Posted on 06/16/2008 11:25:53 AM PDT by gallaxyglue
Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job
By John Jalsevac
New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony", was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.
A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography.
"On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony - that marriage can be defined as two women or two men."
In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees.
"Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money," said Lorence. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Lorence said that the ADF is framing its case in a similar fashion to the 1995 Supreme Court "Hurley" Case. "In the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade case the US Supreme Court said that the State of Massachusetts could not punish a privately run parade because it refused to allow a homosexual advocacy group to carry banners and signs in the parade. They said that would be compelled speech, ordering the parade organizers to help promote a message they do not want to promote. To apply the discrimination law that way violates freedom of speech. We are making a similar kind of argument in this case."
Lorence said that this current case is demonstrative of a "tremendous threat" facing those with traditional views on marriage and family.
"I think that this is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights. Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, 'We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people's right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.'"
But, in practice, says Lorence, "Business owners with traditional views or church owners with traditional definitions of marriage are now vulnerable for lawsuits under these nondiscrimination laws. There are 20 states that have these laws where they ban sexual orientation discrimination. Most of the major cities in the United States also have these kinds of ordinances. So these are a big threat, as the federal government debates whether to make this a blanket nationwide law.
"We see that these [non-discrimination laws] are not rectifying some unjust discrimination, but being used to punish those who speak out in favor of traditional marriage and sexual restraint," he concluded.
Lorence said that the ADF is "cautiously optimistic that the commission will do the right thing." If the New Mexico Commission, however, decides against Elane Photography, Lorence said that the ADF would appeal the decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
If the photographer was ROP, there would be no problem.
I think your headline could use a spelling correction.
;-)
Mod Ping!
Yes. Hold on to the Second Ammendment rights at all costs. BLOAT!
Which is why the subject of the Second Amendment is the right to arms.
INTREP - my daughter and I are in the “wedding” business. We will be watching this one very closely!
Seems to me that Elaine and her hubby, co-owners of the photography shop, ought to file human rights abuse charges against the two normalphobes. It sure as hell looks to me like their rights are being trampled upon.
People can’t be going around regusing others.
The Freedom of Association is precluded by the Freedom not to associate. This is settled law by the SCOTUS. I should not take this for granted as it involves Gay sex which we are all learning precludes everything else.
Your link doesn’t work and I doubt that is the correct title for the article.
Especially Cbristians!
“We reserve the right to refuse service.”
-sign on most business walls.
If you are not government funded the government should have no say in this IMO. What ever happened to “we have the right to refuse service”
Why didn’t they just say no, there was a schedule conflict or something of that sort. They must have known something like this would ensue. Sounds to me, that both sides here had an agenda and were wanting to make a statement.
Is there an example in the business world where people are allowed to deny service to someone if they are otherwise able to do the work (ie no schedule conflict or material issue)?
This is proof that homos want to use the law to force others to accept them. F-THAT! The lesbos have no right to the services of others. The business owners can simply shut down the business and go do something else. They can’t be forced to go back in business.
Good grief. New Mexico has become Alberta South.
My advice is go ahead and book the lesbo wedding. Make sure they pay in full up front. Then take the crappiest pictures you can.
You’re right. There aren’t any other photographers they could hire? They just wanted to attack this woman. This was pre-meditated.
Yes, it shouldn't even be a freedom of speech case. A business owner has the natural right to serve or not serve any customer for any reason.
Which is why the subject of the Second Amendment is the right to arms.
::::::
Lest we not forget WHY the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. That is why the radical, anti-American left is so AFRAID of it.
If this photographer loses the precedent will be pushed to pastors who refuse to perform these blasphemous ceremonies. Time to shoot or shrug?
Yes I’ve seen signs like that. Businesses don’t have to service antagonistic customers, or take care of customers who make excessive demands. I figured that was in our laws but could be mistaken.
Traditional beliefs are under siege though. There was a lawsuit by lesbians in which an IVF clinic would not inseminiate a lesbian with sperm. Apparently that went against the beliefs of those running the IVF clinic, who are geared to service married couples. I don’t remember what happened with that lawsuit. But it’s clear that they will lose some, but win some, and those that they win will continue us down the road of normalizing what used to be considered out of the mainstream or abnormal behavior.
...and end-up on People’s Court (Cue music)
If I’m a judge listening to this...STUFF, I’d sure like to know if the couple could not find a willing photographer and thus make it a win-win situation.
If I’m the photographer, I might take a deposit and then always be too busy or just plain disorganized to communicate with the customer. Want your money back? Fine.
Forcing someone to go against there religious beliefs is exactly what the first amendment was supposed to protect. Now the government is butting in where it has no legal authority to do so.
I’d like to know more about the “New Mexico Human Rights Division” and what is the extent of their authority.
Is this a mirror image of the “Human Rights Commission(s)” of Canada that are currently persecuting Mark Steyn?
Welcome to Socialist America.
If they can force you to take phots what is to stop them from forcing you to be a participant in other ways.
We really need to take America back.........
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.
No? Yes?
This case should serve as an example to other business owners across the US. If you think you might be in a position to refuse to serve someone because of moral objections, be certain that you don’t use the concept of morality to refuse them. “Sorry, I’m not available on that day” or “sorry but I am already fully booked” would have brought them much less grief. Unless you have the time and $$$ to take up the fight, then good luck Don Quixote.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html
The article title is indeed correct, however the link is incorrect.
Use the above link.
Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job
I was actually referring to the misspellings in the title posted here.
Seems to me the ACLU should step into this one (which they will not) on the side of the photographer.
“Why didn’t they just say no, there was a schedule conflict or something of that sort.”
Because she took the appointment, and scheduled it, like any studio photog would do.
Then, she found out (they hadn’t mentioned it during the setting of the appointment) it was a gay wedding.
She would have had to lie, if she said there was a schedule conflict.
She told them she wasn’t comfortable doing it, and thought they should get someone else.
They took offense, and decided to sue.
One side had an agenda, that is for sure. It might have come from them being stupid, and not just getting a photographer who would make their ‘wedding photos’ a success.
Instead the couple chose to make an issue out of it.
I mean, just ask him to do some photography for a birthday party, then at the last minute throw in the fact that the kids are all naked.
Aha, I see.
“In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney’s fees.”
Note to so-called couple: find another photographer. There are literally tens of thousands of photographers.
I believe child porn is illegal.
***What ever happened to “we have the right to refuse service”***
Ironic that the ones with limp wrists are able to strong arm businesses into accepting their demands.
It is the correct title, but it is an old story, from January 30, 2008
Don’t know why posters never get the right links. Here’s the right one:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/080130.html#1
Hank
Here’s the funny part.
“In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney’s fees.”
So, the want a guarantee they can have Elaine Photography do same-sex wedding shoots, then they are going to bankrupt Elaine Photography and run them out of business.
And isn’t this a case of “I want a law for every personal decision I make, protecting me and forcing others to agree with my personal choices.”????
[... Could a child porn producer force a photographer to take the pictures for him?...]
Child pornography is still illegal.
Same sex marriage is not illegal.
So, you're saying that should apply to someone who doesn't want to serve someone because of the color of their skin? Not saying I think the photog should be forced to take this job, quite the opposite. Just saying that having that sign doesn't mean you can have a "whites only" lunch counter, either. The premise behing the refusal has to be based on legality.
If they have standards about photographing a homosexual ceremony, they probably have standards against lying.
“What ever happened to “we have the right to refuse service”
That went out of the door in the sixties. Try posting the sign in your restaurant (if you had one) and you may end up losing it. (The restaurant, that is)
So far. The cultural vandals are knocking over one taboo at a time.
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.
