Federal Court: No You Don't Have To Produce That Video

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
A Federal Court Strikes a Powerful Blow for Free Speech and Religious Freedom


Judge David Stras’s majority opinion begins with a simple, obvious, but crucial conclusion. The Larsens’s wedding videos are a “form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection.” Though they don’t make feature films, their wedding videos would still clearly communicate a message in the same way that films do. As the court explained, their wedding videos would be designed to tell “healthy stories of sacrificial love and commitment between a man and a woman” and celebrate the “divinely ordained” marriage covenant.

Moreover, the fact that the Larsens were producing videos for profit did not diminish their constitutional protection. Documentaries make money. Feature films make money. Are they not clearly protected speech? To put it plainly, Minnesota was attempting to engage in one of the most intrusive state actions on the First Amendment. It was attempting to compel the Larsens to deliver a message they opposed.

Yet that finding did not end the inquiry. State agencies have long argued that the governmental interests supporting public-accommodation laws and other nondiscrimination statutes are so compelling that they can and should override the speech protections of the First Amendment. In constitutional legalese, they claim that nondiscrimination laws are so vital they should be able to survive “strict scrutiny.”

If the court did find that nondiscrimination laws can even compel speech, it would invert the constitutional order. It would relegate the First Amendment to second-class status — less potent than a mere state regulation. Indeed, this is the argument that much of the legal Left has been making for years. They view First Amendment–based arguments against public-accommodation laws or other nondiscrimination statutes as a form of special pleading by religious Americans, a request to be exempt from the fair and just rules that govern the rest of us.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Videographers' Free Exercise Clause Objections to Having to Create Same-Sex Wedding Videos


As I wrote earlier this morning, a divided Eighth Circuit panel has just held that videographers have a Free Speech Clause right not to create same-sex wedding videos, notwithstanding any antidiscrimination law that requires them to treat same-sex weddings and opposite-sex weddings equally. But the videographers also raised a claim under the Free Exercise Clause.

The general Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment: In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court held that religious objectors are generally not entitled to an exemption from religion-neutral, generally applicable laws. The Minnesota antidiscrimination law would likely qualify as such a religion-neutral, generally applicable laws, because it applies to conduct whether it is religious or not, and because there's no evidence that it was motivated by hostility to religion.

The "hybrid rights" exception: Smith, however, set forth an exception to its general rule. Two decades before Smith, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) held that the Amish were entitled to an exemption from a generally applicable law requiring children to attend schools (public or private) up to 16; and Smith did not overrule Yoder on this score. Rather, Smith dealt with Yoder—and some past cases that used the Free Exercise Clause to protect the rights of religious speakers—like this (most citations omitted):
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Dear same-sex couples: hire and give your money to those who support you. Why give your business to someone who won't give it their all and do their best for you on your special day?

Problem solved.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Dear same-sex couples: hire and give your money to those who support you. Why give your business to someone who won't give it their all and do their best for you on your special day?

Problem solved.
Those cases are not about getting an actual wedding video. They are a tool to crush dissent.

If a gay couple wants a wedding video there is going to be no shortage of videographers gay or straight willing to take their money.

And nobody except for some aunt who couldnt make it watches those anyway. Biggest waste of money. If the marriage works out, you always have your spouse to remind you that there was a wedding. If it doesn't work out, you are going to shred that DVD along with all the other crap that is related to the relationship.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Dear same-sex couples: hire and give your money to those who support you. Why give your business to someone who won't give it their all and do their best for you on your special day?

Problem solved.
There are plenty of homosexual people in the business of photography and videography. Plenty. It would be very easy for same sex/gender/intersex/non-binary/whatever couples to find one.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If I may ...


There are plenty of homosexual people in the business of photography and videography. Plenty. It would be very easy for same sex/gender/intersex/non-binary/whatever couples to find one.
So why not give their business to a LGBTwhatever owned company and support them?

I don't really understand these people.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
So why not give their business to a LGBTwhatever owned company and support them?

I don't really understand these people.
I think it was more or less addressed above, the leftist agenda is to silence all who disagree with them.
I know many on the left won't agree, but Piers Morgan does. What I just wrote, was pretty much a verbatim quote.
If you disagree with the left they won't just argue their point, they will destroy and harass you, whether you are a television personality, a teacher, a small business owner or own a corporation, even a child.
For those with short memories, the girl who did the "Little AOC" videos was targeted, she and her family were doxed.
Basically to borrow a line from Hitler, the left declared total warfare after Trump was elected.
So it's interesting to see the howling when Trump tweets something
 
Top