Skip to comments.NM Supreme Court: Christian Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings
Posted on 08/25/2013 7:47:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In New Mexico, professional photographers may not refuse to work at gay weddings, that state's Supreme Court decided Thursday.
When Elane Photography refused to work for Vanessa Willock at her same-sex wedding, the Court said, it violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based upon sexual orientation.
"First, we conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," Justice Edward Chavez wrote for the majority.
Chavez also wrote that refusing to work at a same-sex wedding is equivalent to refusing to work at a mixed-race wedding: "Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."
Elane Photography is not protected by their rights to freely exercise their religion, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution, because the NMHRA is a "neutral law of general applicability," the Court said. This means that the law does not target a specific religious group when it restricts Elane Photography's religious freedom.
In the proceedings, Elane Photography argued that it did not discriminate based upon sexual orientation because it would have photographed same-sex couples in other contexts. It was only the conveyance of a same-sex marriage in the company's photos that conflicted with the owner's religious beliefs.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Richard Bosson said that Elane Photography must be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of "the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. ... it is the price of citizenship."
"The idea that free people can be 'compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives' as the 'price of citizenship' is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom," said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and one of the lawyers for Elane Photography. "Americans are now on notice that the price of doing business is their freedom. We are considering our next steps, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to right this wrong."
In a Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults conducted last month, 85 percent of respondents said that a Christian wedding photographer should be able to turn down work for a same-sex wedding.
I’d stop advertizing and just pick up work by word of mouth. If anybody asks, its just a hobby.
They could always just take completely crappy pictures.
“Here you go, fags. Here are your out of focus poorly composed pictures. Enjoy your AIDS.”
So, as a private business, I have to accept all paying customers? What if someone wanted me to shoot a video of their honeymoon night in their hotel room? Would I have the right to refuse? Where does it stop?
The judges ignore the rights of Christians to practice their faith as guaranteed by the Constitution.
I think we delude ourselves if we believe that the churches themselves will not be sued over refusal of same sex weddings.
I’d go out of business.....not photographing any biological abberations.
There is no Constitutional protection against discrimination. There is case law but it is not Constutionally established.
As I suggested on the other thread on this topic....
perhaps we can get the Westboro..”baptist church” to try to hire a “gay couple.’...for some reason or another and wee what transpires ??
That list of reasons was recently expanded to include "sexual orientation", but it was not expanded to include people currently engaged in sexual intercourse.
there you go, it does not say how well have you to do it.
Close up shop, and move to another state.
So, have photographers turned down jobs for other reasons or are they always required to always take the job form any person walking through the door with a check that doesn’t bounce?
ummmm... isn't this a PRIVATE business?
And what morons would want to FORCE someone to work for them? I would not expect the best work.
just say you can’t fit it in to your schedule.....
this is just another example of forcing ppl to engage in a business transaction that they otherwise don’t want. Theres no free association
Liberals will point to their "tax-free status" (which is a subsidy from the gov't) as the reason a church cannot discriminate.
RE: Close up shop, and move to another state.
Wherever you go in this country, the Courts are there.
Yeah right. Fuc# you! I have a cold.
I have a right to refuse service to anyone.
Especially fags, judges, ANYBODY that works for the government, liberals, Marxists, baby killers, journalists, lame stream media, anti gun groups, PETA, greenies, global warming idiots, muslims, ILLEGALS, druggies, Hollywood, tree huggers, anybody that drives a Prius, the AARP, Progressive Insurance, etc,etc,etc...
RE: I have a right to refuse service to anyone.
Here’s a theoretical question ... should a bigot be free to refuse service to anyone based on race or ethnicity?
Yup. It is Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.
make them a huge bid and they will pick someone else
there are ways
Sounds like a plan, but as we both know on a practical level getting to that point would be problematic for a lot of businesses. These people will seek you out and will find you, because it isn’t photography services they are looking for, it’s something much worse. No live and let live.
These people are angry for a good reason. They are excluded from the realm of decency and good morals and they know it. They are at war with God and they know it. They cannot convince themselves of this and they know it. The Lord is so good and He makes available to everyone no matter how situated, the means to salvation.
Just the way things are now and Christians must adapt. And no, dear friends I don’t me go along to get along. While your thinking and solution is a great starting point for brainstorming our strategies to remain faithful, we are indeed gonna have to get creative. They are angry and on a rampage. We can’t let their little temper tantrum sidetrack us from eyeing the prize SALVATION and trying to help those attain the same here on our earthly path.
Let’s brainstorm ourselves out of this people, because the govt. processes sure as hell isn’t going to rescue us from this pile of crap. They are either clueless, don’t care or bought off dont matter which same outcome. They don’t represent us anymore. All we have is The Lord, who, is all we ever needed anyway. We can do this
Freedom of Association isn’t just an order.
The government should have NO BUSINESS in MY BUSINESS as long as it is legal and I am not hurting anybody.
If I decide I don’t want to provide a service for someone for ANY reason that should be my decision and nobody elses. PERIOD.
Even by the standards of the liberals who back our federal behemoth, this is a shockingly evil decision. I would hope that the evil lesbians who demanded that these photographers violate their religious beliefs will be shunned by decent people forever. I hope that the lawyers who prosecuted this case in order to violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens will be shunned both personally and in business by decent people forever. Similarly, in this ongoing battle between good and evil, everyone who sides with evil (and enslaving these photographers is inherently evil) will be shunned personally and professionally for life.
What is with these homos, they want to force people to take pictures? I’d take the pictures, with latex gloves and a mask on. I’d be damned if I bothered focusing. It doesn’t make sense to force a vendor to sell services when they don’t want to. Are the homos that stupid?
“Hello, Smith Photography. What’s that? Your wedding was today? But I had it in my schedule book for NEXT Saturday. So sorry. I’ll be glad to refund your deposit. Thank you for choosing Smith Photography.”
It's like hiring. You never, ever explain why you are refusing business or refusing to hire someone. It's sad that we must be silent instead of telling the truth, but given the number of thugs who are abusing the power of government, we cannot be honest in the presence of evil. We simply listen and at a convenient point, distant in time from the disqualifying information, we cancel due to an unforeseen conflict. But, yes, if appropriate I would refuse service for exactly that reason (just without articulating the reason).
But I read that the NM constitution allows this terrorism.
There has got to be a way to discourage these people from doing these things by extra legal means, but within the law. C’mon folks we are smarter than this. Like I said it’s so patently obvious at this point there is no relief from the govt. none whatsoever. The constitution is shredded and no one cares about our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th or other numbered so called negative rights anymore. We are on our own, cept, hmmm, OH WAIT!!! We have The Lord and that should be enough. Think, think, think. The solution may not be apparent at the moment but it will present itself in due time. Mean the while, pray my friends
They should include a statement that they don’t support gay marriage on each photo.
Exactly correct. Obama blew that dog whistle weeks ago when he said he wouldn't "force" Churches to marry homosexuals.
That was the signal to the homosexual's to start suing churches in courts to perform "gay weddings."
Remember: Obama said he wouldn't force churches to marry homosexuals. He said nothing about not using the courts to force them.
So, if the American Nazi Party wanted to hire a Jewish caterer to provide food at at their rally, the caterer cannot refuse to take the job? If the Klan wanted to hire a black photographer, he could not turn down their business?
Yes I have been wondering about that kind of solution. I mean, if you enslave a person, such as the govt. is doing, who says that one must be cheerful about it, walking around shooting pics with a happy go lucky attitude that says I support your deviant sinful life? While that doesn’t exactly get a faithful Christian off the hook exactly, if forced to participate in an activity against their will, it’s a place to start. Maybe you could develope a plan within your business to have a whole nuther dept. to handle these types of situations you can’t do yourself. But, as I said, you’re still providing a service to people that is more than displeasing to God. Mor than that, what did he call this stuff again...what’s that word I’m looking for? Oh yeah, AN ABOMINATION
There is a solution to every problem there’s one for this too
Ok, then they should just do a REALLY crappy job (blurry, out of focus images, etc), and charge them up the wazoo.
Simple solution, more than one way to skin a cat. Require full cash in advance and take the worst possible pix. Next time the queers will not force you.
I’d ask for the date, and tell them I was already booked for that day.
Not just a bigot — anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone. Let the marketplace prevail.
If I were these photographers I’d call in sick the day of the event. Screw that judge!!
Go take the pictures, and throw up at the wedding. It would make me violently sick.
Go take the pictures, and throw up at the wedding. It would make me violently sick.
Just don’t show up. Take crappy pictures. Charge exorbitant fees. Demand the cash up front. Lots of ways.
“Sorry! I left the lens cap on.”
Just say you have other plans and you cannot help them. Nothing else needs to be said,
Or their Muslim "Behead the Gays" Rally?
This is so obviously not "discrimination" against gays as individual customers. I am sure they could go through their files --- assuming they don't "just" do weddings --- and find lots of gay customers they happily photographed for school graduations and other occasions.
They are not discriminating against a class of customers. They are choosing what kind of events they will or will not provide a service for. It involves a contract, does it not? Can the State really coerce entering into a contract?