This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

redleghunter said:

It's the sanctity of marriage which is the issue.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

• A federal appeals court has ruled for the first time that religious believers can invoke the First Amendment when declining to participate in same-sex weddings.
• The case involves a Christian couple named Carl and Angel Larsen, who operate a media production company.
• The Larsens want to expand their business to include weddings, but a Minnesota state law requires that they serve both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

A federal appeals court has revived a legal challenge to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), ruling for the first time that religious business owners can invoke free speech rights when refusing to service a same-sex wedding.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Carl and Angel Larsen in Telescope Media Group v Lucero, a Christian couple who operate a video production company called Telescope Media Group. The Larsens want to expand their business to include weddings, but state officials say the MHRA requires the Larsens to accommodate both same-sex and opposite sex partners.

“Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways,” Judge David Stras wrote for a divided three-judge panel. “First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech.”

The decision is particularly significant in view of the Supreme Court’s 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, which involved a Christian baker who declined to make custom weddings cakes for same-sex marriages. Though the baker prevailed in that dispute, the high court did not decide whether religious conservatives can use the First Amendment to skirt anti-gay discrimination laws.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the baker in the Masterpiece case, also represents the Larsens. ADF is a public interest law practice that litigates around religious liberty issues.

The Larsens sued state officials in December 2016, saying the MHRA prevented them from operating their business consistent with their religious beliefs. U.S. District Judge John Tunheim sided with the state and dismissed their lawsuit in September 2017.

On appeal, the 8th Circuit said that Telescope’s videos are the Larsens’s personal speech. The Larsens’s exercise significant editorial discretion over its media productions and promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage, the panel said.

As such, the majority said the MHRA forces the Larsens to defy their religious beliefs and create speech that is favorable to same-sex marriage. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus decision, the 8th Circuit said that “compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable,” is a core First Amendment violation. In Janus, the high court said that unions could not collect mandatory dues from non-members for First Amendment reasons.

Elsewhere in the decision, Stras wrote that the MHRA regulates speech based on content, another violation. The majority said the safer course for the Larsens would be to avoid the wedding business altogether, a type of “compelled self-censorship” that violates free speech rights.

The 8th Circuit also allowed the Larsens’s to proceed with their claim that the MHRA interferes with their right to practice religion. Stras said the couple is in a unique “hybrid situation” in which they can use their free exercise concerns to “reinforce their free speech claim.”

Judge Bobby Shepard joined Stras’s opinion. President Donald Trump included Stras on his list of prospective Supreme Court nominees.

More at link:

This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop - Conservative Daily News

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

Are you asking what makes a homosexual marriage invalid according to Holy Scriptures?

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

Yes the first amendment and the free exercise of one's religion. That's what the case is about. Not what sex someone is.

Click to expand...

Arcangl86 said:

And the First Amendment has limits, and those limits apply when somebody else's rights are infringed.

Click to expand...

JackRT said:

All marriages are sacred.

Click to expand...

SavedByGrace3 said:

The requirement is truly amazing. This is also a free speech and free expression issue:
Their law "compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage."
This was being enforced?
Wow

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

• A federal appeals court has ruled for the first time that religious believers can invoke the First Amendment when declining to participate in same-sex weddings.

Click to expand...

hedrick said:

It's not as general as "declining to participate." This is about compelled speech. You can't force someone to say something they disagree with. Normally. The court believed that making the video involves them in the message. I believe a current case involve tee shirts is similar. The tee shirt maker puts a message on the shirts. It's less clear to me that making a cake is speech, even given the fairly broad definition of speech sometimes used by the Supreme Court.

But this is not about "declining to participate," and types of services that don't involve a message are not going to be treated the same way.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

They run a public accommodating business, but don't want to accommodate certain kinds of people. That's not respecting the equality of other people.

Click to expand...

creslaw said:

It is not about "certain kinds of people" but about a specific event. Just because two people of the same sex marry does not automatically mean they are homosexual. It is now possible for two heterosexual or asexual people of the same sex to marry, perhaps to establish the rights of next of kin status.

It is the same gender which is the crucial factor in the Christian objection to same sex marriage because traditional Biblical teaching is that the union of a man & a woman reflects the union of Christ & the Church. That is why for many Christians to participate in or co-operate with a same sex wedding is to violate their Christian faith.

Click to expand...