Louisville Pays $800K After Trying to Silence Christian Photographer

Last month a Kentucky city learned a costly lesson about the First Amendment.

Our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom report Louisville has agreed to pay $800,000 in attorneys’ fees after a federal court ruled the city violated the constitutional rights of Christian photographer Chelsey Nelson. Louisville’s “Fairness Ordinance” tried to force Nelson to photograph same-sex weddings and prohibited her from explaining her religious beliefs about marriage on her own studio’s website. The court said no — and now the city is paying for it.

We have written before about Christian photographers, bakers, florists, and wedding chapel owners being dragged into court because they declined to take part in same-sex weddings or ceremonies. Time and again, courts have had to remind government officials that the First Amendment means what it says.

Nelson’s victory builds on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis, which held that the government cannot force artists to create speech they disagree with. The government cannot compel Americans to say things they don’t believe — and it certainly cannot punish them for saying what they do believe.

People should be free to live and operate according to their deeply held religious convictions.

Arkansas has enacted some of the best protections for religious freedom in the country. But cases like Chelsey Nelson’s are a reminder that those protections must be defended — in court if necessary. We are grateful for organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom that are willing to fight for them.

Louisville’s $800,000 bill proves that violating the Constitution is an expensive mistake.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

FDIC Bans “Reputation Risk” Policies Used to De-Bank Conservatives

Last week the FDIC issued a final rule eliminating “reputation risk” policies that financial institutions used as an excuse to debank conservatives.

Individuals and organizations rely on banks and other financial institutions every day, and they expect these institutions to serve everyone regardless of their religious convictions or political positions.

But over the past five years, congressional testimony and news stories have highlighted how federal officials and financial institutions targeted conservative organizations through debanking.

Conservatives deemed “high risk” could have their bank accounts closed without warning and without explanation

Late last year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released a report confirming that America’s nine largest banks systematically debanked customers over their political beliefs.

The OCC’s preliminary findings showed that between 2020 and 2023, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank all maintained policies restricting access to banking services for certain industries.

During the Biden Administration, the U.S. Treasury Department gave financial institutions an analysis titled, “Bankrolling Bigotry” that listed legitimate, conservative groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom, the American College of Pediatricians, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, National Organization for Marriage, and the Ruth Institute as “Hate Groups” alongside the KKK and the American Nazi Party.

We also now know the U.S. Treasury Department gave banks and other financial institutions guidance that encouraged them to comb through transactions for terms like “Bass Pro Shops,” “Cabela’s,” and “Dick’s Sporting Goods” when looking for “Homegrown Violent Extremism.”

However, last week the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a final executive rule that prohibits financial institutions from debanking conservatives.

The FDIC’s official summary of the rule says:

“Among other things, the rule prohibits the agencies from criticizing or taking adverse action against an institution on the basis of reputation risk. The rule also prohibits the agencies from requiring, instructing, or encouraging an institution to close an account, to refrain from providing an account, product, or service, or to modify or terminate any product or service on the basis of a person or entity’s political, social, cultural, or religious views or beliefs, constitutionally protected speech, or solely on the basis of politically disfavored but lawful business activities perceived to present reputation risk.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Vice President of Corporate Engagement Jeremy Tedesco issued a statement in response to the new rule, saying:

“The FDIC and OCC’s new rule prohibiting the use of ‘reputation risk’ helps close the book on a shameful period where regulators abused their power to threaten law-abiding Americans through their financial institutions. The American people deserve a financial system that provides fair access for everyone, regardless of political or religious viewpoints. Recent history teaches us that regulators have all too often weaponized ‘reputation risk’ to punish viewpoints they disfavor. Americans should have a regulatory system that focuses instead on protecting banks’ safety and soundness, and this move is a big step toward that goal. Alliance Defending Freedom commends the Trump administration, and especially the leadership of the FDIC and OCC, for doing their part to ensure a fair financial system for all Americans.”

This is good news. In 2021 Family Council’s credit card processor — a company owned by JPMorgan Chase — terminated our account after designating our organization as “high risk.”

At 10:29 AM on Wednesday, July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor saying, “Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business. We wish you all the luck in the future, and hope that you find a processor that better fits your payment processing needs.”

Within 60 seconds, Family Council could no longer accept donations online. The processor never explained why we were labeled “high risk.” All we can do is speculate that our conservative principles and our public policy work might have had something to do with the decision to close our account.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Other organizations have had similar experiences as well.

It’s worth pointing out that last year, President Trump signed an executive order to protect fair banking for all Americans, and JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have taken steps to prevent politically motivated debanking.

Family Council is grateful to the many people and organizations who have stood up against debanking in recent years. After all, banks that are too big to fail are also too big to discriminate.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

This Supreme Court Ruling Has Major Implications for Free Speech

In a monumental decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that counseling conversations are speech and that states cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room.

In 2019, Colorado enacted a law prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy.” Under that law, counselors are free to engage in pro-LGBT counseling, but they cannot help people who want to overcome their same-sex attraction or gender confusion.

But last week the Court delivered an 8-1 opinion saying that Colorado’s law against so-called “conversion therapy” violates the First Amendment.

Our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom helped litigate the case. In a statement, ADF said:

Kaley Chiles is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado who seeks to listen, guide, and help young people find peace in their own bodies. With their parents’ support, these clients come to her by choice—seeking honest, compassionate care.

But a Colorado law passed in 2019 forbids her from helping kids find peace in their own bodies, even when that’s exactly what they want. If she does, she faces crushing fines and the potential loss of her license.

Colorado’s counseling censorship law violates Kaley’s freedom of speech and that of her clients by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing—even encouraging—conversations the government favors.

This is clear, viewpoint-based censorship.

In a video interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, ADF senior counsel Jake Warner said, “Colorado has been no respecter of the First Amendment. ADF has litigated multiple cases, including up to the U.S. Supreme Court against the state of Colorado in its effort to censor ideas that it disagrees with.”

Warner also said the ruling helps protect counselors not only in Colorado, but in at least 23 other states and over 100 local jurisdictions around the country that have enacted similar bans on “conversion therapy.”

Many people want counselors to help them overcome unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, and many medical experts — like the American College of Pediatricians and the HHS — believe that encouraging a child to disagree with his or her biological sex is harmful.

In Arkansas, multiple “conversion therapy” bans have been filed at the Capitol over the years, but none have passed. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case shows that Arkansas’ lawmakers were right not to enact these flawed measures.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.