Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision siding with a Christian graphic artist who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples in Colorado, organizations advocating for and against same-sex marriage were parsing out the ruling's impact in Minnesota.
The high court's decision only addresses "expressive or creative enterprise, which is a fairly narrow category of businesses," said Kat Rohn, executive director of LGBTQ advocacy organization OutFront Minnesota. That means web designers, and other businesses that do creative expressions for customers.
"This is not a broad license to discriminate or to undermine the longstanding non-discrimination protections we have in Minnesota," Rohn said. The decision didn't specify businesses or products, beyond the Colorado designer, making further legal challenges likely.
Similar to Colorado, where the case before the high court originated, Minnesota law says it is an unfair discriminatory practice to "deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation" for a host of reasons including sexual orientation.
It was unclear just how far the Supreme Court's ruling will reach.
"How many public accommodations does it apply to?" asked Jess Braverman, legal director of Gender Justice, a St. Paul nonprofit law and policy organization that takes up civil rights cases involving gender and sexuality. "What … services does a business have to provide in order to fall under the exception … and that is still up for debate, but at the very least it would have to be some sort of artistic or creative or custom-made service."
The decision comes after the state faced a similar lawsuit several years ago. A St. Cloud husband-and-wife film company challenged the constitutionality of the Minnesota Human Rights Act in 2016, arguing that they would be punished for refusing to film the wedding ceremonies of same-sex couples.
After the couple, Carl and Angel Larsen, won at the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, their case was remanded to the district court, which issued a preliminary injunction protecting the plaintiffs from the law while the suit proceeded. But that case ended in 2021, when the court granted the Larsens' motion to dismiss the case after the couple said they were exploring new opportunities outside the wedding field due to a downturn in business amid the pandemic.
