Posted on 01/30/2008 4:22:09 PM PST by wagglebee
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 in 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.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Catholic Activist "Banned for life" From Publicly Criticizing Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121306.html
Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission for Speaking Against Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112706.html
Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html
Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal for Letter to Editor on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html
U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07091902.html
Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07081501.html
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071011.html
Human Rights Complaint Filed Against Catholic Bishop for Defence of Traditional Marriage
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05033001.html
Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06073106.html
CHRISTIAN COUPLE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN B&B FOR REFUSING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/may/01052302.html
Hey man I hear you loud and clear.
Especially after witnessing for the past 20 or so years of how this party being lead by such illustrious wafflers and power hungry skunks like McCain, and Lindsey Graham, along with all the other notorious sell outs to liberals has effectively diluted the very essence of the once great Regan revolution in our country .
It's because of their so called " reaching across the isles" tactics that has brought us to crap like this in the first place. I say that it's time for a REAL REVOLUTION in this country which can be in the form of a 3rd party.
THE NEW CONSERVATIVE PARTY!
I will not support McCain, even if the Party considers him as the only hope of stopping Hillary or not! No matter which of the two win, we as conservatives (and moral America at large) loose, and there simply is no denying it.
As you should be. This is an outrage.
There is a reported case in California where Gloria Allred won a case identical to this one. The jury gave the two grieving plaintiffs a whopping $250. The court then awarded the distinguished plaintiffs’ counsel attorney fees of nearly $100,000!
I will be following this case. If the plaintiffs win, I will no longer be doing business with New Mexico except for US government contracts. BTW, New Mexico is extremely business hostile.
Good for him. I have never had the opportunity to make any kind of tainted money, even in the mainstream, but would turn it down anyway. For example, I would not work for a cable company that distribute porn; Time-Warner, et. al., and certainly not any company that had anything to do with anti-life or anti-family causes. I had a close call when I found out the research laboratory I worked for had developed an abortion pump for Africa, but that was ten years previous to my employment so I let it slide.
Where does this stop? They make you buy from homosexual companies? Make you patronize homosexual owned restaurants? If a private contractor goes to a home to estimate a job, and is uncomfortable there for any reason, is he not allowed to turn it down?
She ought to haul the 'Human Rights Division' in front of the Constitutional Rights Division. :-)
What happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Sheesh. Jonah Goldberg is right on. Liberals are fascists and individual right are going down the toilet. Either Hillary or McCain will pull the chain for the last big flush.
Cool.
Incrementalism, plain and simple. And unfortunately you see too much clamoring for it even here, right before our very eyes.
I’ve had enough of the Grand Old Plantation.
I am wondering if its time to take up arms again.
It really comes down to that issue. What they need to understand is that for every photographer who's personal beliefs require them to turn down a job such as this, there are probably a dozen others who will have no problem taking the job, so they are still free to have pictures taken of their "ceremony". Nobody denied them that right.
What a farce. Thank you for posting this. Amerika?
I think the point is that you should not have to find something else to do. You should be able to say "You are a carpet muncher and I don't like you so I won't do it"
Or "You're ugly so I won't do it"
Or "You're black so I won't do it"
Or "You're catholic so I won't do it"
Or "You're handicapped so I won't do it"
etc
Our freedom of association has been stolen. If I choose not to associate with anyone for any reason what right does anyone else have to force me to do so? NONE!
“Nobody can make you take a good picture if you don’t want to.”
New Mexico’s Department of Equal Photography would see right through this!
Carolyn
Maybe, but there is no way they could prove it and there is still no way they can force you to take a good picture.
"Good" is a subjective term. There are many "art" exhibits that are called "good", but too me (and a lot of people), a warm bucket of used food looks better.
If I was the photographer and they really got pissy about it, I would start throwing a tantrum about how they were trying to "stifle my creativity", etc.
[Just remember it's not ME who said that!!! :-) ]
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.