Case Summary and Outcome

On an appeal to the Appellant Division of New York’s Supreme Court, the court affirmed a previous judgment from the New York Division of Human Rights (SDHR). The SDHR determined that the petitioners’ farmland, as a public accommodation, discriminated against a couple because of their sexual orientation. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the SDHR’s determination violated their right to freedom of speech. The Court concluded that the prohibition against compelled speech and the right to expressive association were not violated.

Facts

The respondent in this case is Liberty Ridge Farm L.L.C.  The company operates a farmland and part of its business is to host wedding ceremonies, corporate events, and holiday parties.

In September 2013, a lesbian couple contacted the company to hold their wedding ceremony there.  Upon revealing their sexual orientation, the company declined to host their ceremony.  The owners stated that hosting same-sex marriage ceremony was against the company’s policy, as well as their religious views regarding marriage.

In October 2012, the couple filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights against the company.  Its Owners were subsequently joined as respondents in the case.  The couple alleged that the company by rejecting their request to hold their wedding ceremony violated New York’s human right law against unlawful discriminatory practices based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

The New York State Division of Human Rights held that under the Human Rights Law of the state, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice by a place of public accommodation to deny a benefit to a member of the protected class of sexual orientation. Administrative Judge Migdalia Pares ordered the respondent to pay $1,500 to each complainant for mental anguish, as well as a civil fine of $10,000 to the State of New York.

Decision Overview

Justice Peters rendered the judgment of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

The main issue before the court was if the SDHR’s determination violated the petitioner’s right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment and the New York state Constitution. The court affirmed the SDHR’s determination and deemed that there was no violation to their free speech rights pursuant to the First Amendment. The court validated SDHR’s assessment towards the definition and the scope of a ‘place of public accommodation, resort or amusement’. Justice Peters noted that Liberty Ridge Farms falls into the scope of the definition of a place of public accommodation as it provides a venue for wedding ceremonies, receptions and other related services. The court considered that even though Liberty Ridge Farm is a private property it does not mean that it can operate outside of the Human Rights Law margin. According to Justice Peters, “the critical factor is that the facilities are made available to the public at large.” [p.5 ]

Justice Peters then addressed the petitioners’ claim that “substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that they engaged in unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” (p. 2). The petitioners asserted that their refusal to host a same-sex wedding was not because of the McCarthy’s sexual orientation, but because of the petitioners’ religious views. The court declared that “[s]uch attempts to distinguish between a protected status and conduct closely correlated with that status have been soundly rejected.” The court also affirmed the SDHR’s conclusion that the petitioners did discriminate against the respondents (McCarthy) for their sexual orientation.

Peters first indicated that the First Amendment guarantees the right to be free from government-compelled speech. Moreover, the judge asserted that “the threshold inquiry is whether the conduct allegedly compelled was sufficiently expressive so as to trigger the protections of the First Amendment.” The court submitted that “conduct is considered inherently expressive when there is ‘[a]n intent to convey a particularized message’ and there is a likelihood that the intended ‘message [will] be understood by those who view[ ] it’.”

The court considered that the SDHR did not compel the petitioners to endorse or promote same-sex marriages and they remain free to express their views regarding this issue. The SDHR’s determination only required the petitioners “to abide by the law and offer the same goods and services to same-sex couples that they offer to other couples.” The court also determined that the petitioners had to comply with the statutory mandate, which prohibits “discrimination against customers on the basis of sexual orientation or any other sexual characteristic.” Furthermore, the court added that there is a difference between promoting the values and lifestyle of its customers and complying with anti-discrimination laws. For these reasons, the court concluded that the alleged compelled speech did not trigger the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Regarding the expressive association, the court considered that in order to invoke the First Amendment concerning expressive association “a group must engage in some form of expression, whether it be public or private.” (p. 14). The court noted that the petitioner’s wedding business had not been organized for expressive activity and its only purpose was for profit. The court also asserted that even if the Liberty Ridge farm was to be considered an expressive business, a customer’s association with a business for the limited purposes of obtaining goods and services—as opposed to becoming part of the business itself—does not trigger this constitutional concern.”

Additionally, the court also affirmed that the SDHR’s determination did not unreasonably interfered with the petitioner’s right to freedom of religion. The SDHR’s determination did not obligate or compelled the petitioners to participate in the ceremony of a same-sex marriage and they are free to continue following their religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriages. However, the court noted that against them was the interest of the state of New York to eradicate discrimination.

For these reasons, the court affirmed the SDHR’s determination. The court also maintained the SDHR’s fine and damages assessment.