Skip to comments.Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case
Posted on 04/08/2014 4:30:39 AM PDT by NYer
.- The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on a case involving a small Christian-owned photography business that declined on religious grounds to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006.
The court announced its decision April 7. It did not give a reason for declining to hear the case.
“Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” said Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence of Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography.
“The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment,” he added in an April 7 statement.
“We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system.”
The case, Elane Photography v. Willock, involves the Huguenins' decision not to photograph a New Mexico same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006, due to their religious convictions that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. At the time, neither same-sex “marriage” nor civil unions were recognized by New Mexico law.
Elaine Huguenin explained to the couple that participating in the ceremony by photographing it would communicate views she did not espouse, but offered to photograph them in other venues.
In the past, Huguenin has declined other photography jobs that she could not reconcile with her religious beliefs, including nude shoots and gory shots to promote a horror movie.
The same-sex couple then found another photographer who charged a lower rate. However, in 2008, they filed a complaint against Elane Photography for “sexual orientation discrimination.”
The case was presented to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which ruled in 2009 that the company was guilty of discrimination and must pay nearly $7,000 to the couple.
The Huguenins appealed the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which upheld the ruling in August 2013. In his concurring decision, Judge Richard C. Bosson acknowledged that the Christian photographers were being “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” but said that this compromise is “part of the glue that holds us together as a nation” and is “the price of citizenship.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case means that the lower court’s ruling will stand.
Religious freedom advocates have voiced concern over what they see as growing hostility toward anyone who defends marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Numerous lawsuits are currently underway challenging the right of individuals to express their religious beliefs through their business decisions.
David Cortman, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said that the owners of Elane Photography and many other marriage defenders “have been more than willing to serve any and all customers, but they are not willing to promote any and all messages.”
“A government that forces any American to create a message contrary to her own convictions is a government every American should fear,” he added.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the high court's decision not to hear the case “deeply disturbing.”
“Does our nation's highest court really believe the price of citizenship is the surrender of conscience?” he asked in an April 7 statement.
“The Supreme Court ignored an opportunity to reaffirm the basic principle that the government may not trample on fundamental rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion,” Perkins added.
“These rights do not stop at the exit door of your local church, and instead extend to every area of a religious person's life.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the high court’s decision not to hear the case deeply disturbing.
The Supreme Court only hears a small amount of cases. I am anxiously waiting on Holly Lobby .I hope they vote right on this one. That could be the most important case of the year.
This is a hell of a lot more important than the healthcare law. This is an outright rejection of the First Amendment!
People need to just say they can’t fit the job into their schedule from now on there is no need to elaborate by pointing out a religious problem.
There was once a colony where they hated rule by men instead of by law so much that they revolted against the most powerful empire on earth and suffered along until they won. I'm gonna look up the name of that country and see if there's anything those of us living in the US of Authoritarian could learn from those people.
Next up, forcing Christians to shoot porn. Film at 11!
Dont hols your breath the American public has been wussified into submission and are now good little subjects
Yeah, forget the First Amendment and all the freedom crap, just make an excuse the Queer Mafia will accept for a while and when they stop accepting that excuse, make up another.
That whole, Bill of Rights thing is sooo last century anyway.
Those of us with threads on the head thought they were serious about the, "die on you feet instead of living on your knees", stuff but apparently that was just a marketing slogan to get a few dimwits like me to do the dirty work back in the day.
Before jumping to conclusions... is this one of those cases that tries to “fast track” past the normal appeals process and go straight to the USSC? Looking at the article, I don’t see one federal appeals court listed - is it not customary for a case to go through there District and Circuit courts before the USSC, except for very rare situations?
If so, I can see the USSC declining without comment and letting the lower courts tackle it first.
Clever, but I’m sure their religious beliefs also preclude lying.
She looks like a sweet young lady who simply loves God and photography. The perfect prey for the Godless and cowardly gay agenda.
That is a very good question. Anyone?
Do they ever comment if it’s just a matter of referring a case to a lower appeals court? I guess that’s the question.
Fear of the Gay Mafia reaches deep into the chambers of the nation’s Highest Court.
Or, that the ruling in Hobby Lobby’s case would similarly affect this one.
In the meantime photogs are just going to have to accept the jobs but have “car trouble” and miss the actual appointment.
Nine black-robed chickens. The Supreme Court should be eliminated if it can’t protect the rights of the Christian minority in this country.
Where are the names of the people bringing this suit, I can see “Willock” but that’s where it always ends,
We need to have photos and names of these people. The pictures and names need to be front and center in the public eye so we know who these people are.
It was Vietnam.
Supreme Court = Term limits
They didn't ignore it...By letting it stand, they confirmed it...It will now become precedence...
There are at least 5 crooked lawyers with black robes on the SC.
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.