State of Minnesota Tells Christian Filmmakers: Make Same-Sex Marriage Films or Spend 90 Days in Jail

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: CBN NEWS

URL: http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/october/christian-filmmakers-appeal-to-8th-circuit-to-make-films-celebrating-marriage-between-one-man-one-woman?fbclid=IwAR27cz2VJDj5ZJIgUXNyl7qIpVda0T-YVwegDzi_GSG_EJ5-XvQ3htulmrE

by  Steve Warren


Two Christian filmmakers appeared before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul Tuesday to challenge Minnesota state law which they say illegally forces them to produce and create films expressing messages that contradict their core beliefs.

Telescope Media Group owners Carl and Angel Larsen have already been threatened with hefty fines and up to 90 days in jail if they choose to disregard the law.

The Larsens want to enter the wedding industry. However, the state's Human Rights Act stipulates if the couple creates films celebrating their Christian beliefs about marriage – that marriage is between one man and one woman, they must also create films about marriage that violate their beliefs, including films promoting same-sex marriages.

In 2017, the Larsens tried to challenge the law as unconstitutional but a lower court dismissed their case and mandated that they service same-sex weddings or close this part of their business. They are now appealing to the 8th Circuit Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at above link ...

[endicom]

And Steven Spielberg must make anti-Castro films.

[goatprairie]

Once again the fascists plant their jackboots on the necks of average Americans. If they can make these filmmakers create a pro-homosexual film, they can make anybody do the same in whatever business they own.
If you write books about Christianity, you must then write books celebrating homosexuality, Satanism, hedonism, etc.
There again, like the cake bakers, the couple are willing to make pro Christian films for prospective buyers. Prospective buyers are free to buy or not buy what the Larsens create. That's call freedom. What the state is doing is tyranny.

[Dexter]

The left is about tolerance...


Unless you're a Republican Christian. If you're one of those, well, bleep you, bleep Nazi racist piece of shit.


HITLER!!!

[GrouchoTex]

Make Muslims film Christian and Jewish weddings, then we'll talk..........

[Jazzhead]

If you CHOOSE to be in commerce as a public accommodation, then you must abide by the rules and regulations pertinent to such businesses.  No one disputes that a private business is required to withhold taxes on the wages it pays to its employees, and report wages paid on a periodic basis,  even those these rules may place a significant burden on the business owner.   It is simply a responsibility that comes with the field of commercial endeavor that the business owner has freely chosen. 

What is different about a rule requiring a business owner not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc.?     

[Jazzhead]

Prospective buyers are free to buy or not buy what the Larsens create.

Not, apparently, buyers who are gay.   

[Jazzhead]

Make Muslims film Christian and Jewish weddings, then we'll talk..........

It is not clear from the story whether these folks refuse to film Jewish or Muslim weddings.   

[INVAR]

If you CHOOSE to be in commerce as a public accommodation, then you must abide by the rules and regulations pertinent to such businesses. 

Pound sand.

We will obey God rather than men.

I will defy each and every edict, decree and ruling that contravenes the Law of God in how I conduct my business.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If you CHOOSE to be in commerce as a public accommodation, then you must abide by the rules and regulations pertinent to such businesses. 

Okay.  Let's say there was a law requiring everyone who wanted to enter into business to have a picture of Jesus on their wall.  Is that lawful simply because it's a requirement to do business?

If not, then it is not true that you must abide by every rule and regulation pertaining to that business.   There are exceptions if those rules adversely impact constitutionally protected rights.   So the question isn't as simple as saying "abide by all rules pertaining to businesses".  Each such rule must be examined to determine if it adversely impacts constitutionally protected rights.

[goatprairie]

Not, apparently, buyers who are gay.

This no different than if you painted religious pictures and somebody demanded you paint pictures reflecting their sexual orientation.
No difference.
The customer is free to purchase your product the way you designed it. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
That's called freedom.

[Jazzhead]

Okay.  Let's say there was a law requiring everyone who wanted to enter into business to have a picture of Jesus on their wall.  Is that lawful simply because it's a requirement to do business?

If not, then it is not true that you must abide by every rule and regulation pertaining to that business.   There are exceptions if those rules adversely impact constitutionally protected rights.   So the question isn't as simple as saying "abide by all rules pertaining to businesses".  Each such rule must be examined to determine if it adversely impacts constitutionally protected rights.

I don't disagree.   Which is why the courts will have to sort it out.  But these folks are in business to make money.  It is a commercial endeavor,  something perfectly within the state's authority to regulate, especially when business is conducted with the general public.    All the customer knows is the menu of services the businessman is offering to provide.  Then he enters the store for the advertised services - and is arbitrarily turned away because of who he is.   Whose rights deserve the greater protection?    All the customer wants is what the businessman freely chose to offer to provide.   Why shouldn't the businessman be obliged to honor his word?   

[Jazzhead]

This no different than if you painted religious pictures and somebody demanded you paint pictures reflecting their sexual orientation.
No difference.
The customer is free to purchase your product the way you designed it. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
That's called freedom.

The businessman is free to choose his menu of services.   A Jewish butcher is not obliged to sell pork.   But when someone enters your establishment to purchase what you've advertised,  shouldn't you be obliged to honor your word?   

[GrouchoTex]

The businessman is free to choose his menu of services.   A Jewish butcher is not obliged to sell pork.   But when someone enters your establishment to purchase what you've advertised,  shouldn't you be obliged to honor your word?

Are you now saying that if they advertised as a Christian film making company, they would be fine?

[INVAR]

Are you now saying that if they advertised as a Christian film making company, they would be fine?

No.  That would not be fine.  That would be discriminatory.

You WILL bake the cake and film the movie they tell you to make.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't disagree.   Which is why the courts will have to sort it out.  But these folks are in business to make money.

Unless someone refuses to abide by the law, there is no case for the courts to sort out.

Whose rights deserve the greater protection?    All the customer wants is what the businessman freely chose to offer to provide.   Why shouldn't the businessman be obliged to honor his word?   

The fact that a business advertises that it provides certain services is never a guarantee that it must provide those services to anyone who comes in and requests that service -- businessmen are free to turn them down for all sorts of reasons that the customer may not know until they speak to the owner/manager.  They may be short-staffed, they may be going on vacation, or the owner/proprietor may just find the customer to be creepy or "beneath them".  None of that is unlawful, so the mere fact that you advertise a services isn't "giving your word"  that the business will actually provide the service.  Heck, lawyers turn down potential clients all the time.

For me, the line comes when you are talking about an off the shelf purchase versus something that amounts to a personal service, especially if there is a creative element involved.  At that point, the "product" is in fact an expression of the businessperson's own personality/beliefs, and should not lawfully be compelled.

It is illegal for a business own to not reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.  If an employee is a Seventh Day Adventist, and their religious beliefs preclude them from working on a Saturday, the employer is required to respect that if possible.  So why should an employee's religious beliefs be protected from being violated by work requirements, but the same protection does not apply to the owner?

[goatprairie]

No.  That would not be fine.  That would be discriminatory.

You WILL bake the cake and film the movie they tell you to make.

Once again people like Jazzhead cannot distinguish between a business offering what they've created to anyone and the freedom of the customer to buy or not buy that product, and a customer demanding a business make them a certain product whether the business wants to or not.
No customer has the right to demand a business make them something a business does not want to make. Period.

[mountaineer]

It is not clear from the story whether these folks refuse to film Jewish or Muslim weddings.

Those actually are weddings. "Gay wedding" is a nonsensical term.

Personally, I'd say, "Sure, I'll do your gay wedding," and then forget to take the lens cap off. Oops, sorry, here's your deposit back.

[jmyrlefuller]

If you CHOOSE to be in commerce as a public accommodation, then you must abide by the rules and regulations pertinent to such businesses. 

And any rules and regulations pertinent to such business must follow the constitution, in this case the 1st (free exercise of religion) and 13th (involuntary servitude) amendments.

Plus, unless they're born into money, there is no such "choice" to be in commerce if one wants to survive.

[goatprairie]

And any rules and regulations pertinent to such business must follow the constitution, in this case the 1st (free exercise of religion) and 13th (involuntary servitude) amendments.

Plus, unless they're born into money, there is no such "choice" to be in commerce if one wants to survive.

Again, the filmmakers are not refusing to serve homosexual customers, they are refusing to do a certain kind of job. If the people asking for the film to be made were marrying people of the opposite sex, the filmmakers would most likely be happy to make a film for them.
So they're not denying somebody the right to have a wedding filmed, they're denying someone asking them to make a kind of product they, the filmmakers,  do not wish to make. In this situation religion is secondary to the right of a business to refuse to create something they do not want to create.
It is no different than somebody who paints cars as their business only painting in certain colors and designs and refusing to paint/design something different that a customer asks for.
NO BUSINESS CAN BE FORCED TO MAKE/MANUFACTURE A PRODUCT THEY DO NOT WISH TO.

[Jazzhead]

The fact that a business advertises that it provides certain services is never a guarantee that it must provide those services to anyone who comes in and requests that service -- businessmen are free to turn them down for all sorts of reasons that the customer may not know until they speak to the owner/manager.  They may be short-staffed, they may be going on vacation, or the owner/proprietor may just find the customer to be creepy or "beneath them".  None of that is unlawful, so the mere fact that you advertise a services isn't "giving your word"  that the business will actually provide the service.  Heck, lawyers turn down potential clients all the time.

No disagreement there.  Folks can and do discriminate in all kinds of lawful ways.   Public accommodation laws are intended to prevent one type of insidious  discrimination -  that based solely and arbitrarily on who one is.   

For me, the line comes when you are talking about an off the shelf purchase versus something that amounts to a personal service, especially if there is a creative element involved.  At that point, the "product" is in fact an expression of the businessperson's own personality/beliefs, and should not lawfully be compelled.

The issue, of course, is not the right of religious freedom per se, but rather the conflict between one person's right and another's:   here, one person's right to enter a place of business and not be discriminated against on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic,  clashing with the business owner's right to conform to his religious beliefs in the conduct of his commercial life.   What you propose may be a reasonable line of demarcation assuming it is possible to draw that line in the real world.    Not quite sure how you can do that.   Actually,  I prefer the solution suggested by @GrouchoTex , although I doubt the courts would:  simply advertise that you perform photography for religious weddings only.   

It is illegal for a business own to not reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.  If an employee is a Seventh Day Adventist, and their religious beliefs preclude them from working on a Saturday, the employer is required to respect that if possible.  So why should an employee's religious beliefs be protected from being violated by work requirements, but the same protection does not apply to the owner?

The owner has the power and sets the rules.  If the owner is a Seventh Day Adventist, he closes the whole store on Saturday.   

The owner decides what products and services he will provide - the freedom, the power to decide, is all his.    Actually, the analogy you propose is apt:   the employer must limit his power in a small way by accommodating the religious beliefs of his worker,  and the storeowner must limit his power in a small way by providing his advertised services to his customer no matter what color or gender he/she is.   

[Jazzhead]

Again, the filmmakers are not refusing to serve homosexual customers, they are refusing to do a certain kind of job. If the people asking for the film to be made were marrying people of the opposite sex, the filmmakers would most likely be happy to make a film for them.
So they're not denying somebody the right to have a wedding filmed, they're denying someone asking them to make a kind of product they, the filmmakers,  do not wish to make. In this situation religion is secondary to the right of a business to refuse to create something they do not want to create.
It is no different than somebody who paints cars as their business only painting in certain colors and designs and refusing to paint/design something different that a customer asks for.
NO BUSINESS CAN BE FORCED TO MAKE/MANUFACTURE A PRODUCT THEY DO NOT WISH TO.

I understand,  although the flaw in your argument is that the business has already advertised its willingness to make the product.   It is ready and willing to provide wedding photography - except when a gay customer requests the service.   (You can't put the rabbit in the hat by saying the gay customer can get his wedding filmed so long as he's marrying a woman - that's not how things work.) 

That's why I like the GrouchoTex solution - if the hang-up is religion,  then advertise that you do wedding photography for religious weddings only.   

[goodwithagun]

If you CHOOSE to be in commerce as a public accommodation, then you must abide by the rules and regulations pertinent to such businesses.  No one disputes that a private business is required to withhold taxes on the wages it pays to its employees, and report wages paid on a periodic basis,  even those these rules may place a significant burden on the business owner.   It is simply a responsibility that comes with the field of commercial endeavor that the business owner has freely chosen. 

What is different about a rule requiring a business owner not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc.?   

Because the second amendment is law, should every American citizen be required to buy a firearm?

[Slide Rule]

Religious intolerance is the reason many from around the world came to America.

So religious intolerance raises its head here.

The options.
Take the penalty for appeal considerations. After all we
have recently changed our highest court.

Move and start your business in another state. We have
an abundance of them.

:)

[goodwithagun]

Religious intolerance is the reason many from around the world came to America.

So religious intolerance raises its head here.

The options.
Take the penalty for appeal considerations. After all we
have recently changed our highest court.

Move and start your business in another state. We have
an abundance of them.

:)

We have a club in our city that does not accept blacks or women. Men join, and the only way their wives can enter is if they are with their husbands. The drinks are cheap and the beer is cold. Although I disagree with their beliefs, I defend their right to maintain their club. My husband also says no and explains why whenever he’s asked to join. We’ve been invited to many private parties there, especially around graduation time, and we’ve politely declined. Many of our close friends hold the same policy with this organization.

Getting butt hurt about other people’s business says more about your intolerance than it does about theirs.