The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has sent back to the district court an application by Emilee Carpenter, a religious wedding photographer, seeking an exemption to the New York Human Rights Law under the First Amendment. Carpenter aims to deny photographing same-sex marriages based on her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Previously, the district court dismissed Carpenter’s suit for failure to state a claim. However, this ruling was reconsidered in light of the US Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. In the 303 Creative case, the Supreme Court clarified that public accommodations laws could, in certain circumstances, compel expressive activity in violation of the First Amendment. Thus, the Second Circuit found that the New York Human Rights Law and New York Civil Rights Law could theoretically compel Carpenter’s speech and remanded the case to the district court.
The Second Circuit’s decision allows the district court to reconsider Carpenter’s request for a preliminary injunction and to look into the broader implications for her business activities, including her marketing blog, to determine if they also qualify as compelled speech under the First Amendment. The court emphasized that its ruling does not broadly permit businesses to deny services to same-sex couples unless the First Amendment is relevant.
Critical provisions of the New York Human Rights Law under scrutiny include the Accommodations Clause, which prohibits public accommodations from refusing services to individuals in protected classes such as sexual orientation, and the Denial Clause, which prevents businesses from publicizing a refusal to serve based on protected class status. The New York Civil Rights Law also enjoins any discrimination or harassment of individuals exercising their civil rights.
This case underscores the tensions between state anti-discrimination laws and constitutional free speech protections, particularly in the realm of services involving expressive content. For more details on the case and the court’s decision, see the article on JURIST.