← Them Before Us Podcast
Them Before Us Podcast
Them Before Us Podcast #097 | #GreaterThan Launches and a NY Photographer Wins against Bullying
00:59:18
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:09]
A
Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Them Before Us podcast. This is the Greater Than edition of the podcast. Basically, we launched Greater Than this week, so mark your calendars. It was 1 28, 2006, and it's either the day that will go down in infamy or a day that will go down in history. I feel like we're on the cusp of a historic moment, as I probably said those exact words when I was chatting with Katie about it later in this episode. And it's interesting. A few thoughts as, as we've launched, you know, we're getting pushback that. I mean, the. Who's the. The gay tennis player gal who is Eastern European Martina or something. I wanted to say Martina McBride. I think that's a country singer. Anyway, you know, she's pushing back. You know, a lot of it is folks who are saying, you want to destroy my marriage and my family. We've got people who are saying, Trump doesn't even care about this. All the conservatives are already on board with it. This is pointless. We have people, the normal is your homophobes and bigots and things like that. And, you know, it hasn't been crazy bad responses, no one threatening us, you know, at this point. But I did want to bring up one interesting line of disagreement that I told our staff. This is the kind that actually annoys me the most. And it's from the same, it's from the same team. It's friendly fire. And these were some messages that Katie got to her Instagram, which I run, by the way. And so people who are sending her hate messages just know she never gets them. She doesn't have to deal with her social media too much. Her Twitter is all hers, but I deal with her other stuff, so I take out the trash for her. Anyway, this gal wrote Katie on her Instagram and you know, she starts out saying, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, the reality is that the timing for this couldn't be more terrible. She's like, we have midterm elections. The country is falling apart due to ice riots. The Epstein files haven't been released yet, which hints that the government might be protecting pedophiles. The GOP is plummeting in the polls. Anti Israel sentiment is now popular all across the political spectrum. Both pro Israel and pro Palestine causes are ironically pro same sex marriage. So the right wing has never been more divided than it is right now on this issue as well. But on. But the fact of the matter is, most conservative voters, for or against it, no longer care about same sex marriage. Democrats and independents favor it three to one. I said in response to all that, when do you think would be a good time? And she said, I have no idea. But not this time, I'm sure of it. And I posed this question to our staff. I mean, really, the question is, when is a good time to stand up and do what's right? When is a good time to stand up for the rights of children? When do the Democrats want us to do it?
- [03:29]
B
Never.
- [03:30]
A
They don't care. No, never. When do the Republicans want us to do it? Also never. They also don't want us to stand up for abortion. Abortion's not a winning issue politically. Were the people who are against slavery doing it because it was political leaks to do so? No. When has a, when is this a social movement that is required been good timing? Was Martin Luther thinking, I think this is good timing for me to start fighting for civil rights. I do not understand that line of questioning from people, especially when they have nothing to say about what timing would be good. Unlike abortion, there's no public or political support to reopen that debate. You know, when abortion got decided, Roe v. Wade, I think there are probably a lot of people that said it's settled now, it's constitutional. But you know what happened? A group of people said it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter what other people claim is legal. Some things are right or wrong. Not because popular culture thinks so, not because the courts say so. There's an objective right and wrong here. And it doesn't matter if you think it's the wrong time for me to stand up to do it. If I'm convicted to do so, I have to. And that's what we're. We where we are at with mf, with this coalition we've built. Everybody has said it's. It's not about timing. It's that I can't sit still any longer. I can't sit and not say anything any longer. And we have good messaging for this. We have. The natural rights of children is the reason that we need to restore marriage to the proper institute, to what it really is, to the institution that it needs to be. And then she finishes. You know, she writes a lot more. I kind of just put it so I'm not seeing her anymore. Oh, Katie. The backlash against this campaign is so massive on social media, even among conservatives. The only thing you're going to achieve with this is making a Democrat the next president of the United States. At minimum. Again, we don't care about political timing. We don't care about political popularity. If it's time to stand up and do something that you believe is right, you have to do it. And you're actually going to hear a story, an interview later on in this episode from Emily Carpenter, who did exactly that. She didn't have the positive vibes, the vibe shift, the Trump second election or second administration that we have that we're operating under. She had to fight and stand up for what was right when she did not know if it was going to go her way or not. And spoiler alert, it did go her way. And we're super thankful. So hope you enjoy this Greater Than episode, the Be strong and courageous episode. And yeah, enjoy it. Subscribe, Share with People Go to our substack then before us.substack.com leave feedback on this. We'd love to hear from you. Anything you want us to talk about, even if there's things you don't want us to talk about. I like hearing it. Who knows, maybe I'll read your messages on the next episode. All right, thanks for joining us and I hope you enjoyed this episode. Katie, I'd love to know, and just for anyone who hasn't heard it, where did this idea, the idea of a marriage campaign, getting a coalition of all the biggest voices and names together to overturn Obergefell, where did that come from? Or why now? Why this year? Why did it?
- [07:03]
B
Yeah, well, you know what the answer is? It should have been last year. The answer is we started thinking about this just a couple months before the 10 year anniversary of Obergefell and went, wait a second, nobody really has tried to overturn this or challenge it at all. Maybe we should do that. But that kind of a campaign, that kind of a coalition, that kind of a strategy, it takes quite a long time to develop. You know, we started thinking about this last April and May, really started to gather our core partners in the summer, started to anchor some of our strategies related to judicial strategies, a cultural strategy, figuring out what we need to do to fortify the church. All last fall, gathering more coalition partners in November and December, drafting model legislation or suggested options for legislators at the very end of the year, working on that for a couple months and then finally bringing even more people on board once we had a formulated plan at the early, early weeks of 2025, and then preparing everything we need to go live with a website and graphic design and the video and everything. So honestly, it's my fault that we were not ready with all of this. Ten years ago on the 25th, I'm sorry, on the 10th anniversary of Obergefell. I'm just a little late to the take sometimes. So we're going to do it 11 years after the legalization of gay marriage, which doesn't have the same kind of poetic ring to it, but, you know, better late than never.
- [08:32]
A
Well, and we've kind of talked about, you know, if we could go back in time 10 years ago with the language that you've developed now, we might have been able to win the battle when we needed to. But also like you've talked about with getting doxxed and having or doing your blog secretly, you worked through so many thoughts, you were challenged in so many ways that you had to rethink. You communicated things. That period of time, whether you want to say wilderness or whatever, I don't know, it was a time of preparation. So maybe all of this just had to happen and get us to year 11 before it was, it was time and maybe the administration, maybe it had to be Trump to in office or it's just interesting to think what things maybe had to be in place for it to be the right time. And we're hoping, God willing, it's the right time and that there will be a lot of traction with this.
- [09:20]
B
I think there's some advantages to doing this today. I know that there are. One thing is we can see the things that don't work. What does not work when it comes to advocating for the marriage of one man and one woman in the legal space, what does not work is building a case based on Bible verses that does not work. That's very compelling for the narrow sliver of Americans that see scripture as their ultimate authority. It doesn't work. It doesn't help. I'd say it actually takes you backwards when you're talking with somebody that doesn't recognize the Bible as authoritative. What else doesn't work? It doesn't work to say we reject gay marriage because we want to protect a county clerk's religious liberty to not sign a marriage license. We reject gay marriage because we don't want to bake a cake or arrange flowers. I think religious liberty and freedom of conscience issues are preeminently important. It does not win when you are talking about persuading your countrymen because what do they hear? They hear, oh my brother who's been in a relationship with this partner for 15 years, they can't get married because you might lose your 501c3 status. That sounds very self serving. So we learned what doesn't work. What does work is saying, hey, children have been victimized and we didn't have to. You know, in 2015, many of us speculated about the harms to children. We now have 10 years of receipts showing how children have been victimized, how they've been reduced to legal accessories in policy because we've elevated a non procreative understanding of marriage in law. And the other thing is now, 10 years later, we've got our own media sources now. You know, in 2015, you had to rely on National Public Radio or CNN to give you a fair shake and like represent your side equally and beautifully. And they wouldn't, they didn't, they hated that. Now we've got the Daily Wire, we've got the Blaze, we've got American Family Radio. We have our own distribution channels to present our case honestly to our fellow countrymen in ways that I think is going to actually win. You can go to the website GreaterThancampaign.com you can take a little quiz. How much do you really know about gay marriage? You can look at our trailer video that features Josh Hammer and Ali Stuckey and John Stonestreet and Albert Mueller and see what these major Christian leaders and conservative influencers have to say about how gay marriage victimized children. We want you to be informed about this because it has been this silent killer as it relates to child rights in the law over the last 10 years and nobody has raised a finger to try to reverse it. So that is what we are attempting to do with our Greater Than campaign. We want you to go over there. Greaterthancampaign.org join our newsletter Follow us on Social media We're attempting to do what no other country has ever done before, which is in essence, reverse the revolution of the earth. That's kind of the legal equivalent of what we're doing. We're going to cause the law to spin not backwards but forward again. Right. The legal world of marriage and family has been spinning backwards for the last 10 years and we have to set that orbit right again. So, Jen, you've been a part of a lot of this. Our working groups, obviously, our effort to push things out on social media this past week. What have you thought about this so far? What did you first think when we said actually one of our biggest projects is going to be, yeah, let's overturn gay marriage? I mean, what were your thoughts when we first decided to do this as an organization?
- [12:54]
A
I felt amazed that we thought to do makes me feel like I get to be on the cusp of something that is historical. I was talking about this with friends the other day that I had used in arguments on Twitter that I thought Roe was going to be overturned in my lifetime. To me, it seemed like the science was just becoming undeniable. The technology was getting better and better. Young people were becoming pro life. I was like, it's going to happen in my lifetime. I was pretty confident about that. I didn't think it was going to happen five years ago or two years ago. I don't even remember the exact date. But the fact that it got overturned and returned to the states in my lifetime, when I'm young enough to be interested and still tweeting about it, I thought was phenomenal. And to think that we are kind of the equivalent of those people who, when Roe v. Wade got established by the Supreme Court, they said, okay, then this is the start of the pro life movement and the start of the fight. And that's what it feels like we're doing right now for marriage. And now I was thinking, you know, if a cynical person asked you, you think you're going to get Obergefell overturned this year, Are we like, yeah, totally, that could happen, or are we thinking, look, it doesn't actually matter to us how long it takes. It might be 75 years, but we're gonna build this into like the fabric of politics. That's what the pro life movement became of. Like the fabric of to be a conservative Republican. You had to sign off and check the box that you were pro life. And it would be fascinating if that was the amount of influence that this became.
- [14:37]
B
It better not take 75 years. It's going to take more than one, though, that's for sure. Because the fermentation of Obergefell has worked itself through federal law and state level laws, it's contaminated several different judicial rulings that have rolled down in the last 10 years. And it's going to take some time to reverse that. But the good news is we've got truth on our side. We have objective truth on our side. And I think that one of the reasons why we're going to succeed is because it is a truth that's self evident. Even more than children have a right to life when they're a five day old blastocyst. We know that children come from a man and a woman and we've met those kids who have been harmed when they've lost their mother or father. I think that there's a lot of people in the country that would say, oh, I support gay marriage because they think it's about helping gay people. But I think that of the vast majority of those people would also say, oh, of course children need a mother and father. Of course moms and dads are important to kids. They just don't know that they cannot hold both of those thoughts simultaneously. They have to choose. I support gay marriage or kids need a mom and dad. And I think that once we make the case to them, a lot more of them will go, objectively, kids need a mom and dad. And if that means that we can't have gay marriage, I guess we can't have gay marriage because children come from a man and woman and they need that man and woman. So I'm very optimistic. And I wonder if I wasn't around when the pro life movement was born. I don't feel like I've even been at the center of a lot of what they've done because we've been so busy with the work of defending children's right to their mother and father. I feel like I've been kind of have a front row seat to the right to life arguments that have been taking place. But I don't know if even the pro life world has ever had the kind of singular messaging and focus that we have at the Greater Than campaign that we have been able to build, because we have set right from the outset. You know, when I was inviting partners in and allied organizations and coalition members into this effort, I said very clearly, I said, here's the parameters of the work that we're doing. This will be about child victimization. We are not going to talk about religious liberty matters. We are not going to quote chapter and verse. Everything we're doing is going to be about child victimization. What does that mean? That means that we are not going to use the word sodomite or degenerate or suggest that all people who experience same sex attraction or identify as LGBTQ are abusers, because that results in people feeling like it's the gays that are being victimized by us. We are never going to give anybody an excuse to believe that gays are the victims. Also, you and I, we all have friends that identify as gay and lesbian and they deserve to be spoken of and thought of with dignity. But we are never going to flinch or relinquish our critical drive to defend children. So that means we're going to go into some very unpopular territory. So we were able to, before we started this effort, set down kind of the, the rules of operation for everybody that joined our coalition, knowing that everything that comes out of Greater than HQ is going to singularly focus on child protection. That will be our one message. And as a result, we've been able to build this huge coalition. We probably have 70 partners, individuals and organizations. More than 40 of them are represented on the website. There's three more that agreed this morning. I mean, it's just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. Why? Because we've been very clear right from the beginning about exactly who we are and what we're going to be saying and what we're not going to be saying.
- [18:17]
A
That's so good. And I know that we part of building this coalition. You did what you called working groups. And I can think of, I think three. I think you had like a judicial legislative working group, a cultural working group. I think you had a religious one as well.
- [18:35]
C
Can you talk a little bit about.
- [18:36]
A
Why you had those working groups? And then were you a part of each of those conversations? And what was sort of the different, the different strategies and arms of what greater than is hoping to achieve, like through the different facets I guess, of culture.
- [18:54]
B
We knew right from the beginning that we would never succeed unless we were successful in three different arenas. First, we needed a judicial strategy that actually had the possibility of success. One of the reasons why nobody has tried this in America for the last 10 years is because nobody could figure out what that pathway was. I had talked to people in the policy space, people at the heads of different organizations, and I had asked them over the years, why isn't anybody working to overturn Obergefell? These are like lawyers, constitutional lawyers. And they would say to me, it can't be done, it's impossible. And I spent some time learning and studying and then talking to other legal voices and realized they are right. It can't be done if we do it the way we've always done it. So we're going to do it differently. And if you are a state level lawmaker that would like information about that, you can go to our website and send us a message and we will read you in to some of the ways that can be done and give you some specific direction if you'd like to be a part of this. But the overall judicial explanation is Obergefell required that we flatten any familial distinctions in law. You could not recognize gender in family law, so you had to remove words like mother and father and replace it with parent one and parent two or guardians. You couldn't recognize that biology was an important part of the parent child relationship. That was just like Adoption. And it was just like intent based parenthood or de facto parenthood where somebody could just claim to parent a child if they were married to the child's other parents parent or they created that child through reproductive technologies. Infertility was redefined so now it wasn't a medical condition, now it was a social condition. So that insurance companies were required to subsidize the manufacturing of motherless and fatherless children for same sex couples. What you see is like a complete neutralizing of any of these distinctives of the family in law that children that really matters to children. So what is our judicial strategy? It's simply to force those distinctions to re emerge in law. Insist that we use the words mother and father, not parent one and parent two. Insist that only biological parents go on the birth certificate. You can't just put an unrelated adult on there as if they have a claim to the child. Prioritizing, elevating, incentivizing a child's own mother and father married and raising them together. Once you insist on those biological realities outlined in law, you are going to fundamentally undermine Obergefell and really cause the courts to make a choice. Are they going to value children's right to their own mother and father or are they going to say that a state assigned adult who's unrelated to them offers just as much benefit to kids? And the answer is obviously no, they don't. So that's the judicial strategy that we have been working on over the last few months. But we also realized it wasn't enough to just have a credible pathway for judicial success. We need to change public opinion. We need to change the way Americans think about marriage. And so we got this amazing coalition of influencers from, you know, Michael Knowles and Ali Stuckey and Lila Rose and Josh Hammer to Ron Coleman and Heidi St. John and Abby Johnson and Delano Squires and the Babylon Bee guys, you know, to all get in this coalition. And their job is to help people immediately connect the dots between gay marriage and child victimization and natural marriage and child protection. So hopefully you're going to see a lot of voices in the conservative space making that explicit case over the next few weeks and years. And then we also needed.
- [22:46]
A
Oh, sorry, can I just interrupt you for a question about the cultural group. I was just thinking that you made a point that we have our own media now. It's the new media. I think Daily Wire is a great example of that. The Babylon Bee is a different kind of media or not. The B we have free more freedom on X now. And so the mainstream, sort of those big news organizations don't control all the streams of how you get to people anymore. But it's fascinating to think, I think Ali B. Stuckey said this because there's a lot of debate in this current moment about immigration and ice, and she was talking about. It's. She's like, it's my job to help women, like white, more liberal women or very empathetic Christian women are really buying what's happening. Hook, line, sinker. And Allie wasn't saying we need to do propaganda, but she's saying we have to improve our messaging to win people over to the right way of thinking. So I love that we have those people now because of the work they've been doing for decades, you know, a decade and however long for different groups, and they've put blood, sweat and tears to establish their audiences. And then the smart thing in our, in our job is getting all of them together and equipping them with one singular message. Help us translate this to your people is going to be huge. That's how you change. Yeah, we talk about we want to change hearts and we want to change hearts and minds, and you do need both. It can't just be, let's do bleeding heart, get people on our side. And we have no legal strategy. And it can't just be the law if people. We're seeing that a little bit with abortion as well. Right. There's a lot of states where the hearts have not been changed yet. Okay. And then. Sorry, I interrupted you, but the final group, I think you were going to say was a religious group.
- [24:36]
B
Yeah, we have a church working group where we've got leading Protestants and leading Catholics that are working to create materials that communicate what the church teaches, what the Bible prescribes for marriage, but then goes beyond that and talks about what we know about the social science and why. You know, there's three distinct characteristics of marriage that is outlined by Christ when he's challenged by the Pharisees, but they're like, hey, divorce, what do you think he says? A man shall leave his father and mother be joined to his wife. The two shall become one flesh. What God has joined together, let no man separate. What three characteristics from marriage do we hear in that one verse? Number one, that it's complementary. There is complementarity there. It's male and female. Number two, that it's monogamous. It is a one flesh union. There's only two people in it. And number three, it's supposed to be permanent. So each of those three different attributes of marriage has a very specific child benefit and compromising on any of those, the permanence through no fault divorce, the complementarity through gain marriage or the monogamy through polyamory or polygamy or extramarital affairs or premarital sex, all of that implicates and damages children. So we are going to make the case that the family, that marriage as God intended is God's plan A for child protection. And then we are going to tell the church that their primary job is not to be welcoming and affirming of adults, it is to be protectors of children. And then we're going to make the case from scripture and from history that this is one aspect of our pure and undefiled religion before God. This is what Christians have done everywhere, all throughout the centuries. And we hope that as a result of the materials we're creating, we will turn the church into a child centric fighting force.
- [26:24]
A
Maybe really quick you could answer an objection that maybe some of our listeners, Christian listeners or religious people might think is why can't the state just stay out of marriage? Marriage is a God thing. God created it. It's for the church to, to talk about and decide. And we don't want to get involved with this campaign because we don't want the state involved in marriage at all. What's our response to that?
- [26:45]
B
It's a question that a lot of people have and I would encourage you to go to greater than campaign and you can go to the Learn More tab. We've got a whole section of Q and A and that's one of the questions that we answer. And then in essence the answer is, oh, you don't want the state involved in marriage. What does that mean? I mean, does the state then not legally define what is a parent and what is a child? Is there no definition of spouses? Are they supposed to completely get out of questions about alimony or custody? I mean, what that means is the state is not involved in reinforcing the true definitions of marriage and all the accompanying relationships. Somebody will define them. It's just going to be a definition that is much farther away from the realities that are going to be child protective and elevate that institution into one that actually serves all of society, not just the adults involved. So, you know, we conclude that question with if you want the government out of marriage, don't think that leads to freedom, that leads to tyranny. That's what it does. So if you have other questions, there's a really good chance that we also address to those. There's a really good chance that we also address those come to Greater Than campaign. Learn more, sign up and join us.
- [28:03]
A
Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Them Before Us podcast. Today's guest is Emily Carpenter. She is a New York wedding photographer, Christian mom of three. It's three, right?
- [28:13]
C
Yes. Three boys.
- [28:15]
A
Three boys.
- [28:16]
C
Three boys.
- [28:17]
A
Oh, my gosh. Awesome. Okay. Christian mom of three boys. Creative entrepreneur who found herself at the center of a major First Amendment case a few years ago. When New York State attempted to compel her to create wedding photography and written content celebrating messages that conflicted with her Christian beliefs, Emily chose to stand firm despite the risk to her business, her livelihood, and her family. As you guys can all imagine, even a few years ago, the hostility that this would have brought about. And after years of litigation, defended by Alliance Defending Freedom, yes, her case resulted in a decisive victory for free speech and religious liberty. We're so thankful for it. And we're going to hear the the happy ending. But behind the headlines was a woman navigating pregnancy, motherhood, business ownership, and an emotionally grueling lawsuit, all while trying to honor Christ faithfully. Today, Emily joins us to share her story, what this fight cost her personally and what she hopes Christians will take away as they live out their faith in a culture increasingly hostile to it. Emily, thank you so much for joining the Them Before Us podcast.
- [29:20]
C
Thank you for having me.
- [29:22]
A
Okay, so for listeners that maybe didn't follow your case, can you share a bit about your family and the business you were doing, how it started, and just what your life looked like before any of this? The drama started.
- [29:34]
C
Sure. So context. My lawsuit was filed in 2021, so if you backpedal just a few years prior to that, I was a semi recent college grad. I had been working in corporate America for a few years and I always had wedding photography in my back pocket. And so I decided to leave corporate, just wasn't really my cup of tea. And I went full time with my wedding photography business in 2019. I was newly married at the time, no kids. And actually I had received a wedding inquiry because again, I did photography on and off for many, many years prior to going full time all through college. And while I was in college, I had a very close friend who identified as gay, actually a very dear mentor, so to speak, in the photography space. For me. He was getting married and he asked me to be his wedding photographer. So it was kind of this conflict of feeling honored. He was a very close friend. He got me started in the photography space. He sold Me, my first camera, but then also having this tension of holding to Christian biblical beliefs on marriage. And so that was kind of what started this whole trajectory of trying to understand how to navigate living out my beliefs in a non biblical, a non biblical culture. And so that was circa 2019. That was when I went full time with my business. I had this episode in my, in my rear view mirror where my friend had asked me to do his wedding photography. I met with him and his partner. Ultimately I did decline that. But then when I went full time in 2019, it started all this dialogue in the back of my head like, oh my goodness, I'm going to continue getting these inquiries. I was getting inquiries and so I did not know what to do. I was very, I was just, I was anxious and I'm naturally not a very anxious person. And I probably just impart my upbringing just seeking answers and wanting clarity. I, I felt like I needed, I needed some clarity on this matter in order to effectively run a business and not knowing what my rights were. So that's kind of what started everything. I, I reached out to alliance defending freedom in 2020 and then I ultimately filed the lawsuit in 2021. So that's like a little bit of context. And then in 2021 I had my first child. So from 2021 to 2025, which is when litigation wrapped up, I've had three babies. So it has been quite an interesting journey.
- [32:36]
A
Yeah. So was there a particular law that you were nervous about which is why you went to All Freedom?
- [32:44]
C
Yes. So in 2019, when I filed my business, I had one friend, coincidentally an atheist, not a believer at all. The only friend I knew who was a lawyer. And I reached out to him and said, hey, these are my beliefs about marriage. What are my rights? Like, where does that leave me? Can I operate my business in line with my, in line with like traditional biblical worldviews on marriage? And he was the one that first exposed me to what's called public accommodation laws. Those are state by state and New York state did have public accommodations laws and they're pretty stringent and pose pretty serious fines. I could have faced jail time. I could have faced like hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines. Obviously my business could be closed down. So they're seen as discrimination based losses. And of course we are arguing that I am not discriminating based on gender or gender identity because I do serve people who identify as gay or lesbian. I, I would serve anybody no matter how they identify. But I, as an artist, am also celebrating certain messages and the message of the wedding union is not one that I'm able to create with a clear conscience. So that's kind of like the distinction. It's not a discrimination problem, it's a free speech problem, because I will serve anybody and all people. But there are specific messages I wouldn't want to create. This certain marriage unions being one of them. So that was kind of the distinction.
- [34:23]
A
And that any of these cases that we've heard about from alliance, defending freedom, that went up to various levels of the court, it was always true that the woman who was doing the flowers, the guy that was doing the cakes, the woman who was making the websites, always served people, regardless of identity. They loved and cared for people. They had long term relationships with customers. Yeah, they always served everybody. The distinction was always there was a certain line of messages they were not willing to promote. Right. And that's where, you know, kind of the progressive side, they really don't allow for any distance. They. They say it's full 100. Everything we say you have to do, you have to do and.
- [35:08]
C
Right.
- [35:09]
A
I'm thankful I've talked about this with some of the other. The other gal that we interviewed who's doing a case that's going up. It went up to the Supreme Court, actually. The fact that Baronell had to do what she did, and I don't think she got a good outcome. Jack Phillips had a good outcome, but he got, you know, how many decades has he been in court now? But the fact that those folks have come before you, I think have set the groundwork that now folks like you don't have to be as afraid, which is really awesome.
- [35:39]
C
Yeah. And that is, I mean, to me, that's one of the beauties of this. Of course, I'm hoping that this can pave the way for other Christian artists and other, even folks my age, like other Christian millennials, to have some confidence just to cling to Christ, carry their cross. I mean, the, the downside of, of moving forward with this is it comes. It comes at the cost of your reputation. And people then know, okay, this person is like uncloseted, for lack of a better word. I kind of felt like a closeted Christian pre lawsuit. Then you're kind of exposed, but you no longer have this anxiety. You have a freedom to just unapologetically point to Christ and be honest. And it is, it is a hard balance of being truthful and loving. Because of course, now, on the other side of a victory, now I have the beautiful gift to share my beliefs with people. And those who are inquiring with wedding services. But you don't. Now, I don't have to shy away from that. I try to find a balance of lovingly and gently navigating how I'm explaining my beliefs to them. But there is just. There's so much beauty in just being honest with people. And honestly, that's a way of sharing the gospel. I mean, you're, you're not ashamed of what you believe or how God has designed the world. And there's just, there's so much freedom in that because I feel like pre litigation I was kind of like just feeling this anxiety of, like, these are my beliefs and I don't know how to live them out. And now post litigation, I just feel like I'm thankful that there. That I have, that I have paved this way of hopefully inspiring other young entrepreneurs or other young professionals to also live out their faith. Because it is hard. It's a, it's a crushing weight of feeling like a Christian when nobody around you is. But there's. Yeah, there's just a lot to be said about finding our identity in Christ and just leaning into that because Christ was the ultimate sufferer and we are, we can count it, our joy to follow in his footsteps.
- [37:54]
A
That's good. Such a good word. Okay, so what was the, the next thing that happened? You went to alliance defending freedom. They agreed to take your case, which is awesome. And they don't charge you as a person.
- [38:06]
C
Right.
- [38:06]
A
So they have donors, they operate off of people donating. And so did you have to start going to court, filing out paperwork? What was that like for you?
- [38:14]
C
Yeah, it's kind of like highs and lows. There's highs and the level of involvement, like how involved I have to be. There might, if there was a certain development, like, for example, we lost up front, we appealed it, and then ultimately we won at the second after that appeal. But that was like a four year process. Right. So like, just usually at those peaks, there was, there was like media that might come out of it, or interviews that might come out of it, things that required me. But there was also lulls. So there was, there was times where it was very strenuous and very stressful. One time in particular, I, I think the lawsuit had been filed for like six months, and there was really nothing noteworthy going on in the case. I had my first son about six months after that. Out of left field. Jen. A local newspaper just dropped an article. There was nothing going on. So of course we're not really expecting any attention. It Was as if anybody in my region who did not know about it then knew about it. And it was literally the day I had my baby. And I am holding my baby in the hospital bed, hormonal, emotional, obviously in discomfort. And I'm having hundreds of DMs, unspeakable things being said about me, texts friends, like, I'm worried about you, are you okay? All while holding my one day old baby. So it's like there have been moments like that that have been very, just emotionally exacerbated and very painful. But then there have also been. There have also been just like months on end where there's been nothing and it's just litigating. It's kind of in the background waiting to be heard by a judge. So it's just been, there have been times where I can kind of coast and then there have been times where I've had to like buckle down and lean into my family and my community, which thank God I have a great one. And they have been very supportive. That's been invaluable, I think, when you're going through something like this to feel seen and supported by the people around you.
- [40:33]
A
I don't know who said it, but there's a quote that says all we need for evil to prosper is good men to do nothing. And it makes me think that this is the reason though so many good people do nothing. The other side really has designed their opposition to make sure even if you do try, you're gonna get swarmed so fast by just like you're saying, most of those people probably didn't have violent intent in the sense of were they actually gonna come do something. But it's still the same feeling of scariness. There's people who probably knew your address, there's people who are trying to expose or threaten to dox you. And you have a one day old baby. And you know, the average person listening to this, that's maybe considering, oh no, I need to consider legal, you know, approaching a legal resolution to this thing. That's unjust. They're like, I don't want this to happen to me.
- [41:29]
C
And to be, to be fair, like there has been a lot of really incredible things that have come out of it too. I am one that loves, I love, truly, I diversity, I love that. And there have been a lot of really cool, never would have happened before conversations had this not been filed. I have no problem at all sitting down with a person with whom I disagree and having a really great conversation. And of course we have family Members on my side, on my husband's side, who identify as part of the gay community. And so there have been a lot of conversations because we initially, when we were going to file the lawsuit, we reached out to each of them whom we had a relationship with and said, hey, just so you're not caught off guard, this is being filed. We love you. Kind of like both of us, like, we respect you, we disagree with each other, kind of like, agree to disagree. We love you. And all these conversations would not have happened had we not moved forward with this. So there have been a lot of silver linings where you really do get to experience the true meaning of tolerance and diversity, which I think is, especially in the world of, like, social media, that is. That's really not a thing. Like, if you disagree with somebody, you troll them. So that has been one beautiful outcome and that there have been a lot of great conversations and relationships have been formed where otherwise they might not have been there. You know what I mean?
- [42:50]
A
That's awesome. Well, and it's just showing that you absorb and have to take in a lot of the bad, but you have a lot of the good as well that's going to come along with it. And we just. I guess ultimately we just don't want people to be afraid of doing what's right. This has been a theme I've thought about the last few days. I just watched this movie called the Darkest Hour. Have you heard of it?
- [43:11]
C
Oh, I haven't.
- [43:12]
A
It's Winston Churchill.
- [43:14]
C
Oh, cool. Yeah.
- [43:16]
A
Anyone who loves a good British drama, you know, it's the King who stutters, so that's the King's speech, can go into the Darkest Hour, but one of the. And actually it leads to another movie. Have you seen Dunkirk or heard that story?
- [43:31]
C
Yes, yes.
- [43:32]
A
So, you know, at one point, all of 300,000 British troops are all trapped on the, you know, on. On the edge. Germany is advancing on them. And Winston Churchill makes, like, orders a group of like 3,000 men to attract all of the tanks, all of their fire in another location to give them time to evacuate the 300,000 men.
- [43:55]
C
Yeah.
- [43:55]
A
Now, here's the thing. You watch in this scene, he gets the telegram, you're not being evacuated. Like, those 3,000 men. The point was they were going to die to save these 300,000. And I was thinking, did they even know that it was successful? Did they die before they knew their sacrifice, what it meant, but that they didn't require knowing the outcome before they did what was right? And I. It's such an Emotional like it caught me so off guard. You see the sacrifice of people and now your sacrifice. You didn't go die.
- [44:26]
C
Yeah, thankfully.
- [44:28]
A
But people really are sacrificing comfort. You know, you had to have difficult conversations with friends and family, but you being willing to do that had these broader implications for the law, for other creatives like yourself. That's awesome. But you just shared too, you had a lot of connections and conversations with folks you wouldn't have otherwise had.
- [44:50]
C
Yeah.
- [44:50]
A
And from a Christian perspective as well. I don't think God necessarily wants us hiding things or what we believe just so we can, quote, live at peace with everyone more than he wants us to. To live in a way that's true. Truly loving to people. You know, truly loving someone is not pretending that two men can get married or two women can get married. Like as Christians, that's not an option for us.
- [45:14]
C
Yeah, sure.
- [45:15]
A
But the true love and truth are actually what change people and help them to know who God really is. And so people being willing to do that I think is so huge. And we're so thankful for that. So you're having little babies, you're in this years long litigation process. When does it start to make a shift or when do you, do you think it's going to be hopeless for a long time? When you first got dismissed, did you have a sense it was going to change what happened?
- [45:46]
C
Yeah, so yeah, it was, I would say for the first few years. So it was a four year long, just over four year long battle. I would say for the first few years it was just uncertainty. You're kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop at this point I'm, I'm getting bad reviews, I'm getting from, from naysayers, for lack of a better word.
- [46:09]
A
And could you work during this time or no?
- [46:12]
C
Yes, I could. I could, yes. And so I'm still trying to operate business as usual, but I'm still seeing fallout. I'm being kicked off of the knot, I'm being kicked off of the wedding wire. I'm being kicked out of referral groups of, with other fellow photographers and peers who disagree with my worldview. So I'm seeing fallout in that way, but I'm still just trying to put the nose to the plot, whatever that saying is. I'm trying to press on and still operate my business to the best of my ability, but it's getting more difficult. And so it was in 20, it was recently, it was about six months ago when we kind of out of left field saw a. Well, I Guess it wasn't out of left field. We saw a turn for the better. And that was when my preliminary injunction was granted. That is what it's not a win an end all, be all win. But that is when we saw the judge give me what I wanted out of the lawsuit during litigation that had upfront been denied. So that would be like allowing me to respond to inquiries the way I wanted, allowing me to share my. My beliefs on my website. The. The things that I was asking. Out of the lawsuit, he granted temporary relief. And I think that was kind of like the white flag of like, okay, this is going somewhere. And the lawsuit wrapped up like a few months later. So that was awesome. But prior to that, it was just kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop. I didn't know. And of course we had lost and then we appealed and yeah, you don't know. I had to be deposed at one point. That was very uncomfortable. Have never been in a room before where I truly felt like every person in there hated my guts. And that was not fun.
- [48:09]
A
Your lawyer doesn't get to sit with you or how does that work?
- [48:12]
C
No, he was in there for. But there were a number of other attorneys on the other side. They just have to do whatever they.
- [48:20]
A
Want kind of thing.
- [48:21]
C
Yeah, yeah, the world's their oyster. And I was not comfortable. That was very hostile. So, yeah, that all was kind of in a whirlwind. Probably the first three years and then the last year it was kind of like all of a sudden the preliminary injunction was granted and then we were able to wrap things up. Within a few months, New York settled and I was able to make the changes in my business that I had been requesting. Like I mentioned, one was to be able to actually share my beliefs. Because one thing to note is New York's law, public accommodations law is especially stringent and especially there's much more severe threats than there are in other states. So some of those I had mentioned about the fines and the jail time, but even to the extent of how the limitations that I had pressed upon me were so far reaching, like literally could not state on my website that I believe marriage should be an exclusive union between one man and one woman. Like that could be. That could be seen in violation of the public accommodations law. Even how, how you're responding to inquiries, the speed in which you're responding to inquiries, how you're marketing, if you're showing a certain style of couples, any. Any of that can be misconstrued. I don't know if misconstrued is the right word, but it can be seen in violation of that law.
- [49:53]
A
So you, you would. Because that was one of the things I was wondering is, you know, could you make a Google form and when they type in that they're male, you just never reply to them. Would be a. Considered like, considered violating this thing.
- [50:05]
C
Yeah, it could be. From what I understand, it could be. And honestly, I felt like, because I had a lot of photographers when I followed this, even Christian. Christian photographers were like, why don't you just say you're unavailable? And I just felt like that was dishonest. Like, if you hold to these beliefs, you might as well just be forthcoming about that. Like, it just felt like you're missing the point if you need to hide your beliefs and try and circumvent this admittedly very uncomfortable situation. It's just that that felt wrong to me. It felt like I might as well just be honest to what the Bible says about marriage. Because ultimately the marriage is meant to be a picture of the gospel. So it's like if you are, if you are not willing to share the gospel with said inquire, inquiring couple. It just felt like a mess. Like, I would rather not lie and say I'm unavailable when I am. And I would rather just say, I love you, I respect you. My beliefs differ about marriage. I would prefer to give you a recommendation for another photographer and I wish you all the best. But it just didn't feel right to me to say I was unavailable. Because ultimately that doesn't, that doesn't fully line up either. I mean, they might respond and say, oh, actually flexible on our date. And then I'm like, oh, your, your foot's in your mouth at that point. You know what I mean?
- [51:33]
A
Yeah, I think honesty is much better. Like you're saying all these other things wouldn't have happened if you just. And I do think Christians sometimes think again. Living at peace with everyone means as long as I don't say what's true, as long as I keep it hidden. And even people talking about there's some arguments about what does it mean to have the free exercise of religion. And people will say, well, that doesn't mean you can pray outside at the abortion clinic. It means you can be in your own home or. But then you take it to like a North Korea, a China. Well, I mean, technically you're allowed to be a Christian in your own mind as long as you don't shut your eyes and pray. It's ridiculous. That's not what our founders thought when they said free exercise of religion, it meant be able to stand in front of the abortion clinic, not impeding traffic, which other protesters don't have a problem doing. And it means you should be able to gather with the people who you agree with. You should be able to shut your eyes in public, should be able to sing, walk around, and pray. Right. All these things. It's not intended to mean in the quietness of your own heart. As long as no one knows you're praying, you're allowed. Yeah, that's not what it means.
- [52:43]
C
Right, right. And I feel like we do live in the United States of America, where diversity, democracy, it's a very pluralistic society. And ideally, we would truly. I say this sarcastically, ideally, we'd be able to live that way. And it just. It felt like me, as a Christian artist, it felt like the government was forcing me to comply to their beliefs about marriage. And so, obviously, I just want to live out my. I want to be able to operate my business in a way that aligns with my faith. And it just felt like a lawsuit. While that was extremely uncomfortable and while it came at a cost, it did feel like there wasn't another option in order to be able to effectively do that, which is sad. I mean, it's sad that that is the. That's the reality.
- [53:36]
A
Yeah, for sure. So tell us about the moment that you learned you guys had won your case.
- [53:42]
C
Yes. Oh, my gosh. Well, it was a. It was a wonderful moment for me. It was a wonderful moment for my husband. Honestly, Jen, I was especially happy for the sake of my husband. He is a very. He is a peacemaker. He is. This lawsuit has been worlds outside of his comfort zone, where I'm a little bit more of like a justice seeker. Like, this feels unjust, and I feel like we should do it. He's a little bit more like, very reserved and just a pacifist, for lack of a better word. And I was. I was thrilled for his sake especially. Of course, I'm happy to be able to. To. To run my business and in line with my religious convictions, but just the peace then that it created in our home with three young boys. He's trying to protect our family. And I was. I was thrilled for the. The burden that it lifted off of my husband's shoulders was. Yeah, it was incredible. But for me, I was prepping for a wedding. I had a wedding the next day. I was actually getting a pedicure, getting ready for my wedding, and my attorney called me and let me know that it was in the works. And such a joyous feeling being able to have confidence again, I think in running a business because like I said, you. I just felt like it was so challenging to try and push and try and run a business when I didn't know what my legal rights were, when I didn't know what threats were on the other end, what fines were on the other end. So it was just. It's been awesome now about. I'm about six months post litigation and post victory and it's been awesome like really being able to spell out my beliefs on my website and be able to now respond to same sex inquiries or other inquiries that convey an anti Christian message. All of those. Now I in full confidence can explain my beliefs as gently and lovingly but honestly as possible. So that's just been awesome. Like having this newfound confidence to actually invest in my business where I feel like I lost a bit of that sparkle in litigation when I was experiencing all this fallout of, of even clients and friends and I lost some of that. I feel like my confidence was stripped for me a little bit and now it's just been really cool. Starting to see my business blossom again. So I'm so thankful. And I've been having so much fun like jumping headlong again into building a business and entrepreneurship.
- [56:18]
A
Yeah, that's awesome. So as part of you want to put this court case up on your website, if you have a problem with me, don't try it. That's what I would want to do.
- [56:30]
C
I know, right? I, I do spell out my beliefs pretty, pretty candidly on I have a faith page and I just felt like so much of my, of my business as a wedding, photography and marriage, it's. It's just an ode to the gospel. So I have now built out this Christian webpage and that's been really cool because a lot of people who share my beliefs really resonate with that and that's been really, really cool. Connecting with other faith based couples and then the folks who disagree with that worldview, I feel like they can't, they can still reach out if they have questions. I've had some of those hard conversations with past clients who wonder who maybe found out about my lawsuit and were wondering more. I've been able to have have conversations like that with those clients. But yeah, now I, I don't have the banner, but I have at least been able to be more truthful. Yeah. More candid about what I believe. And I think that just kind of inherently attracts or repels people. Yeah, right.
- [57:37]
A
No, it's awesome. All right, Emily. Well, where can people find you?
- [57:41]
C
Yeah. So my, My website is my name, emily carpenter.com and my name is spelled with two E's instead of A. Y, E, M, I, L, E, E. And I'm also on Instagram, Ely Carpenter, llc. Those are probably the two best places to find me.
- [57:55]
A
Awesome. So if you're in New York and you're looking for a Christian photographer with courage who spells out her faith clearly, then you got to go find Emily. And Emily, I think that's awesome, too, because the fact that you were wanting to have it on the website before, you weren't trying to do a bait and switch with people. It wasn't like. Right. Get them through the process, then. Oops, sorry. Actually, I can't serve you because. Yeah, you want to do a gay wedding. It's. You were trying to have it out there ahead of time. And I have the freedom to do that, which is awesome.
- [58:23]
C
Yeah, for sure.
- [58:24]
A
Thank you so much for sharing your story, for going through all that hard litigation so other entrepreneurs won't have to. Did the law get changed in New York or how did that work?
- [58:34]
C
I probably, I couldn't speak to, like, I guess the exact legal. I couldn't speak to that in its entirety. I think I was. I. I think my business was deemed that it was not in violation of the public accommodations law. I think that would be the appropriate way to say it.
- [58:52]
A
Okay, good. Well, there we go. Other businesses now in New York, you are safer because of these rulings. So, yeah. Thanks so much for sharing your story and we'll make sure we put all the ways to find you in our show notes. Thank you, everyone, for listening.
- [59:07]
C
Thank you, Jen. I appreciate you.