In Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey, (D MN, Sept. 29, 2017), a Minnesota federal district court in a 63-page opinion rejected a challenge to a provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act that requires plaintiffs, owners of a videography business that plans to offer wedding videos, to serve same-sex couples.  Responding to plaintiffs’ free speech arguments, the court said in part: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; as conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment.Plaintiffs also argued that the law, as applied, unconstitutionally affects the content of their videos. However the court concluded:The MHRA’s application to the Larsens’ wedding video business, as a content neutral regulation of conduct with an incidental effect on speech, survives intermediate scrutiny.The court went on to reject plaintiffs’ free exercise challenge, finding that the law is neutral and of general applicability.



No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

8 − seven =