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

[Cacique]

btt

[G Larry]

I’ll have to see what I can do to get “hauled before” a “Human Rights Commission”.

I’m sure the press will find my quotes interesting.

I’m under no obligation to endorse behavior I find morally repugnant! Let me make it perfectly clear that “behavior” is NOT an innate trait or characteristic which bestows “rights” on an individual.
This commission’s desire to endorse a behavior and a lifestyle as a “Human Right” is of no consequence to me or my business. This commission has no authority to sanction me, or otherwise compel me, or anybody else to participate in this fraud.

[Traveler59]

Have some fun with the courts on this one. Take the lesbian lovers back to the Human Rights Division with a charge of Religious discrimination.

-Traveler

[cowdog77]

Anyone heard of the First Amendment in New Mexico?”
______________________
To all intents and purposes, New Mexico is a third-world state.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

We had one of those in our town. The mom enrolled her handicapped child in our local preschool which didn’t have an ADA conforming wheelchair ramp. The preschool welcomed the child and was able to assure the parents that the child would be able to come and go with the assistance of the teachers. The parents sued, forced our preschool to build the ramp, and then took their kid to another school. I honestly don’t think the ramp has ever been used in the 15 years since it was built.

[Colofornian]

Yup, under Romney's position, states like New Mexico could codify it so that businesses would be forced to hire all alternative sexual minorities.

Pre-Christmas 2007 Interview (mid-December): December 16, 2007: The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert: MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/

[groanup]

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

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Not saying homosexuality is evil. Just saying that the New Mexico Human Rights Comission is.

[Vinnie]

There are 2 ways out of this.
1. ‘Sorry, I’m booked up that day’
2. Leave the lens cap on.

[Colonel_Flagg]

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.

So these people are trying to tell a private business who they MUST work with? And I suppose they are banking on finding some lefty judge someplace who will agree with them. How terribly sad.

[bahblahbah]

Now that I had the admin remove my post cause I didn’t want to go to the human rights commission, let me say a couple things.

1. The lady who sued works for the University of New Mexico’s Office of “Equal Opportunity”
2. I saw their wedding picture of when they kiss. It looked like a bad 1950’s godzilla movie.

[Harrius Magnus]

“OH PLEASE!!!”

It’s no bid deal. If it helps, I estimate that you are easily in the majority. My gripe was theoretical. I understand it may seem unworthy or petty; nor would I twist your arm to acknowledge or endorse it.

I am just exhausted with the unrelenting barrage of interests whose goal is to make me afraid.

Good Night FRiend.

[bahblahbah]

Here’s some more info.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_01_27_archive.html#933493343265647238

[Rb ver. 2.0]

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

I didn’t know you did Hollywood work?

[HereInTheHeartland]

So it looks like the photographer was set up as a test case by these people.
And the photographer gets stuck with the legal bill for their test case.
Really nice of them...

[yankeedame]

I would rather be cash flow poor, as I am, than deal with this kind of stuff.

Reminds me of the story about Benjamin Franklin. Sorry I don't recall the particulars but essentially it was where he was an up-and-coming printer in Philadelphia. He was approached by one of the city's leading citizens to do a printing job. Franklin had a passing acquaintance with the man, and, as it turns out didn't particular like him; he didn't hate him, just didn't like him...esp. his politics. And, yup, the printing job the man wanted Franklin to do was a political pamphlet.

Now while Franklin couldn't stand the politics, it was a big job, it would make him a handsome sum of money, and make him better known to a Philly mover-and-shaker. But Franklin really, really disagreed with what the man had written. And so, making some kind of believable excuse, he told the man he'd let him know in a few days whether he could take the job or not.

Well, in a nut shell: For the next three days Franklin lived on essentially a subsistence diet: bread, water, gruel. All to see how he could handle what might just happened if he turn down this printing job and the other man discovered just why he had been refused. Franklin discovered that though uncomfortable he did survive and could survive. He tactfully turned down the printing job, the other man never the wiser.

[LilAngel]

Civics classes. LOL. I was just discussing civics class with my husband. I’d heard my older siblings talk about taking those classes, but my husband and I are both too young (40s and 50s).

Didn’t they also teach about the responsibility of voting for someone you think is best suited to the office? It’s your civic duty not to throw your vote away on the candidate the newspaper tells you to vote for.

I learned about civic duty from my family, and a handful of teachers who still had the courage to defy the communist forces, before they developed a stronghold on the education system.

[RobinOfKingston]

Once again, this is about something far different than mere pictures of the “blessed event.” The “happy couple” could have gone down the street and found a queer with a camera.