Skip to comments.Christian Prosecuted: Refused to Photograph Homosexual ‘Commitment Ceremony’
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 didnt take into account New Mexicos anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a civil complaint against Huguenins company, Elane Photography.
Now, in one of the first cases of its kind in the state, a three-member tribunal of New Mexicos Human Rights Commission is considering the complaint brought forward by New Mexicos Human Rights Bureau, operated by the Labor Relations Division of the states 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?
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.