New York Court Rules Designer Violated Law After Refusing Lesbian’s Purchase
A lesbian reached out to a New York designer for an outfit for her future wife to wear at their wedding, but the designer refused to sell the outfit.
A New York appeals court ruled last week that a New York designer violated state law when she refused to sell a wedding jumpsuit to a lesbian couple, rejecting her argument that religious freedom allowed her to turn them away.
The five-judge panel unanimously upheld on October 22 a state Division of Human Rights finding that designer Dominique Galbraith, of D.Auxilly, discriminated against the couple. The lesbian couple was awarded $5,000 in damages, and the business was fined $20,000.
The designer had argued that her action was protected under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, according to Gay City News. She framed her argument around religious liberty.
The court, however, rejected that claim.
The lesbian couple, who lived in Missouri, said in 2023 they had reached out to designer Galbraith about a wedding jumpsuit after falling in love with the design on the company’s website.
In response, Galbraith said she wouldn’t be able to sell anything to the couple for their same-sex wedding because they are a lesbian couple. In an email, Galbraith wrote in part that she, “wouldn’t be able to make a piece for a same-sex wedding,” because “[i]t goes against my faith in Christ.”
The designer also told the couple to reconsider their feelings and their marriage, saying, “I believe Jesus died for our sins so that we would live for him according to His Holy Word. I know you both love each other and that this feels right but I encourage you both to reconsider and see what the Lord has to say and the wonderful things He has in store for you both if you trust and obey Him.” She then invited the couple to call her if they wanted to talk more “about Jesus.”
One of the women filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights.
Galbraith argued that the discrimination did not happen in New York because the lesbian couple was not in the state.
In rejecting that argument, the court said, “D. Auxilly is a New York business selling goods in New York, marketed as ‘made in New York,’ the transaction would have occurred in New York, D. Auxilly would have done the required work in New York, and the money paid for the garment would have landed in New York.”
It said, “D. Auxilly implicitly associated the City and State of New York with a discriminatory act, and the impact test is satisfied.”
Galbraith also argued she objected to same-sex weddings, not to queer people. The human rights agency that found she had violated the law in the first place said, “Same-sex marriage is ‘inextricably tied to sexual orientation.’”
Gay City News notes that, unlike other cases where arguments around religious liberty were upheld in anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination cases, this case involved an item that had been marketed to the public.
