This idea doesn’t resonate with the state’s Department of Human Rights, which seems bent on aggressively enforcing a narrow interpretation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. State officials have interpreted that law to require anyone who makes films celebrating man-woman weddings to also make films celebrating same-sex weddings. If they refuse, they can be punished with a fine of up to $25,000 and 90 days in jail.

A Christian filmmaker is not a vending machine.

If that seems obvious to you, you’re probably not an employee of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

Carl and Angel Larsen own a Minnesota-based video production company, Telescope Media Group, that exists to tell compelling stories that honor God. They’d like to branch out and start conceiving, filming, and editing motion pictures that celebrate marriage as the union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. For them, this is not merely a job but a calling rooted in their faith. They view marriage as a living parable—an illustration of the relationship between Christians and their Savior.

This idea doesn’t resonate with the state’s Department of Human Rights, which seems bent on aggressively enforcing a narrow interpretation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. State officials have interpreted that law to require anyone who makes films celebrating man-woman weddings to also make films celebrating same-sex weddings. If they refuse, they can be punished with a fine of up to $25,000 and 90 days in jail.

Combining Censorship and Coercion

The implications of this law are disturbing. Government officials are not only telling filmmakers what they can or can’t film, but also what they’re required to create. But what are the limits to that type of censorship and compulsion? Does any artist who paints a portrait of Martin Luther King, Jr., have to paint a Ku Klux Klansman as well? Does anyone who sings at a Muslim ceremony have to sing at a Christian one too? Do Democratic speechwriters have to do equal time composing remarks for Republican candidates?

Beyond the absurdities this interpretation poses, the law itself is clearly unconstitutional. It denies any artist who chooses to dissent from the cultural zeitgeist their freedom of speech and religious belief. It functionally enslaves every creative soul to the politically correct norms of the day.

Read More