A Christian law firm will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.Posted on 04/11/2008 8:26:38 AM PDT by NYer
A Christian law firm will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.
Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs.
Jordan Lorence with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) represented the Huguenins. He contends the lawsuit reflects an attitude among homosexual activists.
"This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman," says the attorney. "This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches."
Lorence believes the Huguenins will win an appeal of the decision. But he warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs.
"There is a great threat to our religious liberties and our ability to speak out in favor of traditional marriage when these non-discrimination laws are interpreted in such a harsh way to censor Christians and others," he asserts.
Lorence said Americans do not surrender their freedoms of speech or religion just because they choose to open a business. He added that the Commission's decision is tantamount to the State of New Mexico forcing a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for a butcher shop.
I have mixed thoughts about the laws. On the one hand, discrimination is a bad thing. However, on balance I think the laws do more harm than good.
For example, I won’t own property to rent. Why? Because I cannot use my judgment in deciding who to rent to. If I convert a couple of my unused bedrooms into an apartment, I could be forced to rent to homosexuals.
Years ago, a guy refused to rent a house to my friends and I in Utah because we were Baptist. We didn’t sue anyone - just took our business elsewhere.
“Suppose you say your religion prevents you from serving blacks...perhaps you are a hold-over of the old Mormon religion, with its belief that black skin is a punishment for sin.”
Homosexual behavior like pedophilic and beastophilic behaviors are just that, behaviors. Comparing perverts to racial makeup is extremely insulting.
If the anti-discrimination laws include homosexuality along with race, then both are covered in like manner.
And while I disagree, homosexual activists claim it is genetic based, not an act of the will.
The best bet is to work to change the laws, but I think you will find it impossible to get gays dropped from anti-discrimination laws, or to repeal them altogether (as I would prefer).
Failing that, if you break them, you can get in serious trouble.
Equivalence of homosexuality and race is the law in many states. Insulting or not, if you violate those laws, you will be prosecuted - and lose.
Exactly. That is the problem with legislating anything more than the bare minimum required to keep the peace, and protect life, liberty and property. When government steps in, even the most well-meaning law can be used in ways that were not envisioned, for political purposes.
Law is a powerful tool that must be handled with care.
I am interested to know what the basis is for the legal authority of these “human rights commissions.” It sounds rather unjust; presumably, this is essentially a civil action, meaning there is a relatively low burden of proof.
And I have no doubt that they are staffed by “interested persons.”
Their attorney stated that he would:
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.
Their attorney stated that he would:
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.
"AD" laws shouldn't even exist, much less have any 'teeth'.
L
That said, whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"
Sometimes you just play the game. Do the photo shoot, make sure there is a dark smudge on the middle of the camera lens, and then show the photos to the dykes and apologize profusely. “Sorry about that. No charge”. You have to jam these kinds of scumbags right in the back where they deserve it. Rhetorically speaking, of course.
That means any individual, iirc.
It does not mean you can refuse service to a whole race, iirc.
Besides, there would be no legitimate reason you could name for not serving blacks as a group.
"Anyone" cannot include protected, preferred classes.
INTREP
Oh give us a break, leftist and liberals have been discriminating for years - one look at the media, colleges, and the govt proves this point. Many of the HR managers are extreme leftists who refuse to hire whites or anyone who who looks like they have morals and values. Claiming that people cant discriminate is just stupid. The last value of a deginerate society is tolerance. Tell me if you dont discriminate they why not just leave your choices for where you live, what you eat and where you work by chance. Outlawing discrimination is like outlawing free speech - a ban only promotes it.
The trail blazing California and Massachusetts courts have stampeded that sign into the dirt.
Under what authority does this commission have to levy fines towards an individual or private business? It has no authority equal to a court or a state regulatory agency.
—
Under what authority does this commission have to levy fines towards an individual or private business?
My exact thoughts too ... Bump!
This type of situation was a concern for folks who offer wedding services in MA, when the Supreme Judicial Court demanded that homosexuals be allowed to ‘marry’. I don’t know if any folks have been harassed by activists, but this shows that it’s always a concern.
The thing about homosexuality is that you'd never know someone was homosexual unless they told you or demonstrated it in some way.
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.