LGBT

Minnesota ‘Chilling’ Free Expression

July 25, 2017 by GregC

A Christian couple looking to add wedding videos to their business repertoire is suing the state of Minnesota after official there made it clear that their laws require anyone working as a wedding vendor to accommodate same-sex couples.

Carl and Angel Larsen operate Telescope Media Group. In a statement provided by their attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom, the Larsens contend their business “exists to tell great stories that honor God.”

It also points out the couple is expanding into wedding video services to “reanimate the hearts and minds of people about the goodness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

But the state of Minnesota is placing a major hurdle in front of their business plans.

“They’re unable to do so because the state says if they do them for marriages that are consistent with their beliefs – marriages between a man and a woman – they have to do them on behalf of same-sex marriages as well,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco, who is lead counsel for Telescope Media Group in this case.

The state is relying on an updated version of it’s Human Rights Act to force vendors into accepting clients for all legal forms.

“The law bars discrimination on a whole bunch of different categories and the state has added sexual orientation to the law. But [the state] has also announced that it interprets the law to require people in the wedding industry to promote concepts of marriage, including same-sex marriage, that they disagree with, even if that violate their religious beliefs,” said Tedesco.

“The state has put that on official websites. They’ve announced that in various different places. They’ve basically put people on notice. They’re looking out for faithful Christians in the wedding industry, and they’re going to prosecute them if they act in a manner that’s consistent with their beliefs when it comes to marriage,” said Tedesco.

Punishment for wedding vendors refusing to accept same-sex clients can be up to 90 days in jail and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Tedesco says a pre-emptive lawsuit was clearly needed.

“No one in their right mind , when 90 days in jail is on the line and the state is saying the exercise of your first amendment rights could wind you up in jail is going to exercise their rights. They chilled their expression. They go to court to try to get a judgment from the court before that even happens,” said Tedesco.

“Rather than take that risk, Carl and Angel filed a lawsuit to try to get the court to say that it was unlawful for the state to even apply the law to force them to say things they don’t want to say through their films,” said Tedesco.

Tedesco says the Minnesota Human Rights Act is a blatant violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“These kind of pre-enforcement challenges are something that’s been used for years in the civil rights context,” he said.

“When laws like this go on the books, the state is saying, ‘We’re going to apply this to expression,’ the courts are very concerned and they’ve said many times in opinions they’ve issued in this area that people will respond to those laws simply by stopping their speech, chilling their expression. Then everybody loses,” said Tedesco.

Right now the court is weighing competing motions. Officials from Minnesota are asking for the case to be dismissed. The Larsens are asking to be able to video wedding of their choice until the issue is resolved in court.

Tedesco says Minnesota is among a growing number of states being pressured by liberal politicians and activists to forbid vendors from acting on their consciences.

“There are activists on the left that are pushing very, very hard for these same kind of laws to be adopted in states that don’t have them. There’s at least 20 states that have them right now and they want all 50 states to have them. They want the federal government to have them,” said Tedesco.

“Those activists say there are no compromises. You have to comply with the law. Speech is not a defense. Your speech can be compelled. You can be forced to speak and act in ways that are completely inconsistent with your core beliefs,” said Tedesco.

“This is very problematic in the marriage context right now. These laws adding sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws are the tools the other side uses to coerce uniformity of thought and belief when it comes to the marriage institution,” he said.

Standard Podcast [ 10:49 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Trump’s Travel Ban Triumph, Religious Freedom Victory, Pride March Mayhem

June 26, 2017 by GregC

David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate the Supreme Court decision that upheld a portion of President Trump’s travel ban, overturning lower court rulings. They also applaud the SCOTUS decision in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church against the State of Missouri in a religious liberty case. And they question Pride Month’s “inclusivity” as LGBT members of the Jewish community are ejected from a Chicago pride march for having the Star of David on a rainbow flag.

‘They’re Wrong!’

February 16, 2017 by GregC

Lawyers for a Christian florist vow a vigorous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a state supreme court ruled unanimously Thursday that their client violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

All nine justices ruled for the State of Washington and plaintiffs Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed and against Baronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion. The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Stutzman, begs to differ.

“They’re wrong,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued Stutzman’s case before the Washington State Supreme Court.

“We’re deeply disappointed with today’s court decision. The first amendment protects Baronelle’s rights as a small business owner and a creative professional. She has loved and respected everyone who has walked into her store. She served this gentleman (Ingersoll) for nearly ten years and simply declined an event, one ceremony that was a religious ceremony because of her religious convictions,” said Waggnoner.

While not stunned by a liberal court ruling against her client, Waggoner says it’s a mind-boggling ruling when the state conceded the crux of Stutzman’s case.

“Even in oral arguments, the Attorney General of the State of Washington conceded that Baronelle’s design of custom arrangements was expression. The court’s opinion says she intended to convey a message. The first amendment clearly protects this activity and these designs as pure speech,” said Waggoner, who says Stutzman will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson is making name for himself. In addition to vigorously prosecuting Stutzman, Ferguson also took the lead in challenging President Trump’s executive order on travel from seven nations plagued by Islamic terrorism.

Waggoner says Ferguson is clearly trying to make an example of Stutzman.

“One wonders why it was so personal and vindictive. If it was about the principle of law, the attorney general could have just sued Baronelle’s business. Instead, he chose to pursue her in her personal capacity. The ACLU has also been behind this. They also sued on behalf of clients in this case. They also are suing her personally. Everything she own’s is at risk,” said Waggoner.

“The civil fines are relatively low. The court hasn’t decided in terms of what she must pay the couple that’s represented by the ACLU. But where the stick is and the real threat to business owners and creative professionals is in the attorneys’ fees. She’s required to pay attorney’s fees, which could exceed seven figures,” said Waggoner.

Alliance Defending Freedom has set up a web page for anyone interested in helping Stutzman face the financial challenge.

Waggoner says Stutzman has 90 days to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and then wait to learn if the court will hear the case. She is hopeful there will nine justices on the court by the time any oral arguments take place.

Waggoner is fully confident the Constitution is on Stutzman’s side.

“In the first amendment, our rights and protections for free speech and free exercise of religion protect her right to do that. Nor did she violate the statute. She didn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As I said, she served him for ten years. This was about her religious convictions and a sacred religious ceremony,” said Waggoner.

And Waggoner says there’s plenty of legal precedent on Stutzman’s side as well.

“The law in this area is clear and the court misrepresents that law in its decision. The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have said these types of discrimination laws can’t be used to trump first amendment rights. The government cannot use it’s power to force someone to promote a message or celebrate a ceremony in violation of their conscience,” said Waggoner.

Waggoner says how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in this case will have a profound impact on our nation.

“If the Supreme Court sides with Baronelle Stutzman, it reaffirms that tolerance is a two-way street and that the government cannot use its power to crush people and crush dissent, crush those that don’t agree with the government’s ideology at that point,” said Waggoner.

“All civilizations have had the freedom to believe what they want. What has made America unique is the freedom to live out those beliefs in the marketplace in a peaceful way. That’s what’s at stake in this case

Standard Podcast [ 8:35 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Trump Continues ‘Absurd’ Obama LGBT Policy

February 3, 2017 by GregC

Social conservatives are thrilled with President Trump for his pro-life actions and his choice for the Supreme Court, but he is taking heat from the right for extending an Obama-era executive order which places LGBT agenda mandates on federal contractors.

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says it all started under the Obama administration three years ago.

“In 2014, President Obama, contrary to any federal law, issued an executive order saying any contractor who does business with the federal government has to have this so-called LGBT and even Q (for) questioning, which is part of that alphabet soup, and they had to put this into their employment systems,” said Staver.

“They were imposing on employers the LGBTQ agenda when they didn’t have any federal law as authority,” said Staver.

Staver says Trump made a big mistake in continuing the policy.

“We were hoping that would be one of those executive orders that would go by the wayside, but when President Trump came into office, sadly he continued that executive order in 2017,” said Staver.

“That is going way beyond the federal law. Federal law does not have sexual orientation or gender identity in the employment context or in any other context with regard to employment or public accommodation,” said Staver.

He says Congress has repeatedly stiff-armed the LGBT agenda on this front, which is why Obama resorted to an executive order.

“Congress has been asked several times to include sexual orientation and gender identity into the federal employment law and they have rejected that urging. Consequently, not only does the law not have it but we see from Congress they don’t want it in there. So why would the president go over and above them and impose this on employers anyway?” said Staver.

“It’s understandable for Obama, but it’s just not acceptable for President Trump,” he said.

The order requires any firm bidding for a federal contract to adopt policies protecting employees who wish to identify as a different gender than their biological sex would indicate. It also requires businesses to accommodate such personnel by allowing them to using restrooms and other intimate facilities according to their gender identity.

And those companies refusing to comply will be left out in the cold on federal contracts.

“Any company that doesn’t want to have this absurd policy in place or a policy that violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs, they’re going to have to sit on the sideline. They won’t be able to do business with the federal government,” said Staver.

Staver also asserts that the protections offered through this executive order are not the equivalent of other anti-discrimination protections enshrined in law.

“Gender identity is completely in a different category than discrimination on the basis of race or religion, which is protected by the first amendment,” said Staver.

He also argues the policy flies in the face of Trump’s top goal of jump-starting the economy.

“If we want to have America first and we want to create jobs? Don’t put this absurd policy on them when the federal law does not impose it,” said Staver.

While Staver lauds Trump for his pro-life actions and for selecting Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, he says this is an area where Trump has always disappointed traditional marriage advocates.

“He never was on our side it looked like on the so-called LGBT agenda. Certainly, he’s not on the level of President Obama, who was radical in that respect,” said Staver. “Unfortunately, in the first two weeks of office, he does this executive order and that’s disturbing.”

Staver says conservatives need to make a compelling case to Trump to change course.

“I think he needs to be educated on this issue and he needs to reverse this policy that Obama ultimately instituted,” said Staver.

Standard Podcast [ 8:53 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download