Posted on 12/16/2021 9:43:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A federal judge has ruled that a New York-based Christian photographer must provide services for same-sex wedding celebrations despite holding religious objections to gay marriage.
Judge Frank Geraci, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, rejected a request by Emilee Carpenter of the upstate New York-based Emilee Carpenter Photography to grant a preliminary injunction against a state anti-discrimination law.
In his ruling Monday, the Obama appointee concluded that “New York has a compelling interest in ensuring that individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, have equal access to publicly available goods and services, and that the Accommodation clause is narrowly tailored, as applied to Plaintiff, to serve that interest.”
“As a result, even if the Accommodation clause compels speech or expressive association in a manner that implicates Plaintiff’s free-speech and free-association interests, the provision survives strict scrutiny,” added Geraci.
“New York’s public accommodation laws are neutral. By only bringing an as-applied challenge, Plaintiff virtually concedes that the laws are facially neutral. … She raises no non-conclusory factual allegations that the laws were enacted with any kind of religious (or anti-religious) motivation.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit that has successfully argued religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, represents Carpenter in her legal proceedings.
ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs denounced the decision in a statement and vowed to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
“The court’s decision continues down a dangerous path of the government compelling artists to speak messages that violate their religious beliefs — or imposing steep fines, closing their businesses, or throwing them in jail,” Scruggs maintained.
Scruggs referenced Lorie Smith, the owner of the web design company 303 Creative. Smith is suing Colorado over a law that would require her to create websites celebrating gay marriages if she chose to expand her business to offer wedding website designs despite her objections to same-sex weddings.
In July, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled against Smith, concluding that she must create websites for weddings that conflict with her religious views if she offers weddings website design services. ADF has appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Artists like Emilee and Lorie Smith in Colorado are protected under the Constitution to freely live and work according to their religious beliefs,” stated Scruggs.
“Emilee and Lorie happily serve all people; they just cannot promote messages which contradict their religious beliefs, including their views on marriage.”
In April, Carpenter sued New York Attorney General Letitia James; Johnathan J. Smith, interim commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights; and Weeden Wetmore, district attorney of Chemung County.
At issue were provisions in state law that prohibit “unlawful discriminatory practices ... because of” sexual orientation in “any place of public accommodation.” Since the law defines public accommodations as “retail ... establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind,” Carpenter concluded that the law applies to her business.
“… the Accommodations Clause forces Emilee to celebrate same-sex engagements or weddings and would require her to promote messages that violate her religious beliefs or require her to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, something she cannot do,” stated the lawsuit.
“Likewise, the Publication Clause prohibits Emilee from asking prospective clients questions sufficient for her to learn whether they are seeking photography services celebrating same-sex engagements or weddings so that she can be honest with them about the photographs she does and does not create.”
The lawsuit expressed concern that “New York officials can force her business and her personallyto pay limitless damages and a $100,000 fine, require her to create artwork against her beliefs via court order, revoke her business license, and lock her up in jail for up to a year.”
Liberals keep denying they are enslavers, but this is one of thousands of examples that prove otherwise.
Obama judge.
But it’s ok for twitter to ban people whose beliefs they dont like
Thanks Frank, glad you cleared that up for us
I’m just guessing a Gay Photographer would still be permitted to deny taking pictures of a straight wedding if they chose to do so. Most likely, that straight married couple would not take the chance that they would receive top quality service and not some consequence of retailiation.
Disgusting!
Can the photograper just claim their business schedule is over-booked?
You would think other photographers would object to he being the only wedding photographer in that region, perhaps the whole state. I mean that is the impression the judge gives in her ruling.
Would that judge order a Jewish baker to make Nazi cakes?
Yup. I’m sure those pictures will turn out great!
If they must comply, I would suggest they advertise that all profits from services provided to homosexuals will be donated to organizations that advocate and work towards marriage being between one man and one woman and also to Pro-life orgs.
Display this advertisement prominently in all media utilized.
This is mot court business whatsoever. Let the perverts find someone who wants to serve them, or go without.
The fine print: photographer retains all rights for the prints, negatives, reproduction....
there are at least areas of interest:
1.can state law overcome federal law with regard to when religious liberty is involved
2.does the public utilities doctrine hold
Federal judges are competent to consider “1” and this judge, being an Obama appointee, would naturally be inclined to favor non-discrimination over religious liberty. In the Colorado wedding cake case ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled narrowly, and so there is wiggle room. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court said that states had to give due consideration to religious liberty, and this decision seems contradicted by the blanket statement in the judge’s decision that ALL goods and services are to be covered. No. Due consideration has to be given to religious liberty.
2.the public utility doctrine is that certain goods and services are monopolies, perhaps because of law; e.g., there is only one provider of electricity in a locality. In cases where the public utility doctrine holds, the balance would tip in the direction of non-discrimination. Since there is no barrier to entry in the wedding cake industry, the protection of religious liberty of wedding cake providers can easily overcome non-discrimination.
The public utility doctrine is often handled indirectly by allowing a small business exemption to non-discrimination laws. E.g., employers of no more X workers are exempt from non-discrimination. In such a case, all large companies are considered to have some monopoly power and can be made subject to non-discrimination law.
I will now comment on freedom of speech on the internet: If the Congress wanted to protect freedom of speech via non-discrimination against political viewpoints on the part of internet providers, it could do so. Similarly, Congress could protect freedom of speech via non-discrimination against political viewpoints on college campuses.
In other words, two can play the game of non-discrimination.
But he can take crappy pictures...
Jesus said, “When they persecute you in one city, flee ye to another.”
Betcha the judge would rule differently if the petitioner was a Muslim...
/Cue Captain Obvious
what a great idea
Freedom of association has been under attack for decades. Telling citizens that they must sell property to people they would rather not, rent to people that would rather not, hire people they would rather not, allow membership to people they would rather not, etc has ruined everything and mostly the freedom to associate with people you want to. This should have been fought at the beginning of the “rights” movement.
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.