Minnesota tried to compel Christian filmmakers to celebrate gay marriage.
By
Jeremy TedescoSept. 2, 2019 5:34 pm ET
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOTO
You’ve heard about state officials who try to compel florists or bakers to violate their religious beliefs and participate in same-sex weddings. In Minnesota the state claims the authority to do the same to filmmakers. Last month the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rightly rejected this view.
Carl and Angel Larsen are professional storytellers. Clients hire their firm, Telescope Media Group, to produce short documentaries. The client typically has only a basic idea of the story, so the Larsens have editorial latitude. Their consciences as Christians require that every story honor God, and many clients are religious groups. One project was a documentary for Radical, a Christian ministry, about the spiritual and physical needs of people in the Himalayas.
They decided to get into the wedding business so they could use their talents to promote their beliefs about marriage. Couples would hire them to produce videos celebrating their nuptials. Like everything else they do, they’d only accept projects that align with their convictions. But as they planned to expand their business, they learned that Minnesota officials took the position, as a state website declares, that “the law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage.” They sued in 2016, and the state affirmed repeatedly in litigation that they’d face punishment if they declined to create marriage films that violated their beliefs.
Minnesota antidiscrimination law provides for criminal penalties, including up to 90 days in jail. The state argued that Telescope was a public accommodation performing a “commercial activity,” and that the state’s regulatory power included the authority to overrule the Larsens’ editorial decisions.
In rejecting the argument, the circuit judges noted that the First Amendment protects not only Christians but all of us. By Minnesota’s logic, nothing would stop the state from compelling an atheist musician-for-hire to play an evangelical church service, a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe “my religion is the only true religion” on a Christian’s skin, or a Democratic speechwriter to work for a Republican politician.
The Supreme Court has often affirmed the “cardinal constitutional command” that government cannot force “free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable.” This line of cases runs from West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), holding that Jehovah’s Witness students couldn’t be forced to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance, to the 2018 cases Nifla v. Becerra and Janus v. Afscme, which involved pro-life pregnancy centers and public employees, respectively.
Also in 2018 the court decided Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who conscientiously objects to same-sex marriage. The justices didn’t reach Mr. Phillips’s free-speech claim, holding instead that the process was unfair because officials were openly hostile to his religious beliefs. Eventually a case like Telescope Media Group will give the justices a chance to resolve the free-speech question they left open and protect the rights of all creative professionals.
Mr. Tedesco is a vice president of Alliance Defending Freedom. He represented Telescope Media Group before the Eighth Circuit.
You’ve heard about state officials who try to compel florists or bakers to violate their religious beliefs and participate in same-sex weddings. In Minnesota the state claims the authority to do the same to filmmakers. Last month the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rightly rejected this view.
Carl and Angel Larsen are professional storytellers. Clients hire their firm, Telescope Media Group, to produce short documentaries. The client typically has only a basic idea of the story, so the Larsens have editorial latitude. Their consciences as Christians require that every story honor God, and many clients are religious groups. One project was a documentary for Radical, a Christian ministry, about the spiritual and physical needs of people in the Himalayas.
They decided to get into the wedding business so they could use their talents to promote their beliefs about marriage. Couples would hire them to produce videos celebrating their nuptials. Like everything else they do, they’d only accept projects that align with their convictions. But as they planned to expand their business, they learned that Minnesota officials took the position, as a state website declares, that “the law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage.” They sued in 2016, and the state affirmed repeatedly in litigation that they’d face punishment if they declined to create marriage films that violated their beliefs.
Minnesota antidiscrimination law provides for criminal penalties, including up to 90 days in jail. The state argued that Telescope was a public accommodation performing a “commercial activity,” and that the state’s regulatory power included the authority to overrule the Larsens’ editorial decisions.
In rejecting the argument, the circuit judges noted that the First Amendment protects not only Christians but all of us. By Minnesota’s logic, nothing would stop the state from compelling an atheist musician-for-hire to play an evangelical church service, a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe “my religion is the only true religion” on a Christian’s skin, or a Democratic speechwriter to work for a Republican politician.
The Supreme Court has often affirmed the “cardinal constitutional command” that government cannot force “free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable.” This line of cases runs from West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), holding that Jehovah’s Witness students couldn’t be forced to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance, to the 2018 cases Nifla v. Becerra and Janus v. Afscme, which involved pro-life pregnancy centers and public employees, respectively.
Also in 2018 the court decided Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who conscientiously objects to same-sex marriage. The justices didn’t reach Mr. Phillips’s free-speech claim, holding instead that the process was unfair because officials were openly hostile to his religious beliefs. Eventually a case like Telescope Media Group will give the justices a chance to resolve the free-speech question they left open and protect the rights of all creative professionals.
Mr. Tedesco is a vice president of Alliance Defending Freedom. He represented Telescope Media Group before the Eighth Circuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment