A federal judge has temporarily stopped New York from making a Christian photographer provide services for same-sex weddings against her beliefs.

According to the Christian Post, A U.S. District Court ruling granted Emilee Carpenter a preliminary injunction, stating that her wedding photography constitutes artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.

The decision, issued Thursday by Judge Frank Geraci of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, said Carpenter's services are a form of personal artistic work guided by her moral and religious principles.

Carpenter challenged New York's public accommodation laws, arguing that being compelled to photograph same-sex weddings violates her rights to freedom of speech, religion, and association.

The laws in question are part of New York's Civil Rights Law and Human Rights Law, which prohibit businesses open to the public from refusing service based on sexual orientation, among other categories.

The judge ruled speech protections outweigh state law

In his analysis, Judge Geraci determined that Carpenter's photography is a medium of individualized expression and not merely a commercial service, making it entitled to First Amendment safeguards.

“From start to finish,” the judge wrote, Carpenter offers highly customized photography shaped by her own artistic choices and moral views.

The judge ordered a preliminary injunction that prevents state officials from enforcing the nondiscrimination provisions against Carpenter while the case proceeds through the courts.

New York’s enforcement was blocked during a lawsuit

The ruling means Carpenter cannot be compelled by the state to offer engagement or wedding photography services to same-sex couples during ongoing litigation.

Under the order, she is also allowed to screen clients by asking questions that help her identify whether the event they’re requesting involves a same-sex marriage, which she finds incompatible with her faith.

Additionally, Judge Geraci wrote that New York cannot stop Carpenter from publishing a policy on her business website stating that she does not photograph same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs.

Case reconsidered after key Supreme Court ruling

This case has had a long procedural history. In 2021, a federal court initially ruled against Carpenter.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, where the justices decided a website designer could not be forced to create wedding content for same-sex couples against her beliefs, Carpenter’s case was sent back to the district court for reconsideration.

The district court’s latest ruling closely follows the reasoning in that Supreme Court case, particularly in asserting that custom creative services like photography count as expressive conduct under constitutional law.

Photographer says ruling protects creative freedom

Carpenter is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group known for representing clients in religious liberty and free speech lawsuits.

Bryan Neihart, a senior counsel at the organization, praised the decision, saying Carpenter’s right to choose how she expresses herself artistically is now safeguarded.

“Free speech is for everyone,” Neihart said, adding that the court ruling affirms Carpenter’s ability to continue serving clients of all beliefs without being forced to create work that contradicts her convictions.

Wider legal implications and past cases

Although Carpenter was never sued for turning down a same-sex wedding client, others in similar situations, such as Aaron and Melissa Klein or florist Barronelle Stutzman, have faced costly legal battles for declining to participate in same-sex ceremonies based on their faith.

In one landmark decision in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, concluding that the state’s treatment of him was hostile to his religion.

Carpenter had faced the possibility of stiff penalties under New York's law, including a fine of up to $100,000, loss of her business license, and even criminal penalties of up to one year in jail.