Thursday, March 28, 2024

Minn. Videographers Get Big Win in Key Religious Liberty Case

This past Friday marked a significant victoryfor religious freedom. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down most of a U.S. DistrictCourt decision which threatened to force videographers to produce content thatviolates the commands of their conscience. Instead, the appeals court ruledthat a Minnesota anti-discrimination law could very well be unconstitutionaland that a challenge to the law could therefore proceed.

The appellants, Carl and Angel Larsen, own avideography company called Telescope Media which produces commercialshort-films and other video products. They first brought their case forward when they took the Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner KevinLindsay to court in 2016, alleging that regulations the Commission was taskedwith enforcing could prevent the Larsens from breaking into the weddingvideography market, due to their belief in a traditional definition ofmarriage.

That initial complaintfiled by the Larsens thoroughly demonstrated the Christian nature of theircompany’s beliefs. For example, it pointed out that their company is namedTelescope Media because of Christian theologian John Piper’s observation that“God created the universe to magnify His glory the way a telescope magnifiesstars.” They also thoroughly outlined the basis of their religious objection tofilming same-sex weddings. What’s more, they clarified that they had noobjection to serving anyone. Rather, they objected to the idea that they couldbe compelled to provide a speech-product which would violate their artistic andreligious principles.

Nevertheless, in 2017 the Minnesota District’sChief Judge John Tunheim dismissed the complaint “with extreme prejudice” as Commissioner Lindsay and Minnesota’s Attorney General hadrequested. He claimed that the Larsens didn’t have standing. Controversially,he argued for a very broad interpretation of the constitutional power ofgovernment to abridge First Amendment rights in the area of commerce. Tunheimalso suggested that a statement of faith on Telescope’s website including itswedding video policy would be similar to hiring discrimination in the pre-CivilRights Act South, comparing it to a “white applicants only” sign.

Only months later, a more widely publicized casein the same area was argued before the Supreme Court: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. There, the Supreme Court rejected the type of reasoning employedby Judge Tunheim. The court argued instead that Colorado’s similar“non-discrimination” statutes could be applied in a way which unfairly burdenedthe plaintiff’s conscience rights.

Friday’s Eight Circuit decision similarlydetermined that the Minnesota law could very well lead to unconstitutionalenforcement actions against the Larsens. Not surprisingly, this led to theEighth Circuit holding that the couple had standing.

The reversal was built upon a thorough argument based on a strong judicial philosophy. That argument addressed the slim capacity for limitation of and the necessity of protecting religious liberty. More interestingly perhaps, the Masterpiece case is cited nine times. This is unsurprising, because the material objections in each case are similar. The baker in Masterpiece and the couple in this case both resist a statute which would force them to provide a product they have religious objections to providing. But they do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because their refusal of service isn’t based on a would-be customer’s personal life but rather the way that statutes would compel their speech. 

With a number of related religious liberty cases also making their way through the courts nationwide, this Minnesota case will demand consideration in the months ahead.

Photo credit: wp paarz via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

More From The Pulse