On Friday, the U.S 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v Louisville Jefferson Co KY. In the case, a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Louisville Public Media reports on the oral arguments.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Monday, July 31, 2023
Thursday, September 01, 2022
District Court: Public Accommodation Law Violates Wedding Photographer's Free Speech Rights
In Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County, (WD KY, Aug. 30, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. The court said in part:
Courts across the country have addressed whether bakers, florists, website designers, and other creative professionals must either provide their services for weddings that violate their beliefs or else abstain entirely from the wedding business. And those courts’ disagreement on whether this amounts to prohibited discrimination or protected dissent is what the U.S. Supreme Court has set out to resolve during its upcoming term....
This is a real conflict between nondiscrimination and speech that cannot be wished away: compelling access for all necessarily clashes with the liberty of some. The City contends that Nelson’s speech demeans same-sex couples, while Nelson says the City’s Ordinance demeans her speech....
The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise ... are unlikely to help those in Nelson’s position: at least as currently construed, that aspect of the Constitution does not shield people whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with generally applicable laws....
But the government’s authority over public accommodations does not extend to “abridging the freedom of speech.”...
So although Louisville may require restaurants and hotels and stores to provide services regardless of the proprietors’ views or their customers’ legal status, the government may not force singers or writers or photographers to articulate messages they don’t support.
The court also concluded that the ordinance violates the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]
Sunday, August 16, 2020
Wedding Photographer Successfully Challenges Anti-Discrimination Ordinance
In Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, Aug. 14, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court held that a wedding photographer is likely to succeed in her Free Speech challenge to Louisville, Kentucky's Fairness Ordinance. That law prohibits a business from denying services to an individual based on the person's sexual orientation, and from advertising that it will engage in such discrimination. Holding that plaintiff's wedding photography is speech, the court said in part:
Nelson is a photographer, editor, and blogger. She takes engagement and wedding photos with artistic skill....
Nelson is also a Christian. Her faith shapes everything she does, including how she operates her photography studio. She believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, she would decline to photograph a same-sex wedding, and she would decline to edit photos from a same-sex wedding. She wants to explain these views on her website....
Louisville can’t ban expression just because it finds the expression offensive.
To be clear, most applications of anti-discrimination laws — including Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance — are constitutional. Today’s ruling is not a license to discriminate. Nor does it allow for the “serious stigma” that results from a sign in the window announcing that an owner won’t serve gay and lesbian customers.... Marriott cannot refuse a room to a same-sex couple. McDonald’s cannot deny a man dinner simply because he is gay. Neither an empty hotel room, nor a Big Mac, is speech.
ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.
Friday, February 28, 2020
Justice Department Sides With Wedding Photographer In District Court Case
Most commercial transactions will not involve requiring an unwilling speaker to participate in someone else’s expressive activity. But where public accommodations laws do intrude on expression in this way, they are subject to heightened scrutiny....
Photography—and particularly the bespoke wedding photography in which Ms. Nelson engages—is inherently expressive.... By ... compelling her to engage in expression promoting and celebrating a ceremony in violation of her conscience, Defendants infringe upon the fundamental “principle of autonomy to control one’s own speech.”
... That is not to say that every application of a public accommodations law to protected expression will violate the Constitution. In particular, laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny.... The Supreme Court has not similarly held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny or that eradicating private individuals’ opposition to same-sex marriage is a uniquely compelling interest.