A Christian law firm will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.Posted on 04/11/2008 8:26:38 AM PDT by NYer
A Christian law firm will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.
Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs.
Jordan Lorence with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) represented the Huguenins. He contends the lawsuit reflects an attitude among homosexual activists.
"This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman," says the attorney. "This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches."
Lorence believes the Huguenins will win an appeal of the decision. But he warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs.
"There is a great threat to our religious liberties and our ability to speak out in favor of traditional marriage when these non-discrimination laws are interpreted in such a harsh way to censor Christians and others," he asserts.
Lorence said Americans do not surrender their freedoms of speech or religion just because they choose to open a business. He added that the Commission's decision is tantamount to the State of New Mexico forcing a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for a butcher shop.
Its really time for Americans to BACK their government.
This P.C. crap has GOT to be stopped while we still have a Country and a culture left to defend.
If I were the photographers, I would take this joke of a ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be. This is NOT Canada!
Under what authority does this commission have to levy fines towards an individual or private business? It has no authority equal to a court or a state regulatory agency.
I keep wating for the silent majority to lash back and instead may get President Obama.
violation of conscience more than just “biblical belief” it makes it broader and allows all people to object on the issue of sexual behavior.
This is an absolute travesty of social injustice. As a merchant, I reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE and I don’t need a reason.
The fact that the state has empowered a ‘commission’ to adjudicate issues and assess fines, even if only for ‘costs’ is patently ridiculous (but widely done, I know).
The appeal should be interesting.
“Lorence said Americans do not surrender their freedoms of speech or religion just because they choose to open a business.”
Suppose you say your religion prevents you from serving blacks...perhaps you are a hold-over of the old Mormon religion, with its belief that black skin is a punishment for sin.
If you refuse to serve blacks, you WILL be prosecuted and convicted. Same with drugs, etc - your religious beliefs CAN conflict with anti-discrimination laws and result in punishment.
“I reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE and I don’t need a reason.”
I don’t suggest you go to court with that approach. What you do in your home may be your business, as long as it doesn’t involve flush toilets or light bulbs. However, what you do in a public business is NOT just your business.
Anti-discrimination laws would have no teeth if your approach prevailed.
Absolutely!
I would appeal or burn my business and move out of state. I’d never pay it.
I have never heard of them, but it’s probably some very stupid commission the King set up before he grew a beard. From the same guy who gave a special award to a molester too...
This is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights and a Federal lawsuit should be filed against the Commission.
I do a lot of photography work. I clearly state I DO NOT DO WEDDINGS. Of any kind. Boy, things are getting weird in this country. How long is He going to tarry?
Jon and Elaine are fairly young (in their 20's) and were just married in the last few years. They are a little overwhelmed with the whole situation (which was a set up to establish a precedence).
Yep. This is one of the onerous legacies of the federal government’s 1960s Civil Rights “you-will-serve-black customers-or-serve-federal-time” laws.
Do you have First Amendment rights to discriminate in a public business?
Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.
I have mixed thoughts about the laws. On the one hand, discrimination is a bad thing. However, on balance I think the laws do more harm than good.
For example, I won’t own property to rent. Why? Because I cannot use my judgment in deciding who to rent to. If I convert a couple of my unused bedrooms into an apartment, I could be forced to rent to homosexuals.
Years ago, a guy refused to rent a house to my friends and I in Utah because we were Baptist. We didn’t sue anyone - just took our business elsewhere.
“Suppose you say your religion prevents you from serving blacks...perhaps you are a hold-over of the old Mormon religion, with its belief that black skin is a punishment for sin.”
Homosexual behavior like pedophilic and beastophilic behaviors are just that, behaviors. Comparing perverts to racial makeup is extremely insulting.
If the anti-discrimination laws include homosexuality along with race, then both are covered in like manner.
And while I disagree, homosexual activists claim it is genetic based, not an act of the will.
The best bet is to work to change the laws, but I think you will find it impossible to get gays dropped from anti-discrimination laws, or to repeal them altogether (as I would prefer).
Failing that, if you break them, you can get in serious trouble.
Equivalence of homosexuality and race is the law in many states. Insulting or not, if you violate those laws, you will be prosecuted - and lose.
Exactly. That is the problem with legislating anything more than the bare minimum required to keep the peace, and protect life, liberty and property. When government steps in, even the most well-meaning law can be used in ways that were not envisioned, for political purposes.
Law is a powerful tool that must be handled with care.
I am interested to know what the basis is for the legal authority of these “human rights commissions.” It sounds rather unjust; presumably, this is essentially a civil action, meaning there is a relatively low burden of proof.
And I have no doubt that they are staffed by “interested persons.”
Their attorney stated that he would:
If the New Mexico Commission, however, decides against Elane Photography, Lorence said that the ADF would appeal the decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
Their attorney stated that he would:
If the New Mexico Commission, however, decides against Elane Photography, Lorence said that the ADF would appeal the decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
"AD" laws shouldn't even exist, much less have any 'teeth'.
L
That said, whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"
Sometimes you just play the game. Do the photo shoot, make sure there is a dark smudge on the middle of the camera lens, and then show the photos to the dykes and apologize profusely. “Sorry about that. No charge”. You have to jam these kinds of scumbags right in the back where they deserve it. Rhetorically speaking, of course.
That means any individual, iirc.
It does not mean you can refuse service to a whole race, iirc.
Besides, there would be no legitimate reason you could name for not serving blacks as a group.
"Anyone" cannot include protected, preferred classes.
INTREP
Oh give us a break, leftist and liberals have been discriminating for years - one look at the media, colleges, and the govt proves this point. Many of the HR managers are extreme leftists who refuse to hire whites or anyone who who looks like they have morals and values. Claiming that people cant discriminate is just stupid. The last value of a deginerate society is tolerance. Tell me if you dont discriminate they why not just leave your choices for where you live, what you eat and where you work by chance. Outlawing discrimination is like outlawing free speech - a ban only promotes it.
The trail blazing California and Massachusetts courts have stampeded that sign into the dirt.
Under what authority does this commission have to levy fines towards an individual or private business? It has no authority equal to a court or a state regulatory agency.
—
Under what authority does this commission have to levy fines towards an individual or private business?
My exact thoughts too ... Bump!
This type of situation was a concern for folks who offer wedding services in MA, when the Supreme Judicial Court demanded that homosexuals be allowed to ‘marry’. I don’t know if any folks have been harassed by activists, but this shows that it’s always a concern.
The thing about homosexuality is that you'd never know someone was homosexual unless they told you or demonstrated it in some way.
Do a search on “gay wedding photographers” - there are TONS listed. I would love to see some straight couples try to do business with them and see how they are treated. In some cases maybe okay, but I am sure some would treat them like dirt. I am sending $20 to Elane Photography. They have as much right to choose their clientele based on their beliefs as the gay photographers do. I can just hear the ruckus if anyone advertised as “straight wedding photographers”.
Answer (http://www.dws.state.nm.us/HR-Info.html):
The Human Rights Bureau is a neutral agency created to enforce the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The Bureau accepts and investigates claims of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, age, physical and mental handicap, serious medical condition, disability, spousal affiliation, sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation.
Q. What is the Human Rights Commission?
A. The Human Rights Commission is comprised of eleven citizens appointed by the governor to conduct hearings involving discrimination complaints. The eleven members volunteer their services and are not employees of the state. A commission hearing may be conducted by a single hearing officer or a three-member panel. The final decision in every case is made by a three-member panel either on cases the panel has heard or recommendations form the hearing officer.
Q. What may I be awarded if I win my case?
A. Under the Human Rights Act, the commission may award actual damages, e.g., back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.
Are you affected by the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and if so, how?
* If you are an employer in New Mexico with at least four (4) employees, your employer/employee relationships are likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (there are some exceptions).
* In addition, if you run a business that offers its goods, services or facilities to the public, you are likely to fall under the “public accommodation” provision the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in such places.
* If you sell, lease or rent housing facilities, you also may be subject to the “housing” provision of the Act.
If you are subject to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is your responsibility to learn how to be in compliance. The Human Rights Bureau is here to help if you have questions.
Compliance with the statute includes displaying an informational poster (available by mail from the Human Rights Bureau or by downloading the PDF file) in your place of business.
If you have a question about a compliance issue for which you would like the Bureau’s assistance, you may contact our office and ask to speak with an investigator. Your call and the details of your question will remain confidential.
If you would like to learn more about compliance with the Human Rights Act, please consider scheduling a training session conducted by our Bureau. A trainer will come to your place of business or other location convenient for you and give a presentation to your managers and/or regular staff. To discuss scheduling a training for your business, please call our office or use our online training request form.
3) Determination Process
* The Division Director will review the case and make a determination of Probable Cause or No Probable Cause.
* Probable Cause means that the Director believes that the law may have been broken.
* If you receive a Probable Cause determination from the Director both parties will be invited to conciliate the case.
* Conciliation, like mediation, is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the matter themselves with the help of a mediator without having to go to a Commission Hearing or to Court.
* If conciliation does not resolve the matter, then your case will be scheduled to be heard by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.
* At this hearing you will have to prove your allegations of discrimination. The Commission does not see or review the investigative file.
* You can also request a Hearing Waiver within 60 days, which would allow you to file your case in State District or Federal District Court, rather than go before the Commission.
* No Probable Cause means the Director does not believe there was sufficient evidence to show the law was broken.
* If you get a No Probable Cause determination from the Director and your case is only filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, then you can file an appeal in State District Court in the county where the alleged discrimination occurred within 30 days from the date of service of the Determination.
* If your case is dual filed with the EEOC, then you can request a substantial weight review from the EEOC within 15 days of service of your Determination, or you can file an appeal with State District Court or Federal District Court, or you can also decide this is the end of your charge and not pursue it any further.
Are you just figuring out now that judges can rule by how they feel instead of the actual law? Ever hear of activist judges? The left figured out under the Clinton justice system that if you control the local and state courts while influencing the governor, you can have about an Federal policy you want and the local courts and police will enforce your will. Just like communists but at least the communists are up front about it and the only other difference is the communists use military while liberals use the courts and police.
This is very bad indeed and is happening with property righs and is now beginning to happen on a large scale.
I understand that. Harboring runaway slaves was also against THE LAW at one time. Just because it is the law has nothing to do with right and wrong, justice or injustice. Rules and laws are subject to interpretation, selective enforcement, and chosing to ignore or obey as one sometimes must see fit.
And hence why such anti-discrimination laws should be repealed. I hire blacks, gays or whatever because I care only about performance. But if a gay person tells me as a private business owner I must attend his gay wedding, I have a right to refuse. I live in Maine. The 54th of Maine led the attack on Fort Wagner with one of the first black regiments during the Civil War. Those who understand the right to be free and how to treat other human beings do not need legislation to tell us how to do this. Instead, promote education, not pass laws that force this on the population.
Civil disobedience on such laws will be the outcome, first non-violent, then armed. The Founder predicted such ad nauseum laws being passed someday and why the 2nd Ammendment is so very important.
“Do you have First Amendment rights to discriminate in a public business?”
What the hell is a “public business?” These are private companies, private businesses, owned by private citizens.
A lot of us, like me, were brought up to be tolerant, to have a live and let live, it’s a free country type of attitude, and I kept that well into adulthood. Besides, my family is so large, chances are there are at least one of everything somewhere amongst us. I would not dream of going out of my way to cause anyone any grief.
But I find myself being pushed by the intolerance of others—and it’s the very people who NEED tolerance who are doing the pushing.
Counter culture people don’t just want tolerance, they don’t just want equality, they want everyone, everywhere, forced into at least silent acquiescence. They want it mandated by law! They don’t care who they hurt, they don’t care what it costs, they don’t care how it forces others into situations that are untenable for society as a whole.
This annoys me. I find myself thinking badly of groups that I didn’t even care about, before. This lesbian couple is a great example.
I think it's different in this respect: the photographers didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay. If two lesbians came in and requested photographs of their rose garden, it would be like two black people, or two communists, or two Muslims who wanted photos of their garden. No problem.
The problem was was not the people who asked for the photos, but the activity they were asked to photograph: a commitment ceremony they believed to be illegitimate. That is more like communist wanting photographs of their pro-Castro rally, or Muslims wanting pictures of their 15-y-o daughter's arranged marriage with her 40 year old uncle. It was the "occasion" they found offenseive, and which they didn't want to be a part of.
Which is why I think the photographers will win their case.
Ultimately, though, I do believe that business people's right to freedom of enterprise should be respected. The state should not be able to require anybody to enter into a contract against his will.
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.