{"id":224,"date":"2019-08-23T18:57:00","date_gmt":"2019-08-23T18:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=224"},"modified":"2023-12-15T21:57:18","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T21:57:18","slug":"federal-court-allows-public-accommodation-to-refuse-to-create-custom-videos-of-same-sex-weddings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2019\/08\/23\/federal-court-allows-public-accommodation-to-refuse-to-create-custom-videos-of-same-sex-weddings\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal court allows public accommodation to refuse to create custom videos of same-sex weddings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In a 2 to 1 vote, the Eight Circuit has held that the First Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing its public accommodations law if it requires videographers to create custom videotapes of same-sex weddings even though they provide this service to opposite-sex weddings.\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/src.bna.com\/KPV\">Telescope Media Group v. Lucero<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25320 (8th Cir. 2019). Because the videos will be edited and posted on the videographer&#8217;s website, the majority accepted the defendant&#8217;s argument that they would convey a message of support for same-sex marriage contrary to the views of the regulated entity. Judges David Stras and Bobby Shepherd found this to be &#8220;compelled speech&#8221; that violates the business&#8217;s constitutionally-protected right to freedom of speech. Dissenting judge Jane Kelly found no compelled speech, just a statutory duty to provide the same services to both same-sex and opposite sex couples.<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/antidiscrimination-law\/\" rel=\"tag\">Antidiscrimination Law<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/consumer-protection\/\" rel=\"tag\">Consumer Protection<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/free-speech\/\" rel=\"tag\">Free Speech<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/gender-identity\/\" rel=\"tag\">Gender Identity<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/religious-freedom\/\" rel=\"tag\">Religious Freedom<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/sexual-orientation\/\" rel=\"tag\">Sexual Orientation<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a 2 to 1 vote, the Eight Circuit has held that the First Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing its public accommodations law if it requires videographers to create custom videotapes of same-sex weddings even though they provide this service to opposite-sex weddings.\u00a0Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25320 (8th Cir. 2019). Because the videos will be edited and posted on the videographer&#8217;s website, the majority accepted the defendant&#8217;s argument that they would convey a message of support for same-sex marriage contrary to the views of the regulated entity. Judges David Stras and Bobby Shepherd found this to be &#8220;compelled speech&#8221; that violates the business&#8217;s constitutionally-protected right to freedom of speech. Dissenting judge Jane Kelly found no compelled speech, just a statutory duty to provide the same services to both same-sex and opposite sex couples.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[39,9,32,58,54,55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antidiscrimination-law","category-consumer-protection","category-free-speech","category-gender-identity","category-religious-freedom","category-sexual-orientation"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}