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 ...
Freedom is a hate crime.
NM list PING!
I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics
To see NM articles by keyword, click here:New Mexico Keywords
To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Remember how the libs pooh-poohed the idea that this was the beginning of a slippery slope?
This is messed up - it will touch every aspect of our lives outside our front doors.
There is already a running thread on this article.
Dissolve the company and start again.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, ...........
I wonder if the company asked up front what type of marriage it was, then rejected it, would it still be an issue?
A private business should be able to refuse any potential customer.
I have been a contractor for many years. I turn down jobs all the time because I think the customer is a deadbeat, prick or because I just don’t want to do the work for someone. I don’t want or need the government to tell me who my customers will be.
there fore Jack the price up to where they go elsewhere.
No one is right here. But of course, the studio has the “right” to turn down a paying customer, which I think is foolish, but it should be their right.
The “public accommodation” argument is terrible. The couple is wrong. Everyone is wrong.
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
Why would anyone want a photographer who is being FORCED to take your wedding pictures?
Would the same judge force a Muslim to photograph a Jewish wedding?
Make it so your standard sales contract has a limitation of damages clause that limits any damages to the purchase price. Then “accidently” leave the lens cap on the camera for your gay weddings. Refund the money after the wedding for your “mistake”. Soon they’ll get the message.
Gotta link? Don't see one with the same title or under NM topics or keywords.
Personal freedom and freedom of religion is a Constitutional right, and trumps ANY so-called “Anti discrimination” legislation
This is BS. God bless the owners for fighting this outrage.
Wil refusing gay sex be discrimatory soon?
Wil refusing gay sex be discrimatory soon?
discriminatory
Wouldn’t it just be a pity if their eyes were closed in every photo?
But muslim checkout clerks at grocery stores can refuse to wait on you if you have pork in your cart.
*head spins*
This is like the thread from yesterday where the lady refused to rent to a soldier.
This is like the thread from yesterday where the lady refused to rent to a soldier.
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?
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.
Let’s put it this way: DON’T run a kissing booth at the state fair.
Businesses should be able to turn down whom they please for whatever reason. It’s a private business!!
Businesses should be able to turn down whom they please for whatever reason. It’s a private business!!
And people can refuse to sell birth control stuff too...
I just don’t understand why the couple just didn’t find another photographer. This makes no sense to me.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I thought involuntary servitude was a crime...
Exactly... that's what I would do.
It’s about FORCING straight people into accepting or acquiescing to the homo agenda.
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.
Good question!
It makes no sense to you if you accept their "surface" reasons and don't look deeper at the REAL goal.
"Gay rights" is simply a weapon in the left's war on Christians.
“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.”
I agree; they knew this was the goal the whole time. These same freak shows can’t understand why I’m not disturbed by the increase in the number of Muslims here in NJ; I pooh pooh their complaints that they are a threat. I know what they are, and I know what the freaks are; I’ll just stand back and let them have at it.
Your logic appears to be that it is ‘foolish’ to refuse to do business with anyone at anytime for any reason as long as they pay.
If you say that is not your position, then you must draw the line somewhere, which the final arbiter would, by definition, be principle.
That is what these people are doing, just that their standards are somewhat higher than yours are. Their God is God, not money.
how about a person who refuses to provide flowers to a wedding of outright racists?
This is an excellent go around; you should contact the Photography Studio and share this with them:)
This just shows once again that a political hack in a black robe can conclude anything they care to conclude. “Public accommodation” should be limited to businesses such as retail stores, hotels, restaurants and others where the customer comes to the location where business is done.
When the service provider must travel to a specific location to provide the service, it should be left to the provider whether or not to accept the business. All sorts of things come into play like the safety of the location and whether or not it is within the service area, etc.
And this case clearly involves the free exercise of religion, or a refusal to be part of a ceremony which violates religious beliefs.
That question was posed in the court briefs and here is the court's answer:
Elane Photography argued that categorically refusing to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies did not constitute discrimination, but rather reflected its owners sincerely held religious and moral beliefs that prohibit the practice. Could an African-American photographer, under that rationale, be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally? Elane asked hypothetically.
“The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class,” the court noted. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”
And by the court's rationale, it's protected even though it offends those who would otherwise provide a service.
Don’t ever expect leftists to be “consistent” in anything but their hatred of Christianity and the “traditional” culture that is based on Christianity.
If supporting racists advanced communism and harmed Christians, they’d support racists.
This would work only if they could show they had another engagement to do or they decided to be on vacation that day....I am sure they would be dragged into court and have to prove why they couldn’t do the event...but then the couple could just pick another date, etc....
Half right ;-)
Dissolve the company and 'Go Galt'.
(That's what I did 20 years ago when the government told me how to run my business. I never regretted the decision.)
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.