The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Friday that Emilee Carpenter, a religious wedding photographer seeking an exemption to the New York Human Rights Law under the First Amendment, had enough factual basis for a claim and could proceed to the district court.

Carpenter sought a preliminary injunction for the New York law from the court because she wanted to express her beliefs under the First Amendment that marriage should only be between a man and a woman within her business, thereby denying to photograph same-sex marriages.

The district court had previously dismissed the suit for a failure to state a claim. However, following the 303 Creative LLC v Elenis decision from the US Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that the New York Human Rights Law and New York Civil Rights Law compelled Carpenter’s speech, and will be further remanded to the district court to consider a preliminary injunction and the implications of her other business activities, such as her marketing blog, to see if that also qualifies as compelled speech under the First Amendment.

The court also noted that “What 303 Creative did is clarify and reaffirm that in highly specific factual circumstances, a public accommodations law can be ‘applied peculiarly to compel expressive activity,’ thereby violating the First Amendment.” This ruling does not broadly allow businesses to deny patronage to same-sex couples unless the First Amendment is implicated.

Three provisions of the New York Human Rights Law are at issue because “place of accommodation, resort or amusement” includes any entity that provides a good or service, such as wedding photography. Failing to abide by the New York Human Rights Law is a misdemeanor. Members of a protected class who feel their civil rights have been violated have a cause of action against Carpenter in civil court as well.

The Accommodations Clause makes it unlawful for a place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement, to refuse accommodations or facilities to people in protected classes such as religion, sex, or sexual orientation. The Denial Clause makes it unlawful for public accommodations to publish or circulate any advertisement that the service will be refused to the individual on the grounds of a protected class. The Unwelcome Clause makes it unlawful for providers of public accommodations to publish or provide a notice that people in a protected class patronage are not welcome or acceptable.

The New York Civil Rights Law states that no person shall be “subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, or to any harassment . . . in the exercise thereof, by any other person or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.”

Previously in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the US Supreme Court stated that a wedding website designer in Colorado could deny the patrons who are in same-sex marriages from using their services because a state law compelled the designer’s speech under the First Amendment.