Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Studio Canít Turn Down Gay Weddings (NM - Christian photography business)
The Albuquerque Journal North ^ | June 5, 2012 | Scott Sandlin

Posted on 06/05/2012 8:54:59 AM PDT by CedarDave

A photo studio’s refusal to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled, rejecting the Albuquerque studio’s argument that doing so would cause it to disobey God and Biblical teachings.

It was the third loss for the studio, and victory for Vanessa Willock.

Willock first contacted photographer Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography in fall 2006 about taking pictures of a “same-gender ceremony” and was informed the studio only handled “traditional weddings.” When her partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, the studio responded with a price list and sent a follow-up email.

The Alliance Defense Fund, “a Christian legal alliance defending religious liberty, sanctity of life, marriage and the family,” stepped up to represent Huguenin and Elane. The fund didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission and District Judge Alan Malott have concluded in rulings in 2008 and 2009 that the studio violated the Human Rights Act.

(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: 2evil4words; 2sick4words; alanmalott; badjudge; homosexualagenda; lesbiangayagenda; perverpower; perverts; stockpilesong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-131 next last
To: Blood of Tyrants

Wouldn’t it just be a pity if their eyes were closed in every photo?


21 posted on 06/05/2012 9:11:11 AM PDT by proudpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

But muslim checkout clerks at grocery stores can refuse to wait on you if you have pork in your cart.

*head spins*


22 posted on 06/05/2012 9:13:02 AM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

This is like the thread from yesterday where the lady refused to rent to a soldier.


23 posted on 06/05/2012 9:13:02 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

This is like the thread from yesterday where the lady refused to rent to a soldier.


24 posted on 06/05/2012 9:13:16 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Everyone is wrong.

No, the studio is right in this instance.

the studio has the “right” to turn down a paying customer, which I think is foolish

You are implying that it's foolish to stand on principal if it interferes with profit?

25 posted on 06/05/2012 9:13:27 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
Remember how the libs pooh-poohed the idea that this was the beginning of a slippery slope?

Only the most ignorant and stupid libs would actually believe that this isn't exactly the goal of "gay rights".

Most libs revel in the idea that this can be used as a weapon against people with Christian beliefs.

I would assert that most of them that were "pooh-poohing" our objections were simply being dishonest.

26 posted on 06/05/2012 9:13:38 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Leep

Let’s put it this way: DON’T run a kissing booth at the state fair.


27 posted on 06/05/2012 9:14:49 AM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Businesses should be able to turn down whom they please for whatever reason. It’s a private business!!


28 posted on 06/05/2012 9:15:20 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Businesses should be able to turn down whom they please for whatever reason. It’s a private business!!


29 posted on 06/05/2012 9:15:20 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby

And people can refuse to sell birth control stuff too...


30 posted on 06/05/2012 9:15:35 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

I just don’t understand why the couple just didn’t find another photographer. This makes no sense to me.


31 posted on 06/05/2012 9:16:49 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

So I guess if they refused to photograph a polygamous marriage, they would get sued. When you celebrate perversion, you get filth everywhere, in every aspect of culture. ...These queers couldn’t do the decent thing, and go find a photography studio that wasn’t offended by them. They had to make a big legal deal out of it, in your face perversion. The instinctive revulsion they call homophobia is becoming reasoned hate.


32 posted on 06/05/2012 9:17:48 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Why would anyone want a photographer who is being FORCED to take your wedding pictures?

My thoughts exactly. Sure, they won and now the photographer "must" push the shutter button; but there is a huge difference between a good photo and a horrible one. So, "By order of the court, I must take your photo's. By the same order of the court, here is your bill for $1,200+" and here are some out-of-focus, poorly placed, poorly timed photos of the ceremony. Naturally, like every other wedding photo, the negatives belong to the studio, and you may select as many prints (at additional cost) as you would like.

Then, if I were the studio; I'd look to see if they scanned or duplicated any of the "copyrighted" material the studio took. I'd look in FaceBook and any other venue where unauthorized photographic copies may be placed. Then, because what is good for the goose, is good for the gander; we could go back to court to discuss any theft of copyrighted material, as per the standard contract.

33 posted on 06/05/2012 9:19:45 AM PDT by Hodar (Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.- A. Schopenhauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

> Why would anyone want a photographer who is being FORCED to
> take your wedding pictures?

I am certain sure that the homos will not hire the Christian photographer in the end. They will hire someone else.

They just want to punish the studio with court costs, time out of work, bad press, etc.


34 posted on 06/05/2012 9:20:40 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister

They didn’t simply find another photographer because it was probably never about the photographs - it was about punishing Christians for their Christian beliefs. They probably sought out a Christian photographer with the intention of setting up just this sort of conflict.


35 posted on 06/05/2012 9:20:40 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

I thought involuntary servitude was a crime...


36 posted on 06/05/2012 9:20:47 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
their mistake was TELLING them why they refused to take the Job, next time have the people fill out an application for services where all the names of the parties are listed as well as the event. All applications will be reviewed and a decision will be made within 48 hours as to whether or not we will be able to do the Job., Problem Solved

Exactly... that's what I would do.

37 posted on 06/05/2012 9:20:51 AM PDT by nutmeg (So... Clinton was our first black president, and Obama is our first gay president?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister

It’s about FORCING straight people into accepting or acquiescing to the homo agenda.


38 posted on 06/05/2012 9:21:17 AM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Why would anyone want a photographer who is being FORCED to take your wedding pictures?

BINGO! The answer, of course, is that these are radical gay activist that are simply looking for businesses to sue... to make a point. They don't care about getting pictures... If that was their concern, they would have moved on to the next studio.

39 posted on 06/05/2012 9:21:48 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snarkbait
Would the same judge force a Muslim to photograph a Jewish wedding?

Good question!

40 posted on 06/05/2012 9:21:56 AM PDT by nutmeg (So... Clinton was our first black president, and Obama is our first gay president?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson