August 23, 2013 - ReligiousLiberty.TV Posted on 08/23/2013 10:00:45 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
August 23, 2013 - ReligiousLiberty.TV
[dc]Y[/dc]esterday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s decision not to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony even if it would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs. In 2006, Elane Huguenin, owner of Elane Photography, declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that she had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation and ordered her to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.
[caption id="attachment_6018" align="alignleft" width="146"]
Elaine Huguenin[/caption]
Vanessa Willock, who requested the photography, is an Equal Employment Opportunity representative with the University of New Mexico.
Huguenin had argued that they were not opposed to photographing gay customers but that their Christian beliefs prevented them from doing so in a way that would endorse same-sex marriage.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Richard Bosson recognized the restrictions on liberty from the decision, but claimed that the court was advancing a greater good. “In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”
Cases involving the conflict between nondiscrimination policies and individual religious freedom are increasing, as is the notion that religion should remain between a personal matter residing solely in the mind and not affect one’s conduct in society. One can respect the right of two people to commit themselves to a same-sex marriage, but using the power of government to force others to express themselves artistically in ways that support that decision is a violation of basic rights of conscience and the First Amendment.
[caption id="attachment_6019" align="alignright" width="170"]
Vanessa Willock[/caption]
ACLU deputy legal director Louis Melling wrote, "Today's opinion recognizes the sincerity of those beliefs, but makes clear that no one's religious beliefs make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others.”
Responding to the court’s decision, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel, Jordan Lorence, said, “Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country.”
This case will likely be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. As of this writing, the state of New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriages.
Public opinion appears to side with Huguenin, as a Rasmussen poll last month found that “If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American adults believe he has the right to say no.”
The Decision in Elane Photography v. Willock is available here: http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf
###
Many businesses have “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.”
I’d tell them that only real photogs still use film to ‘capture the moment’, shoot the whole gig then accidentally expose the film in a unfortunate dark room accident..............
that would work!!
if forced conduct requires actions that violate their beliefs - ie being at a faux gay wedding, having to go through that garbage - the court is stomping over those persons beliefs and forcing them to do things against their beliefs.
I think all businesses need to have large statements on windows and doors and contracts that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
So the court has sentenced the Christians to be slaves to the homos?
That Supreme Court needs to be impeached based on this decision alone.
Freedom of association. It’s a social event. She could just take really bad pictures, but that would end up in a lawsuit.
She could explain that the quality of her work depends greatly on how it is inspired and, well, what do you expect...
I really feel for Elaine. This has got to be devastating. I’d sell my equipment and do something else. About the only thing she can do is “with everything you do, do it as if you were doing it for the Lord”. In this case, it would mean doing a VERY bad job.
That Supreme Court needs to be impeached...
...for starters...
1. Take the pictures.
2. Charge $6,666.00 for the work as a standard fee.
3. Establish a suitable rebate for heterosexual couples.
if forced conduct requires actions that violate their beliefs - ie being at a faux gay wedding, having to go through that garbage - the court is stomping over those persons beliefs and forcing them to do things against their beliefs.
I wonder what law school New Mexico’s judges got indoctrinated at?
Simply put, not only have the states amended the Constitution to expressly protect freedom of religious expression as evidenced by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which New Mexico judges are wrongly ignoring, but the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights.
So New Mexico’s is actually in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which prohibits the states from making laws, like this pro-gay law, which abridge constitutionally enumerated freedoms like religious expression.
"A Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally different views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgement upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." [198 U.S. 75-6 (1905).
In short, the photographer had every right to not take on the job.
Christians are officially a lower caste than others
I’d close my business then open it again later. The court is saying that this photographer is the only one in that town? The gay couple was just looking for incitement.
New Mexico State Supreme Court. Next stop will be the US Supreme Court.
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.