I wouldn't want to Photograph Ms. Willock either.
Posted on 03/11/2008 1:00:09 PM PDT by No Dems 2004
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — As a Christian, Elaine Huguenin is against efforts to legitimize same-sex “marriage.”
So, when the Albuquerque photographer was asked via e-mail in September 2006 to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for two women, Huguenin declined. That was the end of the matter, she thought.
But Huguenin didn’t take into account New Mexico’s anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a civil complaint against Huguenin’s company, Elane Photography.
Now, in one of the first cases of its kind in the state, a three-member tribunal of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission is considering the complaint brought forward by New Mexico’s Human Rights Bureau, operated by the Labor Relations Division of the state’s Department of Workforce Solutions.
The tribunal will decide whether Huguenin should pay actual and punitive damages to Willock because of her decision not to take pictures of the homosexual ceremony.
Established in 1969 by the New Mexico Legislature to enforce state law preventing discrimination based on race and gender in employment, housing and public accommodation, the human rights commission is taking its first steps to incorporate a 2006 expansion of the act to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Seems like this flies in the face of the constitutional protection against forcing contracts on individual citizens.
How is this not denying her the free exercise of her religion?
Why did she tell them the reason? Just say “No.”
How about a heterosexual's right simply to be left alone?
sure, there ‘is no threat to heterosexual marriage if gays are allowed to marry’. Sure.
There is just that threat to all society (the overwhelmingly vast majority, btw) that does NOT want to engage in whatever perverse activity is being ‘tolerated’.
The ‘gay rights’ movement is as big if not a bigger threat to America and Americans than the abortion movement. While more lives will be lost through abortion, more Americans will give up their rights, dignity and standards under duress in order to have ‘gay rights’.
A business owner ought to have the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. It's a matter of property rights. Now, it's a dumb business model, and if I were a business owner, I would not discriminate against any customers. But the fact is, the rights of business owners were taken away when anti-discrimination laws were pushed.
It is unaccountable, out-of-control “Human Rights Commission”s in Canada that are going hog-wild in the service of muslims and gays there.
It is a provincial “Human Rights Commission” that is prosecuting author and columnist Mark Steyn over his latest book.
You mean like Health Insurance in MA?
“The tribunal will decide whether Huguenin should pay actual and punitive damages to Willock”
What, exactly, was damaged? Feeeeeeeeelings?
>>This is why ‘anti-discrimination’ laws are a bunch of rubbish. If you’re the owner, you can turn down business if you want to and you shouldn’t be harrassed for it. This should be proclaimed loud and clear as to why the homosexual agenda TAKES RIGHTS AWAY from Americans. Amazingly, gay marriage is illegal in New Mexico yet they have the gall to pull this stunt. Wake up, America . . .<<
This wasn’t even a gay marriage - it was a private ceremony. I don’t see where there can be a requirement for a business to participate.
I would think a business would be allowed to not do business with blacks or Jews or anyone they choose unless their business is housing, or a place of public accommodation, like a grocery store. There is no right to be photographed by a certain person.
I don’t think that refusing to take the job is discrimination in employment, housing, or accomodations. Now if the gay couple refused to hire her because she was staight and against gay marriage (or the other way around), that would be a case
Yes, but once we went down the road of proptecting minorities, then the further road of adding "sexual preference" to the minorities list, this becomes the equivalent of saying "we don't serve blacks".
That is how the left is destroying our culture.
At this point, we can still avoid having health insurance if we want to. The irony is that we give up a so-called tax break from taxation which should not be levied in the first place.
They are good people.
They were in court on this matter a few weeks ago.
Yet another example of the garbage that’s been going on right under the GOP’s nose, yet there’s never a word, and why I’m jumping ship.
She shouldn’t have lie about this to avoid Gov’t involvement - it can be tracked almost scientifically - Gov’t interference and intrusion into personal freedom turns everyone into liars and destroys bonds that hold society together. For example, people are more charitable when there is no Gov’t involvement. The less onerous taxes are, the more taxes people actually pay. There is a very clear pattern here.
Or the freedom of association?
Not in Mass. -- the state fines anyone who doesn't purchase health insurance.
This kind of thing has been going on for several years in parts of Europe and in Canada. And with leftists running the governments in so many states and very likely the federal government after November we can expect to see a lot more of this. It doesn’t matter if the homosexuals win this or not. What matters is that the cost in time, money and lost business will tend to cow others and push the homosexual agenda as effectively as a win.
There should be no place for “Human Rights Commissions” in our legal system. The probability of abuse is obvious and amply illustrated by this case.
I’m not trying to defend the case against her. I’m just saying that if they want me to do something that I don’t want to do because they are gay, I’m not going to volunteer that’s the reason.
Make em work harder than that.
“The tribunal will decide whether Huguenin should pay actual and punitive damages to Willock because of her decision not to take pictures of the homosexual ceremony.”
So, this Willock is saying “gee. I want the photographer who disagrees with what I am doing, making my wedding album.”?
I want Halle Berry to paint a picture of me in the nude.
Can I sue if she refuses?
Wow. This is what passes for freedom these days? How tragic.
Too true.
After this is defeated I hope they countersue for the emotional and financial strain of this frivolous lawsuit.
I swear when I clicked on this article I thought it was about some goings on in some third world country.
This is the biggest piece of crap I’ve ever seen. The photographer’s personal beliefs are the reason she didn’t want to take the photo’s and to say she is criminal for not doing so is DICRIMINATING AGAINST HER!!
It’s a two way street....or at least it should be if it was genuine.
This is why a legislator in Kansas recently called homosexual agenda “alqueera”! They sure act like it (a lot more than the Christians they accuse of doing so).
“I know John and Elaine...
They are good people.
They were in court on this matter a few weeks ago.”
How did it go? Does it look like common sense will prevail?
Congressman Billybob
Another example of unequal protection due to anti-discrimination laws. A hetero couple has no recourse to sue this photographer for refusing to photograph their event, but a gay couple can. Looking for someone to punch, I’m best to choose the straight guy because I get more time for hitting the gay guy.
Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock...”
___________________
Vanessa = pervert
Take their money and shoot what she wants. Have fun with photoshop and give them slightly blurry photos.
This is exactly the work I have performed for 25 years.
I left CT because I was being put in exactly the same situations by lesbos.
I’m now in Florida. Tell me Florida law is different.
That is Hillary’s plan to force purchase of health insurance or have wages garnished.
What is more disturbing is the State of Mass health insurance is result of Mitt Romney as Gov isn’t it?
These arguments were made in 1964 by opponents of the Civil Rights Act but they did not carry the day. All those Walgreens in Alabama that would not let Blacks sit at the lunch counter were private too. The law says that a business is a 'public accomidation' and can not pick and choose who to serve based on race, religion and now flaming gayness.
The photographer's attorney hit the nail on the head:
"The complaint against Huguenin is about artistic freedom as well as religious freedom, according to her attorney Lorence.
“You’re saying the government can compel anyone to use their talents to further goals you don’t agree with,” he said. “Otherwise, there will be retaliation.”
Said Lorence, “If you give government the right to punish people for having a different opinion than the prevailing secular orthodoxy, you’re saying whoever controls government can suppress dissent. I think we embrace that idea at our peril.”
The law says that you can’t turn down the business.
It doesn’t say that you can’t charge a ridiculous price for it.
Smart photographers find other reasons to turn down the project.
I think that might be Mr. Willock!
The lesbos are suffering from Christophobia. Why are they not celebrating diversity now? They are clearly discriminating against the Christian, Jewish and Muslim beliefs that homosexuality is deviant behavior and is to be abhorred by these particular religions.
“Why did she tell them the reason? Just say “No.””
and why not? would that everyone would stand up for what is right!!
does it say that she told them why she was declining? i don’t see that part...maybe I missed something..
No proof as to who actually sent or replied to the e-mail. Case closed........
The law permits people to discriminate against Republicans in lodging and employment. It even didn’t permit additional charges when there was violence and vandalism targeted at families because they were Republican.
Whatever happened to the Constitutional freedom of association?
I would refer you all to a post on my Blog today about a so-called “hate” crime where a young hetero shot and killed a homosexual in school.
You need to scroll down to the bottom of the post but it’s a story that pins the blame of hate crime on the kid that did the shooting but there’s waaaaay more to the story than was reported.
http://patfish.blogspot.com/2008/03/true-crime-two-college-coeds-murdered.html
If Sen. Sheets Byrd’s fellow Klansmen wanted to have a wedding in full dress, should a photographer be required to accept their job?
What about for a 70 year old marrying the youngest teen allowed by law?
What about for a non-legally binding polygamy marriage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.