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.”
Why? What’s the big deal?
It’s Just A Cake!
Shoot every shot as a single shot. That’s what I would do.
1. Do not keep a book of ccharges for photo shoots.
2. Any ‘speciaity’ works cost triple!
If I were taking the pictures, every picture would be out of focus.
If I were forced to provide services as a wedding photographer. I would refuse over religious reasons. If they threatened me, I would do the wedding, but the couple would not be happy with the results...I would be totally disrupted by the wedding process. I would wear a badge that says I am only here under threat of lawsuit. At every opportunity I would be disruptive...if they complained I would say you can fire me but first you must sign a legal document saying that not participating in the wedding was your decision. then I would still charge for my time.
Was she being sued by anyone or just getting out in front and challenging the law?
Or for the KKK?
But restaurants can refuse to serve policemen and Conservatives with no problem?
This so called “federal court” is violating the CONSTITUTION.
This so called “federal court” is violating the CONSTITUTION.
Appeal to the next level.
Wow....now he can have a carreer in taking pics of mentally ill people!
Occupation and political party are not protected classes. Sexual orientation is.
She sued the state over the law. Nobody has sued her. Yet.
No. Nazis are not a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.
No they wouldn't, for the same reason.
Be a shame if some of the image storage cards were damaged.
If I were gay I would never hire someone who had a problem with gay marriage to do anything at my “wedding” - especially cater it, or bake my cake.’’
Just stupid.
If you were shooting that wedding, considering your expertise with Photoshop, the images could be interesting. At that point you tell the couple, “Be careful what you wish for. You wanted my services; you got ‘em.”
Gay Nazis?
Then you may have a case.
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.