ADF explains in a separate blog post:
Carl and Angel Larsen are Bible-believing Christians who place Christ at the center of everything in their life — their marriage, their home, their friendships, their service to the community, and their business. One of their deepest passions is marriage. [Drivelectomy]The stated objective of the suit (a pre-enforcement challenge) is to enjoin the state from enforcing certain provisions of the Human Rights Act. The real objectives of the litigation are probably very different. In no particular order:
The Larsens are deeply troubled by the current condition of marriage in our culture. Not only has it been redefined by the Supreme Court, but the governments across the country and other powerful cultural forces are punishing and marginalizing people who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. …
… the Larsens’ desire to enter the wedding cinematography field has hit a huge obstacle — a speech coercing state law. According to Minnesota officials, the State’s Human Rights Act mandates that if the Larsens make films celebrating marriage between one man and one woman, then they must make films celebrating same-sex marriages as well. … And there are steep penalties for violating the law, including payment of a civil penalty to the state, triple compensatory damages, punitive damages up to $25,000, and even up to 90 days in jail.
- To provide a cause as a vehicle for raising money.
- To project that nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBT citizens are unfair to Christians.
- To provide relevance for ADF.
- To create publicity for their client Telescope Media.
- To make some other point.
Looking at the citations, this is all primarily hinged on the fact that Minnesota’s Human Rights Act makes it illegal “to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, creed, religion, disability, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, or sex.” [Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.11(1)].
Of course that is not in context and requires a film producer to be a public accommodation. It is ridiculous to believe that the state would apply this in the manner described by ADF.