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 1-5051-100101-131 next last
The district judge, Malott, found the studio to be a “public accommodation” and therefore discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, or gender identity is prohibited. The NM Court of Appeals agreed with him.
1 posted on 06/05/2012 8:55:05 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Freedom is a hate crime.


2 posted on 06/05/2012 8:56:48 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt; Rogle; leapfrog0202; Santa Fe_Conservative; DesertDreamer; OneWingedShark; ...
The ABQ Journal article is free to read.

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.)

3 posted on 06/05/2012 8:57:21 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


4 posted on 06/05/2012 8:59:21 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

There is already a running thread on this article.


5 posted on 06/05/2012 9:00:35 AM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Dissolve the company and start again.


6 posted on 06/05/2012 9:01:12 AM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, ...........


7 posted on 06/05/2012 9:01:17 AM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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.


8 posted on 06/05/2012 9:01:36 AM PDT by woweeitsme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


9 posted on 06/05/2012 9:03:08 AM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

there fore Jack the price up to where they go elsewhere.


10 posted on 06/05/2012 9:03:28 AM PDT by SouthernBoyupNorth ("For my wings are made of Tungsten, my flesh of glass and steel..........")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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.


11 posted on 06/05/2012 9:04:33 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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


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

To: CedarDave

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


13 posted on 06/05/2012 9:06:23 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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


14 posted on 06/05/2012 9:07:16 AM PDT by snarkbait (<<For Rent>>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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.


15 posted on 06/05/2012 9:07:32 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
There is already a running thread on this article.

Gotta link? Don't see one with the same title or under NM topics or keywords.

16 posted on 06/05/2012 9:08:02 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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.


17 posted on 06/05/2012 9:08:02 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (Fat, drunk and stupid = Dumb, dependent, and Democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Wil refusing gay sex be discrimatory soon?


18 posted on 06/05/2012 9:08:51 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Wil refusing gay sex be discrimatory soon?


19 posted on 06/05/2012 9:09:16 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leep

discriminatory


20 posted on 06/05/2012 9:10:30 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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]

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

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.

41 posted on 06/05/2012 9:22:25 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 31 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“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.


42 posted on 06/05/2012 9:23:25 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
“But of course, the studio has the “right” to turn down a paying customer, which I think is foolish,...”

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.

43 posted on 06/05/2012 9:25:46 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Forget the GOP and build the Constitution Party, because the status quo is no longer the way to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snarkbait

how about a person who refuses to provide flowers to a wedding of outright racists?


44 posted on 06/05/2012 9:27:15 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

This is an excellent go around; you should contact the Photography Studio and share this with them:)


45 posted on 06/05/2012 9:28:57 AM PDT by Engedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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.


46 posted on 06/05/2012 9:31:05 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
how about a person who refuses to provide flowers to a wedding of outright racists?

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.

47 posted on 06/05/2012 9:32:29 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

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.


48 posted on 06/05/2012 9:33:05 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 44 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

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....


49 posted on 06/05/2012 9:33:15 AM PDT by Engedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: struggle
"Dissolve the company and start again.

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.)

50 posted on 06/05/2012 9:36:59 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 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