National
Court: Facebook posts allow Mich. farmer to refuse service to gays
‘The City singled Country Mill out for special treatment’

A federal court has ruled Facebook posts allow a Michigan farmer to refuse to host same-sex weddings. (Photo courtesy Facebook)
A federal court has ruled in favor of a Michigan farmer asserting a First Amendment right to refuse to host same-sex couples at his wedding venue, concluding his Facebook posts announcing the policy are protected under the U.S. Constitution.
In a 16-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, an appointee of George W. Bush, granted Stephen Tennes of Country Mill Farms a preliminary injunction on Friday against the City of East Lansing on the basis that his social media posts “constitute protected activity” under the First Amendment.
“The City focuses on the act of excluding same-sex wedding ceremonies from Country Mill,” Maloney writes. “But, even if that conduct is not protected, Plaintiffs still engaged in protected activity when Tennes communicated his religious beliefs on Facebook in August and December. Even if the City is correct that talking about discrimination is not protected, Plaintiffs also talked about their religious beliefs, which is a protected activity. For the first element in the retaliation claim the City cannot ignore the portions of the Facebook posts that would be protected speech.”
The Charlotte, Mich.-based farmer sued the City of East Lansing after it informed him he could no longer participate in a farmer’s market to sell produce when he declared on Facebook he wouldn’t allow same-sex marriages on his property, which he rents for wedding services.
Tennes wrote a Facebook post saying he believes “marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman” based on his Catholic faith in August 2016 after he denied wedding services to two women in 2014 and they encouraged others not to patronize his business.
Although Tennes temporarily suspended all weddings on his property, he later resumed them, but only for different-sex ceremonies. Tennes wrote in a subsequent Facebook post that he reserves a right to “deny a request for services that would require it to communicate, engage in, or host expression that violates the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and conscience.”
The City of East Lansing initially allowed Tennes to continue selling produce at its farmer’s market, but asked him no longer to participate as long as that was his policy.
Subsequently, the city denied his application for the 2017 season after it amended its policy to mandate vendors adhere to the city’s human rights ordinance, which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That denial prompted Tennes to sue in federal court on the basis the city violated his freedom of speech and religion under the First Amendment.
Maloney concludes the City of East Lansing singled out Tennes for punishment because it amended its human rights ordinance after he declared on Facebook he wouldn’t serve same-sex couples.
“Within months, the City amended its Vendor Guidelines to incorporate the City’s non discrimination ordinance,” Maloney writes. “The City also singled Country Mill out for special treatment by ordering the Farmer’s Market Planning Commission not to invite Country Mill to the 2017 market and by requiring Country Mill’s vendor application to be forwarded to the City for consideration.”
In addition to finding the City of East Lansing violated Tennes’ right to free speech, Maloney determined the municipality violated his freedom of religion.
“A factfinder could infer that the change in the Vendor Guidelines was motivated by Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs or their religiously-motivated conduct,” Tennes writes. “And, the City’s hostility to Plaintiffs’ religion or religious conduct was then manifested when the City used its facially neutral and generally applicable ordinance to deny Plaintiffs’ Vendor Application.”
As a result of the preliminary injunction, the City of East Lansing must allow Tennes to sell produce at its farmer’s market for the remainder of the 2017 season.
In a subsequent Facebook post, Country Mill Farms celebrated the decision and urged supporters to visit its booth at the farmer’s market.
“We are thrilled to be back at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market this Sunday due to the court ruling,” the post says. “For the past 46 years, our family has faithfully served everyone in our community from all different backgrounds and beliefs. We strive to treat everyone with dignity and respect. We will continue to do so as we sell our organic apples, cider, donuts and apple cider slushies at the East Lansing’s farmer’s market, starting again this weekend.”
The City of East Lansing issued a statement expressing disappointment with the ruling and pledging to consider ways to move forward with the lawsuit.
“The City is disappointed in the Court’s ruling,” the statement says. “The City believes that the Court relied on the Plaintiff’s complaint and disregarded the contrary facts that were set forth in the Defendant’s answer and reply to the Plaintiff’s motion. At the time of the Court’s ruling, the Court also had the benefit of the facts established by the City’s Motion to Dismiss. The City will be considering the seeking of a stay and an appeal of the ruling.”
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
National
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence to take place April 10
Campaign began as student-led protests against anti-LGBTQ bullying, discrimination
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence will take place on April 10.
The annual Day of Silence began as a student-led protest in response to bullying and discrimination that LGBTQ students face. It is now a national campaign for the LGBTQ community and their allies to come together for LGBTQ youth.
It takes place annually and has multiple ways for supporters to get involved in the movement.
Glisten, originally GLSEN, champions LGBTQ issues in schools, grades K-12. Glisten’s mission is to create more inclusive and accepting environments for LGBTQ students through curriculum, supportive measures, education campaigns, and engagement, such as the Day of Silence.
There are three main ways for the community to get involved in the Day of Silence.
Glisten has a Day of Silence frame, a series of pictures used as profile photos across social media that feature individuals holding signs. The signs allow for personalization, by providing a space to put the individual’s name, followed by filling in the prompt “ … and I am ENDING the silence by…”
Participants are encouraged to post the photo on social media and use it as a profile picture. The templates can be found on Google Drive through this link.
Using #DayOfSilence and #NSCS, as well as tagging Glisten’s official Page @glistencommunity, is another way to participate in the Day of Silence.
Glisten also encourages participants to tag creators, friends, family and use a call to action in their caption, to call attention to the facts and stories behind the Day of Silence.
“Today’s administration in the U.S. wants us to stay silent, submit to their biased and hurtful conformity, and stop fighting for our right to be authentically ourselves,” said Glisten CEO Melanie Willingham-Jaggers. “We urge supporters to use their social platforms and check in with local chapters to be boots on the ground to help LGBTQ+ students feel seen, heard, supported, and less alone. By participating in the ‘Day of Silence,’ you are showing solidarity with young people as they navigate identity, safety, and belonging. Our voices matter.”
South Carolina
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Timothy Truett allegedly shot at gay club in Myrtle Beach on April 1
A South Carolina man remains in custody on a more than $300,000 bond after he allegedly opened fire at a Myrtle Beach nightclub on April 1, according to WMBF.
Reports say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett Jr., of Clover, S.C., was detained by the Myrtle Beach Police Department after the April 1 incident outside Pulse Ultra Club. He was later arrested and charged with possession of a weapon during a violent crime, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, discharging a firearm within city limits, malicious injury to real property valued over $5,000, and assault or intimidation due to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
At 10:57 a.m. on April 1, officers responded to a call about a possible shooting at Pulse Ultra Club, located in the 2700 block of South Kings Highway.
In an affidavit released later, the club’s owner, Ken Phillips, said he was doing paperwork that morning when he heard “five or six” gunshots. He went outside and found a window and the windshield of his SUV shattered by bullets. An SUV with blue plastic covering one window was left at the scene.
Police later reviewed footage that showed a silver vehicle stopping in the middle of the road. The video appeared to capture muzzle flashes coming from the passenger-side window.
According to the affidavit, an officer later pulled over a vehicle driven by Truett and found spent shell casings in the back seat, along with a gun.
Documents do not detail why Truett was ultimately charged under the state law covering assault or intimidation tied to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
As of April 1, records show Truett is being held in Horry County on a combined bond of more than $312,000.
WMBF spoke with Phillips after the incident and asked whether there was any prior conflict that might have led to the shooting.
“I don’t know if it’s personal, I don’t know if it’s related to being gay, I don’t know if it’s related to the bar issues,” Phillips told WMBF. “Anybody with a mindset of pulling out a weapon in broad daylight is not right.”
“My primary concern has and always will be the safety of my community and my customers,” he added. “It’s given me great concern … as to how far people will go.”
WMBF also spoke with Adam Hayes, vice chair of Myrtle Beach’s Human Rights Coalition, who was involved in pushing for the ordinance. He said that while the incident itself is troubling, it shows the policy is being put to use.
The ordinance is intended to deter “crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived” identity, in the absence of a statewide hate crime law.
“It’s nice to see that something we put into policy is not just a piece of paper, that it’s actually being used,” said Hayes.
He said the shooting underscores the need for a statewide hate crime law in South Carolina and added that the incident has left the local LGBTQ community shaken.
South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law.
Truett remains in jail as of publication.
