The Eighth Circuit court has ruled in favor of a Christian family who own their own video company, who are fighting a law in Minnesota that would have forced them to film gay weddings.

Just to give you a little history, the impetus for the lawsuit was the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The lawsuit was filed on the behalf of Carl and Angel Larsen by Alliance Defending Freedom:

According to Minnesota officials, the State’s Human Rights Act mandates that if the Larsens make films celebrating marriage between one man and one woman, then they must make films celebrating same-sex marriages as well. State officials have repeatedly threatened to prosecute expressive business owners who decline to create speech promoting same-sex marriages. And there are steep penalties for violating the law, including payment of a civil penalty to the state, triple compensatory damages, punitive damages up to $25,000, and even up to 90 days in jail.







In September of 2017, a lower district court dismissed the case of Carl and Angel Larsen on the basis of the law being ‘neutral’.

But last friday a 3-panel judge overturned that ruling, reinstating the case and ruling that the MHRA does violate the first amendment rights of the Larsens:

CHRISTIAN POST – A three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided last Friday that the Minnesota Human Rights Act violated the First Amendment rights of Carl and Angel Larsen of Telescope Media Group. The decision largely overturned a lower court ruling against the Larsens and remanded their request for an injunction against the MHRA back to the district court level. Circuit Judge David Stras, author of the court opinion, wrote that “antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution.” “Indeed, if Minnesota were correct, there is no reason it would have to stop with the Larsens. In theory, it could use the MHRA to require a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe ‘My religion is the only true religion’ on the body of a Christian if he or she would do the same for a fellow Muslim, or it could demand that an atheist musician perform at an evangelical church service,” wrote Judge Stras. “The district court also ruled that the Larsens could not seek relief on various other constitutional theories. We largely agree that these claims fail. But one—the free-exercise claim—can proceed because it is intertwined with their free-speech claim.”

Now it appears the district court must decide on whether to institute an injunction based on this new ruling.

In case you are wondering Judge Stras, who wrote the opinion, is a Trump appointee.