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: 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]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Yeah. I’m sure the pictures would be “Fabulous”


51 posted on 06/05/2012 9:38:21 AM PDT by Kozak (The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home JM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Fine. Simply adjust the focus on the lens and take some wonderful shots that look like you are viewing the photos through a fish scale.


52 posted on 06/05/2012 9:38:38 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys=Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat, but they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Goldwater was spot on about predicting what would happen with this part of the VRA.


53 posted on 06/05/2012 9:39:20 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister

I don’t see why they didn’t just say they were busy or closed that day?


54 posted on 06/05/2012 9:39:28 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 31 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Maybe honesty plays a role in their religious beliefs.


55 posted on 06/05/2012 9:41:08 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ √ě)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Are the perverts that started all this STILL TOGETHER ?

If so, I predict they will now separate, now that they WON !


56 posted on 06/05/2012 9:43:46 AM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Engedi
You're probably right... *sigh*

I'm glad I'm not in a business where I have to deal with this crap. I feel bad for those who do, like this Christian photography studio.

As someone said upthread, I really wonder if this district judge would force a Muslim to photograph a Jewish wedding?

57 posted on 06/05/2012 9:45:51 AM PDT by nutmeg (So... Clinton was our first black president, and Obama is our first gay president?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

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

Exactly. Every time I see two men kissing, my response is , “Yuchh”. How gross.

I’m sure it would show on my face. I’d be a huge downer at their wedding. What would they do, argue with me about it after the fact? They insist I take pictures, I’d take pictures. But Ewwwwwww.


58 posted on 06/05/2012 9:47:35 AM PDT by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

I have a friend who does wedding photography and general photography. A woman once approached him and asked that he make nude photos of her. He turned down that business opportunity.

But it’s not illegal to make nude photographs of adults, and apparently even adult porn isn’t illegal some places. This case could lead to a situation where general photographers and videographers could not turn down any sort of photo shoot as long as it was not illegal to produce such photos or video.


59 posted on 06/05/2012 9:47:46 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

Simple, they’d side with the Muslims.
The only consistency on the left is their hatred for God and His people.


60 posted on 06/05/2012 9:48:11 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 57 | 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