The lawsuit is based largely on Coral Ridge’s allegations that, because of its religious opposition to homosexual conduct, SPLC has designated it as a “hate group” and that, because of this designation, Amazon and AmazonSmile have excluded it from receiving donations through the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program.
Coral Ridge has three claims against SPLC: a state claim that its “hate group” designation is defamatory and federal claims for false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Coral Ridge has a single claim against the Amazon defendants: a federal claim that they excluded it from the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program based on religion, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.The ministry conceded that it was a "public figure" for purposes of its defamation claim Engaging in a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "hate group", the court rejected the ministry's claim because "An alleged defamatory statement is generally not provable as false when it labels the plaintiff with a term that has an imprecise and debatable meaning." The court went on to say that even if there were a commonly understood definition of "hate group", the defamation claim should still be dismissed:
To find actual malice just because SPLC publicized a meaning of “hate group” that conflicted with the common understanding of the term would severely undermine debate and free speech about a matter of public concern. This is because, even if the term had achieved a commonly understood meaning, that meaning would not be fixed forever, but rather could evolve through public debate. To sanction a speaker for promoting a genuinely held dissenting view of the meaning of “hate group” would be akin to punishing a speaker for advocating new conceptions of terms like “terrorist,” “extremist,” “sexist,” “racist,” “radicalThe court rejected the ministry's Lanham Act claims, finding that they are subject to the same heightened First Amendment standards, not the lower commercial speech standards.
The court also rejected the ministry's claim that Amazon violated the public accommodation provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in excluding it from its charitable giving program, saying in part:
Even if it were assumed that the Amazon defendants are places of public accommodation subject to Title II, seeking to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program does not qualify as a service, privilege, or advantage, etc. protected by the statute’s anti-discrimination prohibition. This is because the Amazon defendants limit the ability to receive such donations exclusively to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations and therefore do not make that ability open to the public. Moreover, an alternative ground for dismissing the claim is that Coral Ridge has not plausibly alleged that the Amazon defendants discriminated against it based on religion.The court concluded its opinion:
The court should not be understood as even suggesting that Coral Ridge is or is not a “hate group.” It has merely held that SPLC’s labeling of the group as such is protected by the First Amendment....SPLC issued a press release announcing the decision.
