Christian Photographer Wins $800K From Louisville After Fighting Same-Sex Wedding Mandate
In a victory for religious liberty, Louisville must pay $800,000 in additional fees to settle a lawsuit brought by a Christian photographer.
Louisville taxpayers will fork over $800,000 to end a long-running federal lawsuit between a Christian photographer and the city.
Chelsey Nelson has been battling the city since 2019 over an ordinance that would require her to take photos and write about same-sex weddings, despite her Christian beliefs. She also could not explain her religious beliefs and objections to same-sex unions on her website.
The law in question “threaten[ed] Nelson with unspecified damages, compliance reports, and court orders” if she did not praise LGBT “wedding ceremonies” in the same way she does heterosexual weddings, according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
The Christian legal group announced on Tuesday that Nelson has won attorney fees in addition to the nominal damages a court had already awarded her. Federal courts have barred city officials from enforcing the law since 2020.
ADF celebrated the decision in a media statement.
“The government cannot force Americans to say things they don’t believe,” Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart stated.
“For almost six years, Louisville officials tried to do just that by threatening to force Chelsey to promote views about marriage that violated her religious beliefs,” the attorney stated.
Reminder for cities & states hostile to the First Amendment:
Speech should stay free.
Because settling the ADF lawsuit won’t be. pic.twitter.com/O6yGZgeWP6
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) March 24, 2026
The threats were in contradiction to “bedrock First Amendment principles which leave decisions about what to say with the people, not the government,” Neihart continued. “This settlement should teach Louisville that violating the U.S. Constitution can be expensive.”
The Louisville battle is the latest religious liberty victory for Christian artists who do not want to use their talents to violate their beliefs and promote same-sex weddings.
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 in favor of a web designer who did not want to create websites for same-sex weddings. “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees,” the majority ruled in the case called 303 Creative v. Elenis.
Colorado officials agreed to pay $1.5 million to the company’s owner, Lorie Smith, after the state’s defeat at the nation’s highest court.
Since the 2023 decision, Alliance Defending Freedom has secured other favorable outcomes for the First Amendment rights of Christians and others who object to the LGBT agenda.
In 2025, New York photographer Emilee Carpenter won her own federal lawsuit against a state law that could have required her to work at a same-sex wedding. Carpenter’s victory over the Empire State came partially due to the 303 decision.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It ought to have been won under freedom of association, not freedom of speech or religion. Unfortunately a mistake in civil rights law took away freedom of association – too late to fix? – where it ought to have taken away freedom of association only in monopoly markets, de jure or de facto. There are lots of web designers and cake shops.
It was decided correcty: Free Speech
Speech and religion I’d say – government cannot force speech from someone who doesn’t believe those things.
Freedom of association was murdered by the de facto constitutional convention known as the selectively enforced civil rights acts of 1964, plus other protected status policies throughout the decades since.
‘You will eat the bugs, own nothing, and be compliant.’
I think it was correct. The city tried to prohibit her from expressing her viewpoint on her own website and force her to say things she didn’t believe. It’s rather disturbing that no one in the Louisville government saw a problem with that.
I do some photography work (strictly for fun). Potrait and event photography especially weddings require the photographer to get personal with the subject (ie on the same vibe/wave length) as the subject. Its really idiotic to hire a photographer who isnt going to like doing the work or the person they are photographing.
The one problem with the court case is the politicians and employees responsible for violating the constitution are home free. The innocent tax payers suffer the consequences. This is wrong. The responsible individuals need to lose their jobs at a minimum or have the financial award come out of their pay. Stop screwing over U.S. taxpayers!
No go after each person who tried to force her to celebrate their wedding against her will. Those people are just as much to blame as the Government who tried to infringe on her first amendment rights!!
They are including the lawyer that ok’d the ordinance. All ordinances are run through legal departments to make sure they are ok. Any sane and competent lawyer should have told the city no way on this. That lawyer or lawyers should be disbarred.
I’d use a Thirteenth Amendment involuntary servitude argument in addition the First Amendment.
A decent person would’ve asked her, after she refused, who they might go to the wood except the job of photographing the wedding. She probably had some good recommendations, and the whole thing could’ve been settled amicably.
But, some people just look for trouble.
If you go looking for trouble, you are guaranteed to find it. And found it they did.
Correct. But then that would defeat the purpose of that Louisville city ordinance.
Yep. Some folks don’t understand that respect and civility is a two way street, instead they want their own wants/desires to be the only thing that matters. Basic individual freedoms and Constitutional protections/rights scare the heck of these sorts of folks.
Regardless of the wedding if I asked someone to bake the cake, take the photos, do a website, whatever and they refused because they did not like something about me, or my bride or the wedding in general, the last thing I would do is go to court to try and force them to do it. I mean will they really do a good job at that point? If your cake tastes bad or the pictures are blurry great you made your point and ruined your own wedding. Just seems a stupid thing to do.
agree with tucker – see my comment above. wedding photography is both a skill and an art.
These lawsuits are never about the job quality; they are about the thought mafia making you do things their way.
A great number of people on the left are not interested in tolerance. They are interested in forced acceptance because they are more important than you are.
the fact that the government would even forcibly make her into one of their mouthpieces is proof enough that they should be removed from office and ordered to pay the 800k out of their own pockets
Finally, a return to sanity.
The one thing that bothers me is that this should apply to anyone with a moral objection. There shouldn’t need to be any requirement to prove a religious belief, in an established faith, that is being violated.
Atheists that think, personally, that same sex marriage is immoral have the same right to object to everything this woman did even though there is no religious book and centuries of religious scholars of that faith giving clear teachings on the issue.
This was a slam dunk and it’s disgusting that city officials thought they could compel speech like this. My question is who were the officials in on the ordinance in the first place and have they been terminated? I think that any city, county, state or federal employees that violate peoples rights through ordinances or court rulings should be removed from office.
Agreed. They need to be federally prosecuted. The basis for this will be: 18 U.S. Code § 242, which states in part:
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both…”
Nail their hides to the wall, and display them prominently “to encourage the others”.
Most gay people don’t care about this crap. But there is a subculture of gay people who want to force their sexual perversions down your throat, and make you accept it as normal, whether you like it or not. These same people would go postal if a person dressed in a KKK outfit walked into their store and demanded a wedding cake made, with the image of two people in hoods on the top, holding hands. You cannot hate these hypocrites enough.
This is not a deterrent to woke politicians, who get to virtue signal with impunity and then the penalties are paid with public funds.
Outstanding. I am fortunate to live outside of the Louisville boundaries as it is a liberal cesspool.
Reminder for cities & states hostile to the First Amendment:
Speech should stay free.
—————————-
The law SHOULD read, if you lose a lawsuit over restricting free speech the money for the damages awarded come out of your pocket even if the gov has to take everything you own and auction it off to pay the cost.