MINNEAPOLIS _ A St. Cloud couple will not be able to refuse wedding videography services for same-sex couples after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed their lawsuit challenging Minnesota's human rights laws.
In a 63-page ruling Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim wrote that a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibiting discrimination by businesses was not unconstitutional and rejected the couple's argument that the law amounted to "a state effort to stamp out expression opposing same-sex marriage."
Carl and Angel Larsen sued the state's commissioner of human rights and attorney general in December in an pre-emptive effort to avoid penalties for turning away same-sex customers. The Larsens, who use their Telescope Media Group to promote their Christian beliefs, want to break into the wedding film business, but only to serve heterosexual couples.
Earlier this year, the Larsens asked Tunheim for a preliminary injunction shielding their business from potential penalties under the MHRA. But on Wednesday, Tunheim sided with the state's request that the suit be tossed because their claims were "too abstract and hypothetical" and "fail as a matter of law."
In a statement Wednesday, Kevin Lindsey, the state's commissioner of human rights, said the Larsens were unable to demonstrate any infringement of their First Amendment rights and anticipated further litigation challenging LGBTQ rights.
"In the event an appeal is filed, the Dayton-Smith Administration will remain steadfast in ensuring that all people in Minnesota continue to be treated fairly by business owners," Lindsey said.
The Larsens have said that they want to post a notice on their website that they intended to deny services to same-sex couples. On Wednesday, Tunheim described such a plan as "conduct akin to a 'White Applicants Only' sign" that may be outlawed without infringing upon First Amendment rights.
"Posting language on a website telling potential customers that a business will discriminate based on sexual orientation is part of the act of sexual orientation discrimination itself," Tunheim wrote. "As conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment."
Tunheim concluded that the MHRA bars discrimination in the basic terms of an agreement, such as charging a higher price or altogether declining services based on sexual orientation. The Larsens must offer services to couples of all sexual orientation, but Tunheim wrote that they are not required to publish each video online and he suggested that they could even post language on their website expressing their opposition to same-sex marriage.
"The Larsens have an obvious, easy way to avoid hardship _ the terms of their contracts are within their control, and state law does not compel them to contractually obligate themselves to post videos of same-sex weddings online," Tunheim wrote Wednesday.
In a statement Wednesday, Kevin Lindsey, the state's commissioner of human rights, said the Larsens were unable to demonstrate any infringement of their First Amendment rights and anticipated further litigation challenging LGBTQ rights.
"In the event an appeal is filed, the Dayton-Smith Administration will remain steadfast in ensuring that all people in Minnesota continue to be treated fairly by business owners," Lindsey said.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a national conservative Christian legal group, has represented the couple. Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney for the Larsens, affirmed that the ADF planned to appeal the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals while also continuing to seek a preliminary injunction.
Tunheim disagreed with the Larsens' claim that the MHRA would require all public accommodations offering "speech-for-hire" services to create work even if they disagreed with the message conveyed, concluding that the MHRA is content-neutral. Tedesco, meanwhile, said Tunheim's suggestion that the Larsens could publish a disclaimer on their site that they disagreed with same-sex message merely opens the door to government compelling people to say "whatever it wanted" while adding disclaimers clarifying their personal views.
"People can be for same-sex marriage and at the same time support our clients' right to create films consist with their beliefs about marriage," Tedesco said. "When we allow the government to have the power to compel Carl and Angel Larsen to create and promote expression that violates their beliefs there is no limit on that power."
The lawsuit was one of the first challenges since Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage in 2013 and since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that there is a fundamental right to marriage guaranteed to all. Minnesota doesn't compel religious organizations to perform same-sex weddings but does prohibit "individuals, nonprofits or secular business activities of religious entities" to deny wedding services like cake decorating, wedding planning or other commercial services. Penalties range from punitive damages of up to $25,000 and a jail term of up to 90 days.
The Larsens have said that they want to "use their talents and the expressive platform of TMG to celebrate and promote God's design for marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman." The state's human rights law excludes them from the marketplace, their attorneys said, because the Larsens cannot "in good conscience" produce speech communicating the message that marriage is anything other than the union of one man and one woman.
In a Star Tribune commentary submitted in December, Carl Larsen wrote that videographers who want to celebrate same-sex unions have a right to do so, but described Minnesota's law as an "aggressive endorsement of state-mandated political correctness."
The case has drawn parallels to an impending Supreme Court showdown this fall involving a Colorado baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in the Denver area. The Alliance Defending Freedom is also representing the baker, Jack Phillips.
On Wednesday, Minneapolis joined an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case. The city said that the brief, being prepared by lawyers in California, will support the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and point to "long-standing legal precedent that businesses cannot discriminate in public services or accommodations" regardless of religious beliefs.
A city spokesperson said the outcome of the Supreme court showdown will likely have a significant effect on cities and counties nationwide that "seek to ensure that no members of their communities are subjected to discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or any other protected status."
