Posted on 08/23/2013 6:48:09 AM PDT by markomalley
A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico's anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday.
Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography with her husband and is the business's principal photographer, refused to photograph the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.
The court held that "a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients" is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights Act "and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples."
"Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony," the court concluded, the photographer "violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."
The court rejected arguments that the anti-discrimination law violated the photographer's right to free speech and the free exercise of religious beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
Not a comparable thing at all.
They were probably looking for a photographer who would refuse to do the shoot so they could bring charges against him to show what will happen to anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda.
they’re also helping competing homo businesses by having the fedgov force the competitors out of business or cave into their demands... making it no longer worth it... which would result in the owner shutting down
this is all about helping homos
No, the court ignored the State's Constitution as well: see post 18.
This was the state Supreme Court, not the feds.
im certain that the complainants have no idea how POOR the results of any photo shoot where the photographer doesnt necessarilty WANT to be working would be...
I was thinking that if this case goes to the USSC, then this ruling will be overturned. But then I remembered John Roberts.
All in what?
10 years?
Every person, entity and agency that fascillitated this abomination is well ensconced and procreating.
America is done, folks
I’d appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
Welcome to Acirema where everything is upside down. According to the a%%hats on the NM joke court, businesses cannot post “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” AND businesses MUST tolerate all kinds of misbehavior, since “offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients” is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
Three words - MOVE TO TEXAS.
But that’s not hat happened and had the photographer been an atheist I bet we wouldn’t be talking about this, right now. This was not about upholding their gay rights. It was about removing Christian rights. When do you ever hear gays coming out against atheists? Most of them are atheists.
I hope this can be appealed. Unfortunately, the Roberts court will likely uphold the "human rights" law.
This is economics 101. This is why we fled England.
If two people are going to do business with each other they should agree personally. Neither one should have the government breathing down their back forcing them to do it.
Now those forced by the government to render their service have no incentive to do a good job.
If I were the photographer I would make all the photos suck. =)
Easy solution, take really crappy pictures and then sue when they refuse to pay.
Despite the fact that restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And still do.
Everything now is coming down to our lives decided by some PC judiciary. More signs of 3rd world-— where you have to know/bribe the judge for justice.
This should be appealed. Noone HAS to serve, in the business they own, just anyone. This is like saying a private business is a public toilet facility— must serve, as public accomodation. It’s a photography business. They could have taken their business elsewhere- instead, let’s hassle with a lawsuit to make our point. But— they are still queers.
She needs to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
They are focused on their law, and she is focused on her Constitutional right to free exercise.
Free exercise does not end with Free Worship.
A person’s religion is being exercised every minute of every day.
Exactly the same thing. Only difference is you approve of the state ordering a business owner to do the first thing but not the second thing. The principle is the state gets to order the business owner.
One step closer to them demanding that they have a RIGHT to have s3x with your child. Wow that sounds like the demands of those from a city that once existed—Sodom and Gomorrah.
Photographing such an event would make me throw up.
I can not tell if someone is a homosexual unless they tell me. (I can guess but not know for sure)
Being black is obvious, there is a huge difference.
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.