Carl and Angel Larsen, the couple who owns the Minnesota-based Telescope Media Group. In Dec. 2016, the Larsens filed suit against a state law that would compel them to film same-sex wedding ceremonies despite their religious objections.
Posted on 08/26/2019 8:53:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
An appeals court has ruled in favor of a Christian couple who oversee a film company that were told by Minnesota officials that they must film same-sex weddings despite religious objections.
A three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided last Friday that the Minnesota Human Rights Act violated the First Amendment rights of Carl and Angel Larsen of Telescope Media Group.
The decision largely overturned a lower court ruling against the Larsens and remanded their request for an injunction against the MHRA back to the district court level.
Circuit Judge David Stras, author of the court opinion, wrote that “antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution.”
“Indeed, if Minnesota were correct, there is no reason it would have to stop with the Larsens. In theory, it could use the MHRA to require a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe ‘My religion is the only true religion’ on the body of a Christian if he or she would do the same for a fellow Muslim, or it could demand that an atheist musician perform at an evangelical church service,” wrote Judge Stras.
“The district court also ruled that the Larsens could not seek relief on various other constitutional theories. We largely agree that these claims fail. But one—the free-exercise claim—can proceed because it is intertwined with their free-speech claim.”
Circuit Judge Jane Kelly authored an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that while objections to same-sex marriage are protected by the First Amendment, such protections should not apply to businesses.
“The Larsens remain free to communicate any message they desire—about same-sex marriage or any other topic—or no message at all,” wrote Judge Kelly.
“What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others. And make no mistake, that is what today’s decision affords them license to do.”
In December 2016, the Larsens filed a lawsuit against the MHRA's ban on sexual orientation discrimination, arguing that the measure would force them to film same-sex weddings.
U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim ruled against the Larsens in September 2017, concluding that the law is "neutral" in its application and dismissing the Larsens’ concerns as “immaterial.”
“… when a person views a wedding video, there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video's messages to the videographer,” wrote Judge Tunheim, adding that “the Larsens can easily disclaim personal sponsorship of the messages depicted in the wedding videos they create for clients.”
“For example, the Larsens could post language on their website stating that while they follow applicable law, and thus serve couples regardless of protected status, they are opposed to same-sex marriage.”
The Larsens, who are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit, with arguments heard before the panel last October.
Or anything else against their religion. Muzzies get away with it all the time like not allowing seeing eye dogs in their cab or someone carrying liquor in a bag.
when I was in college, I had a “rule” that I wouldn’t date a girl with shorter hair than mine.
Looks like he has the same standards.
;’}
Yes. Anti-discrimination laws, *by their nature* violate freedom of association.
Anti-discrimination laws should only apply to government agencies.
#Sanitywins.
She might have lost her hair in breast cancer treatment.
I see it all the time.
“… when a person views a wedding video, there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video's messages to the videographer,” wrote Judge Tunheim, adding that “the Larsens can easily disclaim personal sponsorship of the messages depicted in the wedding videos they create for clients.”
This is a totally irrelevant point. The judge either lacks basic logical thought capability or is deliberately confusing the issue. Probably the latter but who knows.
Well, yeah.
“antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution.”
What many people don’t understand is that the constitutional “rights” are actually constitutionally “protected rights”. And their protection involves what rights the GOVERNMENT can’t take away, not private citizens.
So, as a private citizen, I have the right to discriminate all I want, as long as you are on my property. The only thing I can’t do while you are there is prevent you from leaving, rob you, rape you, kill you, etc. And once you are in a public place or a place not owned by me, I can’t touch your rights.
In fact, when the government tells a person they HAVE TO provide a service or product to another person, they are violating the product/service provider’s constitutional rights. It’s quite clear.
What if it was a pixie cut and it worked really well?
I don’t know the details of why she has very short hair, or why he has none at all … just find the situation mildly amusing in regard to my long ago preferences.
A good-looking girl is a good looking girl, even with no hair at all.
Remember “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”? Persis Khambatta looked great as Ilia/V’Ger.
< shrug > That’s just the way it was, back then.
“What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others.”
And if they can’t, solely because they gain their income through owning a business, does that mean they are only entitled to full constitutional freedom if they earn their income via wages? That seems to violate their constitutional rights.
This is all so very simple. According to the US constitution, you can do business with anyone you want, or refused to do business with anyone you want, for whatever reason.
Funny how in Hollywood directors and crew can turn down work because the project doesn’t appeal to them or they are politically opposed to the message or investors.
Of course the stupid female judge whines about it. Why do women so easily bow to state fascism?
“She might have lost her hair in breast cancer treatment.”
Or she could work in a bakery, and wants short hair to (A) be more comfortable in a hot environment, (b) Not get hair in the doughnuts, (C)Because it is safer around the machinery (D) All of the above
Unfortunately, there are still cases similar to htis one that are still i nthe courts- Wish the SC woudl step in and state that states can NOT force peopel to violate their religious beliefs despite beign public busiensses once and for all
“Free Speech or Forced Speech? Christian T-Shirt Printer’s LGBT Case Heads to KY Supreme Court”
Nearly three years later. The left, if they cannot win individual battles, will make life miserable for those who are not lock-step with them.
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.