage that directly contradicts their religious beliefs if they produce videos promoting marriages between one man and one woman," the suit explains. "Defendant Kevin Lindsey ... [has] repeatedly stated that private businesses violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act ... if they decline to create expressive wedding-related services celebrating same-sex weddings."

According to the suit, "the Larsens are deeply concerned that American culture is increasingly turning away from the historic, biblically-orthodox definition of marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman, and that more and more people are accepting the view that same-sex marriage is equivalent to one-man, one-woman marriage."

...

When asked how the arguments went this morning, ADF lawyer Jeremy Tedesco said, "I thought the arguments went very well." He emphasized that the court was asking the right questions.

"One of the main questions was, 'How does the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop impact this case?'" Tedesco recalled, referencing the case of baker Jack Phillips, who gladly served LGBT customers but refused to bake a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. "Masterpiece recognized that laws like Minnesota's could very well cross the line and force people to express views about marriage they disagree with."

Yep.

Quote

Tedesco argued that if the government can compel Telescope Media Group to express support for same-sex marriage through their art, the same government can force an atheist to promote a belief in God.

"The state's position is the same as the state saying it could threaten an atheist marketer to design a billboard campaign for a church promoting belief in God," the ADF lawyer claimed. "The First Amendment doesn't allow the state to coerce speech from anyone, and that's what the state says it has the power to do here."

Yep.

Quote

LGBT activists insist that if Christians like the Larsens have the free speech and religious freedom to opt out of making products that celebrate same-sex weddings, that constitutes a "right to discriminate." These claims actually undermine the importance of anti-discrimination law, however.

In a unanimous ruling, the British Supreme Court upheld religious freedom against specious claims that it constituted "discrimination," and explained that such attacks on religious freedom actually belittle the real harms of true discrimination.

"It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or any of the other protected personal characteristics," Brenda Hale, the Supreme Court president, wrote in a recent opinion. "But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to extend it beyond its proper scope."

That case involved Asher's Bakery, a bakery owned and operated by Christians Daniel and Amy McArthur. That bakery refused to bake a cake with the picture of cartoon characters "Bert and Ernie" and the message "Support Gay Marriage." This fell well within the owners' rights to religious freedom and free expression — even without the vital protections of the First Amendment.

If the McArthurs' rights were protected without the First Amendment and by a court extremely concerned with discrimination, how much more should the Larsens' free speech and religious freedom be protected under the First Amendment?

Yep.  The bullies have been trying to exceed the "proper scope" of anti-discrimination efforts for some time now.  It's good to see some correction on this issue.

The Larsens have put together a pretty good video on this issue:

Thoughts?

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Quote

Doing so would violate the religious beliefs of the owners, Carl and Angel Larsen, who aim to glorify God with their company by celebrating weddings that fit the Bible's definition.

Call me old fashioned but when I run a business my primary goal is to make money for myself and my employees. Does that make me a bad person as my primary aim is not to glorify God?

In this case I am actually on the videographers side legally.

That being said I looked at their website and, after doing so, I hope their business fails. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Call me old fashioned but when I run a business my primary goal is to make money for myself and my employees. Does that make me a bad person as my primary aim is not to glorify God?

In this case I am actually on the videographers side legally.

That being said I looked at their website and, after doing so, I hope their business fails. 

Why?  I admit that the frequent "donate" appeal is annoying.

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why?  I admit that the frequent "donate" appeal is annoying.

The insufferable ostentatious piety of their website, the fact that seeing their smarmy photos triggers in me a visceral reaction to punch them in the face, and I have a deeply layered revulsion to anyone who uses religion to try to sell something.

[Calm]

Quote

 I have a deeply layered revulsion to anyone who uses religion to try to sell something.

I got the same impression of using religion to add appeal as well as reason to donate to legal fees, etc.

[The Nehor]

I admit I am now more dubious about whether they should win legally. What are they suing for? What is their standing? This is not a gay couple suing them. They are suing the state. Where are the damages?

Does this company even really operate or is it just a shell company built for this legal action?

Edited October 18, 2018 by The Nehor

[Calm]

Quote

The bullies have been trying to exceed the "proper scope" of anti-discrimination efforts for some time now

Was any action actually brought against the company or did they just decide to sue the State on the basis of possible interpretations of the law?

If not, I don't see bullying in this case, at least not yet and depending on how the State actually defines the law as opposed to the plaintiffs' paraphrase, it might not even exceed the "proper scope".

This feels more preemptive than responsive at this time.  Are there any cases where the State of Minnesota shut down or fined someone under this law?  Some actual concrete example of invasive government action to demonstrate there is something wrong first would be useful.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Another source:  

Quote

Carl and Angel Larsen, who run a Christian videography business called Telescope Media Group, sued Minnesota’s human rights commissioner in December 2016 in federal court, saying the state’s public accommodation law would hit them with steep fines and jail time if they began offering wedding videography services that only promoted their vision of marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim dismissed their lawsuit in September 2017. In his ruling, he called the Larsens’ plan to post a notice on their website that they would deny services to same-sex couples “conduct akin to a ‘White Applicants Only’ sign,” and that it would be an act of discrimination not protected by the First Amendment.

So nothing harmful to them has actually happened yet, besides being told their lawsuit didn't have merit?

http://www.startribune.com/st-cloud-couple-s-bid-to-deny-wedding-videography-to-gay-couples-is-argued-before-appeals-court/497712511/

Quote

Early during Tuesday’s arguments, Stras pressed Tedesco on whether the Larsens actually made a clear distinction between refusing to produce a message that they opposed and declining service to a class of people. Tedesco replied that, under Minnesota law, “speech itself is being treated as a public accommodation.”

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

The judgment of the previous court dismissing the "pre-enforcement" suit.  The company currently create films and claims to be planning on expanding into the wedding business.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2016cv04094/160766/53/

Case was dismissed on the grounds the "alleged injury-in-fact" was "too abstract and hypothetical" and some other stuff.

On page 6, one of the reasons stated they plan on going into making wedding videos is to promote the historical, biblically-orthodox definition of marriage.

Wonder if they would refuse to film an Latter-day Saint wedding as not biblically orthodox.

Page 7 states the main purpose is to promote biblical marriage, that the only reason they are doing it as a business is it is not financially feasible to make films promoting marriage unless they can charge for them.  In the contracts will be required public promotion of the videos....so apparently the wedding videos won't be the property of those they are filming.

-----

It comes across to me as using religion to make a buck or setting up the business so they can sue.  If they wanted to promote marriage through film, then they could do so by making a few films through donations and volunteering their services to couples or to offer it to a few couples.  Insisting they have to make a large number of films to promote a religious teaching and therefore need to  be treated as a wedding photography business, but be excused from the antidiscrimination laws if I ndersand the argument correctly seems very convoluted to me and possibly might invalidate the applicability to a typical business that has the main purpose of making a profit for its owner and salaries for its employees.

Also instead of the planned contract stating a video might be chosen to be part of the public promotion of biblical marriage (a more natural condition), the contract is supposed going to be written as all videos produced must be shared on their website and social media, thus if they were required to film a same sex marriage, their contract would force them to publicize the same sex marriage.

Since it is their choice how to word the contract and there is no inherent need to include each wedding filmed in their religious promotion project, it sounds like a setup, an attempt to force the State into changing its laws.  That is hardly the State compelling them.

The Court found the alleged fear the State would force them to post same sex marriages on their website as if it were their personal expression just because the Larsens chose to add the "all" into their contracts as "imaginary or speculative".  Since there would be no core customer benefit in this type of promotion as it would only serve the Larsons' personal purpose, it would be highly unlikely the State would attempt to enforce such a condition of the contract...and thus it got dismissed, and should have been imo.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Wait Calm, are you suggesting that a Smac thread about the evil gay government agenda might be hyperbolic and histrionic?

Sorry, I just cannot believe such a thing..........

 

 

 

 

 

.......nope, I could not keep a straight face.

[LoudmouthMormon]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Call me old fashioned but when I run a business my primary goal is to make money for myself and my employees. Does that make me a bad person as my primary aim is not to glorify God?

In this case I am actually on the videographers side legally.

That being said I looked at their website and, after doing so, I hope their business fails. 

I get it.  I occasionally hang out with a Christian artist or two.  They can be some pretty passionate zealous folks - with absolutely every single topic in their lives having something to do with Christ.  From the type of sheets on their bed, to why they have jobs, to how they go about parking their car, to the food they eat, to the reason they are married and love their spouses.  It's either something that glorifies Him, or something they need to repent of and change, so they can better glorify Him.  Saturday Night Live once had a skit where the Lord finally showed up and asked the lady to stop calling on him for dumb stuff like helping her make dinner without burning the beans.  It's quite an experience to pray with them - you'll be the only one not saying or shouting things.

Zeal is fine, as long as it's not forced on you, right?  

But yeah, any law that would force these folks to send a message they don't wanna send, is an unjust law and should be dragged out in front of everyone and shot.

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I admit I am now more dubious about whether they should win legally. What are they suing for? What is their standing? This is not a gay couple suing them. They are suing the state. Where are the damages?

Does this company even really operate or is it just a shell company built for this legal action?

Why are they offering couples pre-marital counseling?  Are these two doctors or psychologists/psychiatrists?

From their site:

Quote

 They often provide couples pre-marital counseling

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by ALarson

[carbon dioxide]

The best revenge in such cases is to make a video of the wedding and make the worst video one can possibly imagine.  The most that those who hired them could do is demand a refund. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The best revenge in such cases is to make a video of the wedding and make the worst video one can possibly imagine.  The most that those who hired them could do is demand a refund. 

There is no case so far where this could have happened. No same sex couples have sought to procure their services or sued them over being denied.

[ALarson]

Just now, The Nehor said:

There is no case so far where this could have happened. No same sex couples have sought to procure their services or sued them over being denied.

This appears to be just a way to get publicity for their business.  Or am I missing something?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This appears to be just a way to get publicity for their business.  Or am I missing something?

I do not think it is just publicity. I think they are making a blatant grab for donations. Free money. And it is working. Then threads like this pop up everywhere from here to Reddit for free publicity while people vent their rage about this whole thing.

I have said it before. There are times I wish I had no conscience. In the current environment it is so easy to acquire easy cash if you have no moral problems with tricking gullible fools into giving it to you.

[Calm]

They claim they had one same sex couple ask them to do a video even though they weren't (possibly aren't) advertising doing wedding videos, but it does not appear to have been confirmed and no mention in the lawjusticia article of an actual threat to sue them or the government imposing fees, etc. for having turned it down.

[rockpond]

This seems like an odd situation... suing when they haven't actually been forced to do anything.  But, I do think that they should be allowed to say no to making a wedding video for a gay marriage.

If it goes to SCOTUS, I would think they would decide in favor of the filmmakers (as they did with the Denver cake maker).

While I have problems with the law itself (and think that it should be removed from the books), I also have concerns about the argument against it:  I feel like the personal expression and free speech arguments can be extended.  Could I argue that my work in commercial real estate is expressive and that I cannot lease to anyone who doesn't match my religious beliefs?

[Calm]

Quote

. suing when they haven't actually been forced to do anything

I get the reasoning if what they were complaining about was pretty much 'given' as the Court determined one aspect of their case was...posting an announcement that they would only film videos of marriages that promote their purpose of promoting biblical marriage and would therefore reject any marriage that did not conform, including same sex marriages was in essence posting an announcement they would not serve same sex couples.  Therefore if they were to do so they would be fined, etc.  By challenging the law up front (labeled "pre-enforcement") they avoid the necessity of paying fines and dealing with possible civil lawsuits.  It is wisdom, imo, to see if the market is going to work for you before entering it, whether that is through test marketing ideas or ensuring no future speed bumps or pits due to conflicts with laws.  See if you can remove the potential points of conflict prior to investment and providing services that could lead to lawsuits.

The Court also discussed the chilling effect, so there is apparent recognition where laws potentially discourage investment in something, there is a right to challenge the law to remove the "chill".

The throwing into the mix of the bizarre contract pretty much negates the rationality of the above though, in my view, as they are intentionally making it harder for themselves and setting up a business scenario that no business is required to do or would insist upon.  There are some people who just aren't photogenic, an unattractive film will likely not promote marriage and would open up the participants to mocking, etc.

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

Are they offering to do videos of stonings to those caught in adultery "in the biblical tradition"?  When you use the bible as a weapon, don't you have to use all of it?

Someone smells money and wants a slice of that cake as well. 

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by california boy

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I get the reasoning if what they were complaining about was pretty much 'given' as the Court determined one aspect of their case was...posting an announcement that they would only film videos of marriages that promote their purpose of promoting biblical marriage and would therefore reject any marriage that did not conform, including same sex marriages was in essence posting an announcement they would not serve same sex couples.  Therefore if they were to do so they would be fined, etc.  By challenging the law up front (labeled "pre-enforcement") they avoid the necessity of paying fines and dealing with possible civil lawsuits.  It is wisdom, imo, to see if the market is going to work for you before entering it, whether that is through test marketing ideas or ensuring no future speed bumps or pits due to conflicts with laws.  See if you can remove the potential points of conflict prior to investment and providing services that could lead to lawsuits.

The Court also discussed the chilling effect, so there is apparent recognition where laws potentially discourage investment in something, there is a right to challenge the law to remove the "chill".

The throwing into the mix of the bizarre contract pretty much negates the rationality of the above though, in my view, as they are intentionally making it harder for themselves and setting up a business scenario that no business is required to do or would insist upon.  There are some people who just aren't photogenic, an unattractive film will likely not promote marriage and would open up the participants to mocking, etc.

 

I think you are a little too charitable in your first paragraph. Pre-enforcement challenges are rarely allowed. There is a reason Rosa Parks got arrested on the bus rather then just arguing the law was unjust and why Mormon polygamists were arrested as part of the challenge to anti-bigamy laws.

It looks like it was quickly dismissed. So where does all the donation money go now?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think you are a little too charitable in your first paragraph. Pre-enforcement challenges are rarely allowed. There is a reason Rosa Parks got arrested on the bus rather then just arguing the law was unjust and why Mormon polygamists were arrested as part of the challenge to anti-bigamy laws.

It looks like it was quickly dismissed. So where does all the donation money go now?

The first one was dismissed, what about the appeal?

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how the law works.  Things that seem reasonable in abstract may not be workable in reality.  I can see courts discouraging or dismissing preenforcement suits because that takes up a lot of time on "what ifs" and courts are crowded enough on "what is", but if I were starting a business, it would be my wish to clear out any legal obstacles  prior to investing much money.  Otoh, lawsuits are costly in and of themselves, so it might be cheaper to test the waters by jumping in....unless you can get someone else to pay for the lawsuit.  Then it's a lot of cream, free positive advertising among the market you want to create or already engage in, some harassment that likely increases your credibility in your chosen market so endurable, some minimal time spent in court given a lawyer that does most of the work for you paid by donations and free press when you and the press show up at court at the same time, otherwise maybe stock photos that still get you and your company in the public eye.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Was any action actually brought against the company or did they just decide to sue the State on the basis of possible interpretations of the law?

If not, I don't see bullying in this case, at least not yet and depending on how the State actually defines the law as opposed to the plaintiffs' paraphrase, it might not even exceed the "proper scope".

This feels more preemptive than responsive at this time.  Are there any cases where the State of Minnesota shut down or fined someone under this law?  Some actual concrete example of invasive government action to demonstrate there is something wrong first would be useful.

Declaratory Judgment proceedings are an excellent means of challenging outrages. Doesn't matter whether or not your plaintiff's been prosecuted.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Declaratory Judgment proceedings are an excellent means of challenging outrages. Doesn't matter whether or not your plaintiff's been prosecuted.

They are mostly used in patent law if I remember correctly.

It failed in this case. The court rightly or wrongly ruled the situation was too hypothetical and I tend to agree with that decision.

[california boy]

Another one of SMAC's "bullies"

Quote

 

Another Pharmacist Denied A Woman A Miscarriage Drug Over Personal Morals

A Michigan woman grieving the loss of her unborn baby says a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription to help her miscarry her deceased fetus, telling her it was against his religion as “a good Catholic male.”

The pharmacist allegedly denied knowing that Peterson had miscarried her baby when confronted by Bianchi.

The incident took place just days after a woman reported a similar experience at a Walgreens pharmacy in Arizona in late June, leading to an investigation of misconduct by that company.

“When you’re at one of the lowest moments of your life, you don’t expect this sort of demeaning treatment,” Peterson said in a statement. “A pharmacy should not be able to deny patients medication prescribed by their doctors based on the personal beliefs of a particular employee.”

“I said, ‘It’s not your job to know the full story. Your job is to be a professional and fill a prescription,’” Bianchi said. “A medically licensed doctor gave you a prescription to fill... If you, who call yourself a Christian, decided that you could not do this, then you needed to pass it off, as the law states, to somebody that could fill it.”

 

And so it begins.  People wonder why "No Religion" is the fastest growing group in this country.