A federal judge in Michigan ruled in favor of a Catholic farmer who rents out space for farm weddings but refused to accommodate gay weddings. Country Mill Farms instead referred gay couples “to another mid-Michigan orchard that has more experience hosting same sex weddings.”
When East Lansing discovered the Country Mill Farms’ policy, the city refused the orchard a vendor spot at the local farmer’s market, citing a city anti-discrimination ordinance incorporated into the vendor agreement.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) represented Country Mill Farms and praised the decision. “The district court’s decision rightly protects Steve’s freedom to operate his business according to his convictions,” ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson said in a press release.
The judge’s decision relied heavily on the landmark Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In Fulton, the Supreme Court held Philadelphia could not refuse to contract with a Catholic foster care agency, Catholic Social Services (CSS), that refused to certify gay couples as foster parents.
CSS refused to certify gay couples because it “believes marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” Philadelphia cited an anti-discrimination clause in the foster care agency contract as the basis for refusing to contract with CSS.
The Michigan federal court explained how a law “incidentally burden[ing] religion” is normally constitutional, provided the law is “neutral and generally applicable.” However, if the law is not “neutral and generally applicable,” courts apply a heightened standard of scrutiny to determine constitutionality.
Country Mill Farms challenged East Lansing’s decision as a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, arguing that the city applied a “policy not generally applicable . . . because the policy contained [a] system of individualized exemptions.” (citations omitted)
Because East Lansing’s policy was “not generally applicable,” the city had to show the application of its policy against Country Mill Farms furthered “a compelling interest” and that the policy was “narrowly tailored” to achieving that interest. East Lansing, the court found, did not meet that burden.
East Lansing argued it had a compelling interest in enforcing its anti-discrimination ordinance “to address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The court rejected this argument, finding the “individualized exemptions” in East Lansing’s vendor policy allowed the city to make exemptions for other providers.
East Lansing, then, needed to show a “particular justification for enforcing the nondiscrimination ordinance against” Country Mill Farms, which the court found the city had not.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY