Good news on the East Lansing / Country Mill case today

High speed post for some breaking news

If you have no idea to what I am referring, I invite you to read about our personal connection to this case, which involves the city of East Lansing, where we live, attempting to exclude a Roman Catholic farming family (“The Country Mill”) from the city farmers’ market because of their public views on same-sex “marriage” and their refusal to host weddings for the same on their property (which is actually outside the city). Hard to believe now, but the conflict with the city began way back in 2016.

I will send you to The Volokh Conspiracy for the good news if you’d like, Excluding Farmer's Market Vendor for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Weddings on Its Land Violates Free Exercise Clause.

Now unfortunately, this is all written in lawyer-talk, maybe someone else will write a good plain-English summary later. But near as I can tell, in a nutshell, the judge ruled that the attempt to exclude the Mill substantially burdened their free exercise of religion:

Defendant [the city] relied in the revised 2017 vendor guidelines to deny CMF's [the Mill] application to participate in the ELFM [East Lansing Farmers’ Market]. The stated reason for the denial was the Plaintiffs' decision not to rent the venue for same-sex weddings. Plaintiffs' decision was motivated by religious beliefs. Plaintiffs were forced to choose between their religious beliefs and a government benefit for which CMF was eligible...

The judge elaborated that, although “neutral and generally applicable” policies are not held to violate the Free Exercise Clause, for a whole medley of reasons, the city’s policy was not neutral and generally applicable. The city exercised “functionally unfettered discretion” in deciding which vendors would be allowed at market, ergo “the Vendor Guidelines are not generally applicable and function as a mechanism for individualized decisions.” Furthermore, even within those guidelines, the market manager is allowed to “grant exceptions and accommodations on an individual basis”, and in such circumstances the city is required to grant exemptions for “religious hardship” or provide compelling reasons not to do so.

Side comment, when the market first opened this year their emails had a “statement of inclusion” at the top of the email. A little later they had a survey, and I actually responded to their survey with a comment along the lines of “you hypocrites, if you’re so inclusive why is the city still trying to kick out the Mill?” And then the statement of inclusion disappeared from their emails. Could very well have nothing at all to do with my survey response of course, but did make me go… huh.

And then, after that there is more lawyer-talk to the effect that the city allows exemptions for secular reasons, “it permits secular conduct through exemptions while prohibiting the same conduct motivated by religious beliefs”. In conclusion:

In light of the nondiscretionary and the discretionary exemptions in the ordinance, the City has not demonstrated a compelling interest in excluding Plaintiffs from the Farmer’s Market. The City’s nondiscrimination ordinance tolerates the same discrimination in other situations.

Find the full order here if you’d like.

(And yes, there is no compelling reason to exclude them from the Market. If you had no idea their views on marriage… well, you would have no idea their views on marriage. They serve everyone at the market with no discrimination. I am sure they would happily sell a gallon of apple cider to a gay couple fully decked out in rainbow gear.)

What happens now I do not know. I think it quite possible the city will just be happy to have the case finished (it has, among other things, cost the city a lot of money in legal fees). I’m not a lawyer, but just reading this judgment I can imagine, going forward, the city trying to rewrite a lot of city code to make it far more aggressive, removing the chances at “secular exemptions” and thus allowing them to engage in the religious discrimination they want to engage in. More personally, I also wonder if the Mill will face an unfriendly crowd at the market next Sunday (you know, bunch of activists who probably don’t even shop the market just showing up to harass them in the name of love and tolerance). We shall see.

Comments welcome if you know more.