Skip to comments.New Mexico Courts Stomp Religious Freedom – Order Christian Couple to Pay Gay Fine
Posted on 06/15/2012 6:08:48 AM PDT by Hojczyk
As reported here in 2008, The New Mexico Human Rights Court sentenced Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elane Photography, a fine of $6,637.94 for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony.
Recently, the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The court ruled against Elaines claim to protection under New Mexicos Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as her claim to the free exercise clause protected by the First Amendment. National Review reported:
I felt like Atticus Finch, Jordan Lorence, the Huguenins attorney, told NRO. There is so clearly an injustice here. Lorence is a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization of Christian lawyers specializing in religious-freedom cases.
The court dismissed the appeal that was based on the states Religious Freedom Restoration Act as inapplicable in a dispute between private parties, apparently failing to recognize that the law should certainly apply to a dispute with the Human Rights Commission, whose ruling and damages Elane Photography was appealing. The court based its decision, in large part, on the technical distinction that a photography studio qualifies as a public accommodation, defined in the New Mexico Human Rights Act as any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . to the public, such as a shop or a restaurant, but does not include a[n] . . . establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private.
This ruling will not only affect Christians and photographers,
In its desire to prop up the same-sex-marriage agenda, though, the court has rejected that distinction and, in doing so, established a shocking precedent: Not only photographers but writers, videographers, graphic designers, and a host of others who market their services can now be legitimately forced by the government to work on behalf of causes with which they disagree.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Is it like traffic court?
That's a great question. It sounds like something out of the U.N.
Soon it will be a felony to call homosexuality a sin.
Let’s get down to brass tacks...
this is about criminalizing Christianity.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Cowards! Ask a devout Muslim to photograph your gay wedding @sshats!
A figment of the writer's imagination, perhaps. I've seen other articles on this that described this as a "decision" on the part of the NM Civil Rights Commission, which has subsequently been upheld in state district court and now, appellate court.
It may be that due to federal funding being involved, that certain divisions or judges within the state district and appellate courts receive these "civil rights" cases and some unofficial or secondary title is therefore applied. Some states have similarly formed "drug courts" in the past - but they're not really separate from the existing state court structure.
So no - it's not equivalent to a traffic court. I wonder if the defendants would fare any better before the NM state supreme court.
Remember only 2.8% of the population is gay.... not 30% that everyone thinks...
re: “the New Mexico Human Rights Act as any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . to the public, such as a shop or a restaurant, but does not include a[n] . . . establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private.
So, I would like to know from the court, what is an “establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private”??
Their interpretation of this “law” essentially makes anything that allows public access to fall under its jurisdiction.
Not allowing homosexuals to buy food in a grocery store or to shop at Wal-Mart is a smoke screen - how would an establishment keep “gays” out of their business? A sign? Gay-dar?
However, in the case of the many number of businesses that cater to weddings, obviously when the two guys or two ladies turn out to be the clients - EVERYONE knows it’s a homosexual union - business owners are American citizens too and have the Constitutional right of the “free exercise of religion” to refuse to provide service to an act that they view as immoral.
This whole thing is bogus in the sense that I’m sure there are PLENTY of “gay-friendly” photographers or wedding caterers. If a business wants to cater to homosexuals, that’s their right, if they don’t want to, that’s their right as well.
The New Mexico court, if consistent, could apply this stupid law against any church or church related service (weddings, counseling, church membership, etc.).
As someone already said - when are they going to apply this law against Muslims?
There are, of course, ways for professionals to get around this kind of nonsense. The best way would be simply to say the day is already booked, or a vacation day, or whatever.
It’s a shame it has come to that.
However, a photographer is a professional and is not a public accomodation. Professionals regularly refuse different clients because it is not their specialty or a case that they want. Lawyers are an example, given that these are rulings by lawyers turned judges.
This needs to be appealed to Scotus.
My feelings on individual homosexuals vary. Some are mentally ill. Some are sinful. Some are trying to follow God’s word but failing (or succeeding through celibacy). The “couple” who sued this photographer are pure evil - completely and totally unforgivable thugs who deserve no consideration from decent Americans of any faith.
Christians should leave NM. Christians should avoid NM like it has the plague.
I find individual liberties far more compelling than human rights. To me, human rights are something in God’s plan. Guarantees of individual liberties is a government v. the people thing.
Then you don't understand America.
America is based on God's plan. That's where the human rights come from that force the government to answer to the People.
Guarantees of individual liberties are issued by the State, towards human beings it "presumes" are acting in something it calls their "corporate capacities," which turn them into "individuals." The State's "guarantee" is conditional, and the "liberties" it extends may be modified or cancelled at any time by the State, according to the assertion of the primacy of it's needs over those of individuals.
BURN THIS INTO YOUR BRAIN, OR FIND ANOTHER COUNTRY.
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.