Religious-based objection to selling bridal clothing for same-sex wedding violates state law

The First Department has sustained a State Division of Human Rights finding that a wedding business violated state law in refusing to sell a bridal jumpsuit for a same-sex wedding. The ruling rejects the business's objection that servicing the wedding would have violated their religious principles and the First Amendment.

The case is SDHR v. D. Auxilly NYC LLC, issued on October 22. Once the business proprietor realized the complainant wanted a same-sex marriage, Galbraith, the business owner, said it would not sell her the bridal jumpsuit, that making such an outfit would violate her sincerely held religious belief. The SDHR also found the business told complainant to reconsider the wedding entirely. The SDHR held a hearing in this case, and ruled against Auxilly, awarding the complainant $5,000 in damages for pain and suffering and a civil penalty in the amount of $20,000.

State law prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations. While the Supreme Court has held in several high profile cases that businesses can deny servicing same-sex weddings under the First Amendment, that only applies when the services involve expressive conduct, like decorating a wedding cake or a website to celebrate the wedding. You may find these holds to be a stretch, but the Supreme Court has taken a broad definition of protected speech in these cases. But the First Department holds that selling a wedding garment is not expressive activity under the First Amendment, even if it might be adjusted for sizing. The business's order said at oral argument that the jumpsuit was a matter of expression, but the panel, to put it nicely, did not see it that way.  As the SDHR wrote in its appellate brief,

Galbraith, according to the parties’ stipulation of facts, is a designer and seller of “bridal and special occasion attire under the D. Auxilly brand.” However, her work, although tailored to fit the client, contains no speech element. It does not relate a “unique story” about the wearer using her original words and artwork. Although the clothing may reflect Galbraith’s considerable skill and talents, they are goods offered for sale to the general public. Galbraith’s sincerely held religious beliefs preclude same-sex marriage, but the commerce she partakes of is subject to the Human Rights Law’s requirements 

We also have ourselves a jurisdictional issue. The business was in New York, but the complaint lived in Missouri. New York law applies because the impact of the discriminatory violation transpired in New York.