Federal appeals court rules that Christian videographers can refuse service to same-sex couples

A pair of Christian filmmakers filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota in December 2016, claiming that a state law violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to produce content inconsistent with their religious beliefs. After the suit was dismissed in U.S. district court, they took their case to the  8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. In August 2019, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the suit, ruling that it was the couple’s Free Speech right to deny services at odds with their values. 

Key Players

Telescope Media Group (TMG) is a media production service owned by Angel and Carl Larsen, devout Christians who see the company as a means to promote their religious views. Until the controversy began, the company primarily had filmed ads and live events, according to Slate. But the Larsens wanted to start making wedding videos, too. However, when they discovered that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) required them to provide their services to same-sex as well as heterosexual couples, they filed a pre-enforcement suit against the state. At the time the suit was filed, TMG had never actually shot a wedding video, Slate reports. As of Sept. 20, 2019, the company continued to offer only event and production services. 

The state of Minnesota, through its MHRA, ensures greater protections against discrimination than the federal government. The legislation identifies 13 “protected classes” safeguarded from discrimination in seven “protected areas.” Specifically, the law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and includes businesses as one of the categories where these protections apply. 

Further Details

TMG’s suit against Minnesota, filed on Dec. 6, 2016, argues that the MHRA would require the company to portray gay couples in the same way it portrays heterosexual couples. It stated that TMG would decline to work on any projects that “promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman,” and that the company sought to change “the current powerful cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically-orthodox definition of marriage” by publishing its videos online “to achieve maximum cultural impact.” More fundamentally, the suit asserts that the MHRA violates the First Amendment in two ways: as a content-based regulation, in which the government discriminates based on the content of the speech being expressed; and as a form of compelled speech, in which the government mandates that a certain thing be said.

On Sept. 20, 2017, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim dismissed TMG’s complaint. He addressed the company’s content-based restriction claim, stating, “Contrary to the Larsens’ assertions, the MHRA does not amount to a state effort to stamp out expression opposing same-sex marriage or to privilege pro-same-sex marriage views.” In addressing TMG’s compelled-speech claim, he wrote, “The law does not dictate how the Larsens carry out any of their creative decisions regarding filming and editing.” 

Tunheim’s ruling also noted that speech-for-hire (when a company provides a service that necessitates speech) typically reflects the views of the customer, not the company; he said the Larsens can easily eschew responsibility for the messages in the videos, and that they are free to publicize actively only the messages they agree with. In other words, TMG would not have to do the same online promotion of videos depicting same-sex couples as it would for those who comport with the owners’ traditional definition of marriage.

TMG appealed the decision to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled 2–1 on Aug. 23, 2019, to reverse the district court’s decision. Judge David Stras explained that videos were a form of protected Free Speech. Further, given that TMG’s work explicitly promoted opposite-sex marriage, he said, the MHRA would require the Larsens to produce videos just as explicit in their support of same-sex marriage. Stras concisely summed up the court’s decision when he wrote, “Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims.” 

Outcome 

Minnesota decides to fight issue in lower courts  

In October 2019, the state announced it will continue to fight the lawsuit in federal district court , according to KNSI News. In an Oct. 3 opinion piece published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero wrote that the state opted not to appeal to the Supreme Court because it would probably lose due to the limited facts on record and the high court’s current composition, Minnesota Public Radio News reported.