North Carolina law states that “North Carolina outlaws discrimination based on religion, color, national orign, age, sex or handicap, sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment, but discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are not prohibited statewide in private employment.” For years now a North Carolina wedding venue, Highgrove, located in the town of Fuquay-Varina has been denying wedding applications of same sex couples who want to use their venue. The week of April 11th, 2021, Highgrove Estate received severe backlash after denying Attorney McCae Henderson and his fiance Ike Edwards the use of its venue for their wedding. McCae and Ike contacted the estate, stating that they were two grooms who wished to use the Estate’s wedding venue. However, Highgrove Estate’s responded several days later denying the grooms request due to the owners religious beliefs and its policy prohibiting same sex couples from using the wedding venue.
The couple posted the Estate’s response to their request to use its wedding venue on all forms of social media, receiving support from the community, friends and family. This exposure resulted in several bad reviews on the venues google page, attempting to turn others away from using the venue due to its discriminatory policies. The owners of the Highgrove Estate, responded to this backlash in a statement to ABC11: “Highgrove has always welcomed vendors, guests and employees of all orientations and we do not discriminate against a people or group. We believe in the sanctity of marriages as God says in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman and we choose to honor Him above what the world decides what marriage should be.” Additionally, Highgrove responded that they have received violent threats regarding their venue policies. Although Henderson is disappointed by the venue’s discriminatory policy and the North Carolina law allowing for these actions to occur, he states that “no one should threaten violence against the venue or its staff.” The bigger problem that is being questioned is the lack of protection of homosexuality and the LGBTQ+ community in North Carolina legislation.
A similar event occured three years prior in 2018, when Asher McAlonen and his fiance Sarah Riddle were looking for wedding venues. At the time of their search, Asher McAlonen identified as a women, therefore when applying to use the Highgrove Estate venue for their wedding, they were turned away due to their gender identification. Although the actions of the Estate are discriminatory towards the LGBTQ+ community due to religious beliefs, the Estates actions are validated by North Carolina state law as a private institution.
If the case Highgrove Estate v. Henderson was brought to court, the court would rule in favor of Highgrove Estate due to the Law of Neutrality. This case can be compared to Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which involves the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Jack C. Phillips, refusing to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins due to his religious beliefs regarding same sex marriage. The majority of the Supreme Court ruled that although “gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Consitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression.” Thus, it was concluded that the creation of caked by the Masterpiece Cake Shop was a form of artistic expression and a part of his religious beliefs. Although Colorado law prohibits discrimination against gay people, the Supreme Court evaluated this case in a neutral matter taking into consideration religous beliefs. The majority of the court ruled that the Colorado Civil Right Commission’s evaluation of Masterpiece Cake Shop’s decision to refuse cake making servie to same sex couples was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court would evaluate Highgrove Estates v. Henderson in the same manner, that by looking at the case from a neutral perspective the Estate’s wedding venue serves as a form of religious expression. The Law of Neutrality supports Highgrove Estates ability to deny same sex couples to use of their wedding venue due to their relgiious beliefs.
In my opinion I would agree with the majority ruling of Masterpiece Cake Shop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission due to the Law of Neutrality. I then took this approach and applied it to Highgrove Estates v. Henderson and sided with the actions of Highgrove Estates over same sex couples. The requirement of Highgrove Estate to provide a venue for same sex couples would be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Furthermore, the North Carolina State law regarding private institutions not prohibiting gender discrimination further supports my opinon regarding this case. Although I do not agree with gender discrimination in general, I still have to agree with the actions of Highgrove Estates through a neutral lens taking into consideration their religious beliefs.
5 comments:
Like the author, I do not morally agree with the discrimination that the venue is exhibiting but as the law currently stands, I belive the court will favor the owners and continue to allow discrimination. Constitutionally, mandating the owners to violate their religious beliefs would violate the first amendment and would be unconstitutional. I do think that the violent threats the owners experienced in regard to their beliefs are uncalled for and unacceptable, but if people choose to not use their venue after seeing their policy I believe that is simply the consequence of their policy.
I also believe the Court would rule in favor of the owners of the venue. One reason for this is the idea behind marriage. Marriage has legal elements, but it also has strong religious elements. The religious beliefs of the venue are true and held by many others, so forcing them to go against their beliefs would be a substantial burden and a violation of their free exercise of religion. I believe it is within their rights to decide who is allowed to use their venue and they can use their religious ideas of marriage as justification for their actions.
This is a very complex matter, and even today I struggle with siding with one party. Personally, I believe that denying someone service based on their sexual orientation is morally wrong. Constitutionally, I find it difficult to have an individual violate their religious beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment. While there are clear overlaps between this case and Master Piece Cake Shop, I believe that there is one key difference. In Masterpiece, the baker is putting in his own time and energy to create something that did not exist. A venue on the other hand is a space that already exists. While I do not know exactly how I feel about this, I do think that the service being rendered and the amount of time put in by the owner should be subject to evaluation.
I think Anna makes an interesting point regarding the nature of using the venue versus creating something in celebration of same-sex marriage. I think as a rule of precedent I do agree with the author and their comparison to this case and Masterpiece Cake Shop. Ultimately I think it is also about the least restrictive means and that I am sure there are other wedding venues that would accommodate. Though this is not ideal and harms queer communities this is also a religious belief therefore protected through these individuals' constitutional rights.
I would agree with both the author and Alicia's comment. In regards to the court following past precedent, they would likely analyze the case and rule in support of the wedding venue because of their ruling in Masterpiece Cake Shop. They would argue that there is no difference between directly or indirectly supporting the couple, because by hosting the couple at the venue, it is still violating their religious beliefs. Furthermore, like Alicia said, it is the least restrictive means since the couple can be married at other venues.
Post a Comment