Steve Tennes rents his Country Mills Farm for weddings but excludes same-sex marriages for religious reasons—which led to his ban from the city’s farmer’s market.
by Massimo Introvigne
The Steve Tennes case in Michigan is an interesting example of how anti-discrimination statutes may end up creating discrimination. Courts are faced with difficult choices, but in this case ruled in favor of religious liberty.
Tennes operates Country Mills Farm in Eaton County, Michigan. In addition to selling award-winning fruits and vegetables, he offers “family fun on the farm” by arranging visits and rents his premises for weddings.
Tennes happens to be a fervent Roman Catholic and does not rent his farm for bachelor or bachelorette parties, nor for same-sex weddings. The court agreed that in no way does Tennes act in a disrespectful way towards same-sex couples. He simply “respectfully directs wedding inquiries to another mid-Michigan orchard” that would host same-sex weddings.
However, alerted by postings on social media in 2016 the city of East Lansing decided to ask Tennes not to attend the city’s farmer’s market, where he had operated a stand for several years to the satisfaction of his customers. Tennes decided to cease renting his farm for all weddings for the year 2016, thus not discriminating between different categories of them, and was allowed to continue attending the farmer’s market.
However, in December 2016, he announced that it will welcome again weddings “between a man and a woman” in 2017. The Tennes case led the city of East Lansing to amend the regulations of its farmer’s market to specifically include a provision that vendors can sell there only if they comply with the municipal anti-discrimination statutes. When Tennes applied to attend the farmer’s market in 2017, his application was denied citing the new anti-discrimination provision.
Tennes then sued the city of East Lansing, represented by the lawyers specialized in religious liberty cases of the Alliance Defending Freedom, and obtained a preliminary injunction from a federal judge that allowed him back to the market while the case proceeded. On August 21, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, ruled in favor of Tennes. Citing recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, the court constructed the case as one of freedom of religion.
The judge noted that the fact that the policy of Tennes’ Country Mills Farm was governed by his Catholic faith was obvious. As a consequence, “Defendant’s [East Lansing] 2017 decision to deny Plaintiffs’ [Tennes] application substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion. Defendant relied on the revised 2017 vendor guidelines to deny CMF’s [Country Mills Farm] application to participate in the ELFM [East Lansing Farmer’s Market]. The stated reason for the denial was the Plaintiffs’ decision not to rent the venue for same-sex weddings. Plaintiffs’ decision was motivated by religious beliefs. Plaintiffs were forced to choose between their religious beliefs and a government benefit for which CMF was eligible.”
On December 15, 2023, having reached a settlement, the parties submitted to the court a joint agreed request that the Court enter judgment for Tennes and a permanent injunction. The city also agreed to pay Tennes $825,000 for damages and attorney’s fees.
It was a classic case where two rights conflicted, religious liberty and the right of same-sex couples not to be discriminated. Courts in the U.S. generally examine the different circumstances of each case, although they are becoming more protective of freedom of religion. In the East Lansing case, the city had modified a regulation to target one particular vendor, and one who managed its operations quietly according to his faith rather than engaging in rabid anti-LGBT preaching. The question whether renting a farm for same-sex weddings (or, in alternative, not renting it for any wedding) should be a pre-requisite for being allowed to sell that farm’s fruits and vegetables in a public space was also solved, I believe, according to common sense.
