Posted on 02/27/2020 10:37:53 AM PST by ransomnote
The Department of Justice today filed a Statement of Interest in federal court in Kentucky, explaining that a Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government law, which requires a photographer to photograph same-sex weddings in violation of her religious objections, violates the U.S. Constitution. The United States’ brief explains that the photographer, Chelsey Nelson, is likely to succeed on her claim that requiring her to photograph weddings against her conscience constitutes government-compelled speech that violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment forbids the government from forcing someone to speak in a manner that violates individual conscience,” said Eric Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The U.S. Department of Justice will continue to protect the right of all persons to exercise their constitutional right to speech and expression.”
The law at issue prohibits businesses from discriminating on various bases, including on sexual orientation. Ms. Nelson brought suit against the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government and several of its officials, and sought a preliminary injunction preventing the application of this law to require her to photograph same-sex weddings.
The United States’ brief explains that Ms. Nelson is likely to succeed on her Free Speech claim. The Free Speech Clause prohibits the government from requiring people to engage in speech supporting or promoting someone else’s expressive event, such as a wedding ceremony. The brief observes that “[w]eddings are sacred rites in the religious realm and profoundly symbolic ceremonies in the secular one” and thus are plainly “expressive activities” under the Supreme Court’s Free Speech cases. Moreover, the brief explains, photography is an expressive art form, and wedding photography in particular seeks to celebrate and honor the union being photographed. Forcing a photographer, against her conscience, to express her support for a wedding that her faith opposes violates the Constitution.
In July 2018, the Department of Justice announced the formation of the Religious Liberty Task Force. The Task Force brings together Department components to coordinate their work on religious liberty litigation and policy, and to implement the Attorney General’s 2017 Religious Liberty Guidance.
Wow.
A justice department defending both religious freedom and freedom of speech.
Impressive.
Next thing you know, they may be defending freedom of association!
#Winning.
Trump is Making America FREE Again!!!!
This “it’s free speech defense” shouldn’t be necessary. The only reason it is necessary is that the idea of a “public accomodation” has been stretched beyond all reason. It used to mean places where there would be unsegregated bathrooms, water fountains, and bus seating. Now it means almost every transactional interaction, from men’s clubs to wedding cake slavery.
That’s the real wrong here. Using a free speech defense may be short term good for the defendant (so it has to be done), but its just more patch work on an already tattered quilt.
I admire people who will risk their lives (they are potentially facing Antifa terrorists), their fortunes, but (thank God) not their sacred honor to stand up for freedom.
I would more likely dodge that disgusting situation - avoid participating but not quite cross the line to where I could be prosecuted by the leftist thugs. “Oh, sure, I could photograph a ceremony on that date. My rate would be $38,850 for the day.” They would decline but not be able to claim that I’m discriminating against their mockery of a real wedding, not when I agreed to do it if we reached an agreement on price. I would not, of course, tell the perverts that my price breaks down to $850 for my labor plus $38,000 for tolerating their evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.