Skip to comments.Wish for Tolerance Driven by Intolerance (Gay vs. traditional rights in NM)
Posted on 09/17/2012 5:49:30 PM PDT by CedarDave
Elaine Huguenin, who with her husband operates Elane Photography in New Mexico, asks only to be let alone. But instead of being allowed a reasonable zone of sovereignty in which to live her life in accordance with her beliefs, she is being bullied by people wielding government power.
In 2006, Vanessa Willock, who was in a same-sex relationship, emailed Elane Photography about photographing a commitment ceremony she and her partner were planning. Willock said this would be a same-gender ceremony.
Elane Photography responded that it photographed traditional weddings. The Huguenins are Christians who, for religious reasons, disapprove of same-sex unions.
Willock sent a second email asking whether this meant that the company does not offer photography services to same-sex couples. Elane Photography responded you are correct.
Willock could then have said regarding Elane Photography what many same-sex couples have long hoped a tolerant society would say regarding them live and let live. Willock could have hired a photographer with no objections to such events.
Instead, Willock and her partner set out to break the Huguenins to the states saddle.
Willock, spoiling for a fight, filed a discrimination claim with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, charging that Elane Photography is a public accommodation, akin to a hotel or restaurant, that denied her its services because of her sexual orientation. The NMHRC found against Elane and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.
The Huguenin case demonstrates how advocates of tolerance become tyrannical.
So, in the name of tolerance, government declares intolerable individuals such as the Huguenins, who disapprove of a certain behavior but ask only to be let alone in their quiet disapproval.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Well worth a read and Will's summary of how advocates of tolerance become tyrannical is right on the mark.
My question is: WTF are these “Human Rights Councils” and why do they have power over anyone?
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.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after watching a short video commercial.)
Yeah, that would have worked.
Exactly!!! This is so unconstitutional-—and there is no right to sodomy or immoral behavior-—which all unnatural sex is——and this person has every right to practice her religion in the public square, especially when her Religion was sanctioned by the Founding Fathers.
The Christian religion which is the foundation of our legal system and all Common Law is compliant in all ways to Natural Law Theory and Just Law. There is no right to sodomize anyone or use them in despicable, dehumanizing ways and a Christian can NEVER in conscience agree to encourage such EVIL dehumanization and misuse of the body. It is evil.
Christians need to get smart about being baited by the grievance mongers. A simple, “sorry, we’re booked for that day” will suffice.
“Christians need to get smart about being baited by the grievance mongers. A simple, sorry, we’re booked for that day will suffice.”
I agree. It’s baiting known Christian businesses to bring about test cases and lawsuits. Being a martyr is just stupid in these instances. “Sorry, that day is reserved and no one is available (because we’ll be celebrating not filming your ‘commitment’ ceremony.)”
That's the answer many Blacks received when trying to get rooms at large and small hotels back in the days when such discrimination was rampant. It didn't get very far then and won't now either. The difference of course is that racial discrimination is prohibited as it well should be (won't get far claiming a religious reason for such discrimination; even Mormons gave it up) whereas there are well-known biblical prohibitions on homosexual activity.
I should add that responding to a same-sex ceremony that way (booked for the day) after being told it is a homosexual union is just baiting the gay/lesbian zealots. They easily can call later to book a traditional marriage and get scheduled. Then you are trapped in a lie and their next stop is the lib-created Human Rights Commission.
The whole problem is with the civil rights act of 1964 and the federal courts twisting of the 14th amendment to force both States AND private businesses from discriminating against people for whatever reason. This totally ignores the first amendments freedom of association and so we have what is now a government forced association, no matter what your beliefs.
The problem is that once you give the government the power to force you to do business with one group of people it gives them the power to force you to do business with anyone they think should be “protected” from discrimination. Sucks but people thought it was all great when it was just blacks that were the people being discriminated against but once you let the camels nose into the tent the rest is sure to follow.
I hope they have some high powered attorneys for their appeal, and that they take it all the way to the Supremes. This is extortion, pure and simple!
I would also say that the best way to deal with this is to take the job and use it as an opportunity to “share the gospel” in as many ways as you can think of, like a T-shirt proclaiming homosexuality a sin and urging the attendees to repent or they will go to hell. They can’t fine you for your God given freedom of speech, at least we are not like Canada yet.
Congratulations queers. My indifference to you has now become unabashed hatred, disgust, and open opposition.
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.
Forcing people of faith to betray that faith is government not only redefining that person's religious belief but forcing them to become party to an event that's defined as sinful by that person. In the case of the photographer, the NM Human Rights Committee has essentially told the Christian photogs that they must engage in a pagan festival, a direct violation of their beliefs. In the case of an inn keeper there's less leeway because they're not engaging in a gay couple's sinful actions. This type of discrimination is the same as racial discrimination. Finally, there are provisions for conscientious objectors in time of war, so the concept of not forcing people of faith into sinful action is not without precedent and practice in the US.
Indeed, they are different. The problem is that homosexual activists will use that "similarity" to hammer Christian beliefs and claim intolerance. The lib-oriented HRC does not see that difference hence the court case. George Will in the article cites another case where the US Supreme Court has affirmed the right not to be compelled to be conduits of others expression.
Here is the link to the lengthy unanimous NM Court of Appeals decision ruling against Elane Photography. Do not read if you are watching your blood pressure:
We hold that Elane Photographys refusal to photograph Willocks commitment ceremony violated the NMHRA. In enforcing the NMHRA, the NMHRC and the district court did not violate Elane Photographys constitutional and statutory rights based upon freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the NMRFRA. We affirm the district courts denial of Elane Photographys motion for summary judgment and its decision to grant Willocks motion for summary judgment.
What's ironic is the definition I gave above of 'freedom of religion' came from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, something you'd think the NMHRC would be familiar with.
George Will in the article cites another case where the US Supreme Court has affirmed the right not to be compelled to be conduits of others expression.
Christians would do well to pick one of these "discrimination" cases and take it all the way to the Supremes.
I would say better do it quick lest Obama wins and gets to replace Scalia or Kennedy. But even with the current High Supreme Court, who knows what Anthony Kennedy would do? And now, who knows what John Roberts would do? He probably felt really good when all the pending hatred for him was instantly turned to admiration when he saved Obamacare.