Posted on 03/11/2008 1:00:09 PM PDT by No Dems 2004
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — As a Christian, Elaine Huguenin is against efforts to legitimize same-sex “marriage.”
So, when the Albuquerque photographer was asked via e-mail in September 2006 to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for two women, Huguenin declined. That was the end of the matter, she thought.
But Huguenin didn’t take into account New Mexico’s anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a civil complaint against Huguenin’s company, Elane Photography.
Now, in one of the first cases of its kind in the state, a three-member tribunal of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission is considering the complaint brought forward by New Mexico’s Human Rights Bureau, operated by the Labor Relations Division of the state’s Department of Workforce Solutions.
The tribunal will decide whether Huguenin should pay actual and punitive damages to Willock because of her decision not to take pictures of the homosexual ceremony.
Established in 1969 by the New Mexico Legislature to enforce state law preventing discrimination based on race and gender in employment, housing and public accommodation, the human rights commission is taking its first steps to incorporate a 2006 expansion of the act to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Not in Mass. -- the state fines anyone who doesn't purchase health insurance.
This kind of thing has been going on for several years in parts of Europe and in Canada. And with leftists running the governments in so many states and very likely the federal government after November we can expect to see a lot more of this. It doesn’t matter if the homosexuals win this or not. What matters is that the cost in time, money and lost business will tend to cow others and push the homosexual agenda as effectively as a win.
There should be no place for “Human Rights Commissions” in our legal system. The probability of abuse is obvious and amply illustrated by this case.
I’m not trying to defend the case against her. I’m just saying that if they want me to do something that I don’t want to do because they are gay, I’m not going to volunteer that’s the reason.
Make em work harder than that.
“The tribunal will decide whether Huguenin should pay actual and punitive damages to Willock because of her decision not to take pictures of the homosexual ceremony.”
So, this Willock is saying “gee. I want the photographer who disagrees with what I am doing, making my wedding album.”?
I want Halle Berry to paint a picture of me in the nude.
Can I sue if she refuses?
Wow. This is what passes for freedom these days? How tragic.
Too true.
I swear when I clicked on this article I thought it was about some goings on in some third world country.
This is the biggest piece of crap I’ve ever seen. The photographer’s personal beliefs are the reason she didn’t want to take the photo’s and to say she is criminal for not doing so is DICRIMINATING AGAINST HER!!
It’s a two way street....or at least it should be if it was genuine.
This is why a legislator in Kansas recently called homosexual agenda “alqueera”! They sure act like it (a lot more than the Christians they accuse of doing so).
“I know John and Elaine...
They are good people.
They were in court on this matter a few weeks ago.”
How did it go? Does it look like common sense will prevail?
Congressman Billybob
Another example of unequal protection due to anti-discrimination laws. A hetero couple has no recourse to sue this photographer for refusing to photograph their event, but a gay couple can. Looking for someone to punch, I’m best to choose the straight guy because I get more time for hitting the gay guy.
Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock...”
___________________
Vanessa = pervert
Take their money and shoot what she wants. Have fun with photoshop and give them slightly blurry photos.
This is exactly the work I have performed for 25 years.
I left CT because I was being put in exactly the same situations by lesbos.
I’m now in Florida. Tell me Florida law is different.
That is Hillary’s plan to force purchase of health insurance or have wages garnished.
What is more disturbing is the State of Mass health insurance is result of Mitt Romney as Gov isn’t it?
These arguments were made in 1964 by opponents of the Civil Rights Act but they did not carry the day. All those Walgreens in Alabama that would not let Blacks sit at the lunch counter were private too. The law says that a business is a 'public accomidation' and can not pick and choose who to serve based on race, religion and now flaming gayness.
The photographer's attorney hit the nail on the head:
"The complaint against Huguenin is about artistic freedom as well as religious freedom, according to her attorney Lorence.
“You’re saying the government can compel anyone to use their talents to further goals you don’t agree with,” he said. “Otherwise, there will be retaliation.”
Said Lorence, “If you give government the right to punish people for having a different opinion than the prevailing secular orthodoxy, you’re saying whoever controls government can suppress dissent. I think we embrace that idea at our peril.”
The law says that you can’t turn down the business.
It doesn’t say that you can’t charge a ridiculous price for it.
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.