Minnesota First Amendment Case

August 30, 2019

By John McClaughry

Last week, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals protected a Christian couple from having to choose between their business and their conscience.

The plaintiffs, Carl and Angel Larsen, are videographers who create “commercials, short films, and live-event productions.” While they work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, they will not produce videos that advance viewpoints that violate their Christian beliefs. That includes videos that “contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.”

The Larsens hoped to begin producing wedding videos, but Minnesota interpreted its human-rights act to require them to “produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all.” They filed suit, claiming that Minnesota’s rule would compel them to speak in support of messages they oppose. The trial court ruled in favor of the state, but the 8th Circuit reversed.

It held that “The Larsens’ wedding videos are a form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection. …Even antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution. And as compelling as the interest in preventing discriminatory conduct may be, speech is treated differently under the First Amendment.”

It’s long overdue for courts to declare that people can’t be forced to take part in speech that they find morally repugnant.

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Boganboy September 1, 2019 at 1:57 am

I agree. Those who want services other than the Larsens wish to provide can go elsewhere. That is what a free market is all about; one can take one’s custom elsewhere if the service provider does not provide what you want.

I’d also argue that toleration does not mean that you must conform rigorously to the preferences of others. It simply means that you do your thing, and allow others to do theirs.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

House Passes Global Warming Solutions Act, (105-37), 2020

. H.688 – AN ACT RELATING TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE PASSED in the State House of Representatives on February 26, 2020, by a vote of 105-37 Purpose: The...

Roll Call! House Rejects Amendment to Global Warming Solutions Act, (44-99), 2020

. H.688 – AN ACT RELATING TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE FAILED in the State House of Representatives on February 20, 2020, by a vote of 44-99 .Purpose: The...

Return of the Thermal Utility – a Tax on Electricity

February 24, 2020 By John McClaughry A push is on in Montpelier to create the thermal utility so long sought by VPIRG. Unlike the version of 13 years...

Amendment Would Eliminate Private Ownership of Real Estate

February 21, 2020 by Rob Roper PR.9 is a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would essentially and in effect ban the private ownership of real estate...

Roll Call! Senate Overrides Governor’s Veto with $12.55 Minimum Wage, (24-6), 2020

. S.23- AN ACT RELATING TO INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE . PASSED in the State Senate on February 13, 2020, by a vote of 24-6 . Purpose: To...

Video