Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job

LifeSiteNews ^ | 1/30/08 | John Jalsevac

[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

[Pablo64]

Well, you can tell them to hold out both of their hands and “demand” in one and “piss” in the other and see which one fills up faster.

[Popman]

[kjam22]

When this started to play out the photographer should have agreed to do it. Then forgot to load film in the camera.

[puroresu]

Under the federal “gay rights” bill pending in Congress, this policy will be spread over the entire nation. Liberty truly began to die in America in the 1960s.

[timm22]

Well, you can tell them to hold out both of their hands and “demand” in one and “piss” in the other and see which one fills up faster.

You could, but that would probably get you hauled in to answer to the Human Rights Division...again.

[HKMk23]

What happened to we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody?

You still can do that, but in many cases you'd better not say a peep about why.

In my experience, folks tend to give way too much information when they're turning something down. There's a felt need to say something that manifestly justifies you saying, "No," or "Sorry, I can't."

So, the photographer says, "I can't do that, because...", the would-be customer is offended at the "because", and the rest will be a matter of public record. Stopping immediately prior to the "because" is most HIGHLY recommended in these perilous times.

[Blue Collar Christian]

See, you gotta make sure you put up a sign; “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Maybe with an “especially queers” tag on it.

What next?

[RonF]

Hm. Being paid to take pictures for private use does not constitute speech on the part of the photographer. I’m not so sure about free speech being applicable here.

And as far as the right to refuse service goes, that’s not absolute. You can’t throw a black couple out of your store because you’re a racist. Where race and sexual orientation/practices are equated, you’ll get this.

So, does freedom to practice one’s religion come into play here?

[Puddleglum]

I thought for sure this was going to be a Canadian thing. Sad to see it happening here.

[Alouette]

Rights of Blacks trump all, followed by Homosexuals, then illegal immigrants, then Muslims.

You have the wrong order. Muslims trump all, followed by Homosexuals, followed by illegal immigrants, then Blacks.

[Muleteam1]

Elane Photography is in Albuquerque.

[Blue Collar Christian]

“Might have been easier and cheaper if the photography outfit had just said they had a prior commitment on that date.”

...like, we’re washing our hair that night...

[kimmie7]

ditto

[curlewbird]

I heard on a radio show (can’t remmeber which one) of a handicapped guy who did something like that...went around and found businesses who weren’t in compliance and sued for discrimination under the americans with disabilites act. Some of the places he didn’t even go into. Just wrote down addresses and such.... Made a ton of money doing it too...!

[353FMG]

I happen to work with Jimmy Dean’s stand-in of that movie. The guy who showered in crude oil was this stand-in.

[Pablo64]

Yeah....but there still wouldn’t be any pictures or speeches (I know, I’m just too stubborn for my own good).

[NathanR]

John and Ken on KFI 640 in Los Angeles.

It was a scam set up by a Law Firm.

[glorgau]

Just leave the lens cap on and charge them triple.

[lepton]

that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph

Wow. Apparently not only do homosexuals rights include themselves doing things, but those rights now include the forced servitude of others.

[lepton]

Could a videophotographer be sued because she turned down a request to tape a porn flick?

Or an autopsy...or a colonoscopy...or mountain climbers at the summit...