Tweet
Sanity!
Christian video company can't be forced to film same-sex weddings, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a Christian media company cannot be forced to produce videos for same-sex weddings under Minnesota state law, according to The Christian Post.
The ruling overturns a 2017 decision by a district court that said Telescope Media Group, owned by Carl and Angel Larsen, would be in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act by refusing to provide wedding video services on the basis of customers' sexuality.
"Indeed, if Minnesota were correct, there is no reason it would have to stop with the Larsens," Stras wrote. "In theory, it could use the MHRA to require a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe 'My religion is the only true religion' on the body of a Christian if he or she would do the same for a fellow Muslim, or it could demand that an atheist musician perform at an evangelical church service. The district court also ruled that the Larsens could not seek relief on various other constitutional theories. We largely agree that these claims fail. But one — the free-exercise claim — can proceed because it is intertwined with their free-speech claim."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/christ...ls-court-rules
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspage...ilmmakers-case
Christian video company can't be forced to film same-sex weddings, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a Christian media company cannot be forced to produce videos for same-sex weddings under Minnesota state law, according to The Christian Post.
The ruling overturns a 2017 decision by a district court that said Telescope Media Group, owned by Carl and Angel Larsen, would be in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act by refusing to provide wedding video services on the basis of customers' sexuality.
"Indeed, if Minnesota were correct, there is no reason it would have to stop with the Larsens," Stras wrote. "In theory, it could use the MHRA to require a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe 'My religion is the only true religion' on the body of a Christian if he or she would do the same for a fellow Muslim, or it could demand that an atheist musician perform at an evangelical church service. The district court also ruled that the Larsens could not seek relief on various other constitutional theories. We largely agree that these claims fail. But one — the free-exercise claim — can proceed because it is intertwined with their free-speech claim."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/christ...ls-court-rules
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspage...ilmmakers-case
Comment