NY settles $225K photographer dispute in major free speech win
By willowt // 2025-07-25
Copy
 
  • $225,000 paid by New York to settle four-year legal battle with photographer Emilee Carpenter over religious objections to photographing same-sex weddings.
  • Federal judge ruled state cannot force her to provide services conflicting with personal beliefs, citing First Amendment free speech protections.
  • Settlement resolves case ahead of a possible Supreme Court review, paralleling 2023’s 303 Creative ruling against compelled artistic expression.
  • Carpenter’s victory emphasizes balancing civil rights with religious liberties, echoing similar disputes like Oregon’s Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor.
  • Critics warn against eroding free speech, urging caution in government overreach into creative professions.
A four-year legal battle ended Tuesday as New York agreed to pay $225,000 to settle its conflict with freelance photographer Emilee Carpenter, who refused to photograph same-sex weddings due to religious convictions. The settlement follows a federal judge’s May ruling that blocking Carpenter’s beliefs violated her First Amendment rights, upholding a growing legal consensus that the government cannot compel speech or artistic expression conflicting with conscience.

Legal victory rooted in First Amendment protections

Carpenter, based in New York’s Southern Tier, sued state officials in 2021 after the New York State Division of Human Rights charged her with violating antidiscrimination laws by asking clients’ genders before booking wedding sessions. U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci, in a decision aligning with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, barred the state from enforcing laws requiring her to create content violating her beliefs. Geraci’s order prohibited state regulators from penalizing her for asking about clients’ wedding details to determine compatibility with her values. The settlement, announced Tuesday, permanently halts enforcement and recoups legal fees without admitting liability. “The Constitution protects Emilee’s freedom to express her own beliefs as she continues to serve clients of all backgrounds,” said Bryan Neihart, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Carpenter. “No New Yorker should fear penalties for pursuing livelihood and faith without contradiction.”

Parallel to landmark Supreme Court case

Carpenter’s case mirrors 303 Creative, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado couldn’t compel a Christian web designer to produce services for same-sex weddings. The Carpenter case preceded that ruling but regained momentum after the 303 decision propelled similar cases into the spotlight. Critics of compelled artistic speech argue such cases test the limits of civil rights laws. “Artists shouldn’t be turned into mouthpieces,” said legal scholar Adam Meyerson, referencing a principle underlying both rulings. “When the government regulates speech, not conduct, it oversteps its authority.”

Impact on religious liberty for creative professionals

The ruling offers hope to small-scale creatives facing similar dilemmas. Across the U.S., cases like the Kleins’ $135,000 fine for declining a wedding cake in Oregon and florist Barronelle Stutzman’s $5,000 penalty in Washington state have drawn attention to clashes between civil rights mandates and religious liberty. “These cases aren’t about hatred — they’re about refusing to participate in events that violate deeply held beliefs,” said Neihart. Carpenter, for instance, continues to serve clients regardless of their identity but declines roles that demand endorsement of ideas she opposes. State Deputy Attorney General Denise Miranda, however, defended the settlement’s terms, stating New York remains committed to “equal access” and “non-discrimination.”

Balancing civil rights and free speech

Legal experts note the ruling could spark more nuanced discussions about how public accommodations laws intersect with expressive activities. Justice Samuel Alito, in his 303 opinion, warned of irreconcilable tensions: “If the state can force artists to create content they despise, free speech becomes meaningless.” Yet advocates for LGBTQ+ protections caution against using religious liberty as a defense for discrimination. “Drawing the line between artistic expression and service access remains tricky,” said Lambda Legal senior counsel Omar Gonzalez-Pagan. “Many couples still face barriers to vital services.”

Victory for conscience in an increasingly divided landscape

The settlement underscores the First Amendment’s evolving role as a shield for creative professionals. For Carpenter, it affirms her right to meld faith and vocation without sacrificing artistic autonomy. As courts grapple with other cases — like New Mexico’s pending hearing for a cannabis company refusing to fund conservative ads — the interplay between free speech and social justice will shape the legal terrain for years to come. “Americans of all stripes should celebrate today’s outcome,” said Neihart. “When the government cannot force people to speak, we all gain freedom.” Sources for this article include: TheNationalPulse.com ChristianPost.com
Copy