The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals defended the First Amendment last week, and effectively also took a stand against forced labor.
Once again, the putative dispute involved same-sex wedding ceremonies. And once again, a federal court had to remind state officials that people remain free to choose not to participate in private events. Freedom to abstain is a basic right, period.
It should worry people that the political left seems so willing to conscript labor in order to enforce its version of cultural correctness. Even in this case, one of the three judges on the Eighth Circuit supported the conscription. That judge, Jane Kelly, is badly mistaken in wanting to curtail the rights of Americans. Federal courts must continue to quash these efforts at compelled expression and forced servitude.
In the first paragraph of the controlling decision, Judge David Stras explained the case succinctly: “Carl and Angel Larsen wish to make wedding videos. Can Minnesota require them to produce videos of same-sex weddings, even if the message would conflict with their own beliefs? The district court concluded that it could and dismissed the Larsens’ constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s anti-discrimination law. Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims.”
This should go without saying. It should be obvious. Creating a video is an expressive act. It is in every other instance protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, as noted above, the Larsens do this as a commercial enterprise. It is a hired service. Apart from public accommodations such as inns and restaurants that provide basics of life such as food and shelter, commercial enterprises are free to withhold their labor for any reason other than discrimination against a constitutionally protected class of citizens (such as a racial or faith group).
People desiring wedding services are not a protected class. Yes, in Minnesota, homosexuals are a protected class, but the Larsens serve homosexuals gladly and without discrimination. They just draw the line at same-sex weddings. A wedding carries with it a specific meaning to people of traditional faith. It has done so several millennia. The First Amendment protects not just expression, but also the exercise of faith.
A Muslim has every right to refuse to serve a Jewish wedding. A Jew has every right to refuse to serve a wedding of neo-Nazis. A devout Catholic has every right to refuse to serve a wedding of two previously married people whose marriages have not been annulled by the Church. So why should the Larsens’ case be any different?
Leftists are great at saying “live and let live,” until somebody tries to live in a way they don’t like. They are unwilling to let traditional Christians mind their own business and live the way they want. The leftist hypocrisy is almost as bad as its disregard for others’ basic rights. Almost as bad, but not quite. Those basic rights include the right to be hypocrites.
Thankfully, the Eight Circuit panel ruled that they can’t be hypocrites at the expense of someone else’s time, effort, and beliefs. So should every other court that hears such cases.
