Divided 8th Circuit Revives Videographers' Claims Against Filming Gay Weddings
Judge Jane Kelly said in her dissent: "Nothing stops a business owner from using today's decision to justify new forms of discrimination tomorrow."
August 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM
5 minute read
A federal appeals court on Friday revived a constitutional challenge brought by a Minnesota couple who won't shoot wedding videos for same-sex partners, teeing up a new dispute for the U.S. Supreme Court confronting a clash between state civil rights laws and religious protections.
The split panel, led by Judge David Stras, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, said the couple can pursue a hybrid claim that combines elements of their free speech and religious freedom rights. Friday's decision overturns a district court ruling that had dismissed the videographers' claims and spurned their demand for an injunction against the state civil rights law.
At the heart of the case is a claim by a married couple, Carl and Angel Larsen, owners of Telescope Media Group, that the Minnesota Human Rights Act unlawfully requires them to film wedding videos for same-sex couples. The Larsens, described as "Bible-believing Christians who place Christ at the center of everything in their life," said they shoot videos that share a message of marriage being between a man and a woman.
"The complaint makes clear that the Larsens' videos will not just be simple recordings, the product of planting a video camera at the end of the aisle and pressing record," wrote Stras, who was joined by Judge Bobby Shepherd, a George W. Bush appointee. "Rather, they intend to shoot, assemble, and edit the videos with the goal of expressing their own views about the sanctity of marriage."
The Larsens' case could present the U.S. Supreme Court its next opportunity to confront protections claimed by small businesses that are refusing service to gay and lesbian customers. The justices addressed that clash—but did not fully resolve it—in a 2018 case involving a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
In June, the justices declined to hear arguments from a baker in Oregon who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The court vacated a state ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration addressing the justices' decision in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
"Of course, it is not at all clear that the hybrid-rights doctrine will make any real difference in the end," Stras wrote in Friday's ruling. "After all, the Larsens' free-speech claim already requires the application of strict scrutiny. As a practical matter, then, the fact that the videos also have religious significance may not move the needle much."
In her dissent, Judge Jane Kelly, appointed by then-President Barack Obama, said the Larsens are still free to communicate any message they want despite requirements of the Minnesota Human Rights Act forbidding businesses from refusing to provide services to customers based on race, sexual orientation and disability, among other protected classes.
"What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others," Kelly said in her dissent. "And make no mistake, that is what today's decision affords them license to do. The Larsens concede that they want to operate a public accommodation that serves only opposite-sex couples. Minnesota's law prohibits that conduct just as it would prohibit any hotel from denying its services to an individual based on race, any store from refusing to sell goods to a person based on religion, or any restaurant from charging higher prices to women than to men."
Kelly said in her ruling: "Nothing stops a business owner from using today's decision to justify new forms of discrimination tomorrow. In this country's long and difficult journey to combat all forms of discrimination, the court's ruling represents a major step backward."
The panel upheld the dismissal of the Larsens' other claims, including violations of associational freedom and the equal protection clause.
Similar cases are percolating in courts across the country in the wake of the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop. The 7-2 majority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the state commission's order that baker Jack Phillips "cease and desist" discriminating against same-sex couples violated his First Amendment right of free exercise of religion.
But Kennedy also made clear the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision was tied to that case only.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," he wrote.
The Eighth Circuit ruling in Telescope Media Group v. Lucero is posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute readRegulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250