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.
Then every civil litigation attorney or law firm is in violation of the law, because they routinely refuse to take cases because the either believe that the plaintiff's claims are spurious, the defendant has no legitimate defense, or either classification of litigant does not have the resources to pay for the services.
Checkmate.
There are a couple of excellent posts here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1207764182.shtml
and here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1207766763.shtml
that discuss some of the related issues. Recommend anyone with an interest take 3 minutes to read them...
“There are a couple of excellent posts here:”
No, there aren’t. You are wrong on this issue. Period.
It is always nice to read a well thought out post like yours...
This is crazy! I thought private businesses had the right to refuse service to anyone they wanted to? If a business doesn’t have that right then is it really private? Or is it government controlled?
As I noted before, you cannot make a blanket declaration that you have a right to refuse service under your freedom of religion because you know that somebody has committed sins.
EVERY ADULT ALIVE ON THE PLANET has committed sins. Therefore, such a blanket declaration is merely a pretext and not a legitimate religious objection.
You do, however, have a right to refuse service under your First Amendment freedom of religion right if that service involves your active participation in such a sin, as defined by your religion.
Let's say that you are a photographer and that you hire out to photograph social gatherings.
A black group wants you to photograph a checkers playing tournament. You turn them down because they are black.
That is discrimination. It is based on factors EXTERNAL to you and factors that are even addressed by Federal Civil Rights laws.
A black group wants you to photograph a checkers playing tournament. You turn them down because, to make some religious point or other, they are playing checkers with consecrated hosts they have pocketed after attending Catholic Mass. You are Catholic. What they are doing is a sin according to the Catholic religion and you absolutely refuse to be an active participant in that sin.
That is absolutely protected by your First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. It is based on a factor that is exclusively related to how YOU practice YOUR own religion. The race, creed, color, sexual orientation or ethnicity of the other party is irrelevant to the issue.
In regards to state laws, whatever the laws of New Mexico or California or Massachusetts are in regards to the issue is totally irrelevant as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes them so:
The "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Interesting.
“It is always nice to read a well thought out post like yours...”
For all its brevity, there’s more thought in mine than in all of yours combined.
1 - You didn’t express any thought at all.
2 - I pointed out the law that exists in New Mexico. You can deny it, but if you do so while conducting business in NM, you will be fined. You do not have to like a law to be punished by it.
Yes, what a disconnect. Call it societal schizophrenia - it really seems to be an illness. The best that Republicans can muster is McCain - a liberal lite in disguise - while the vast majority of Americans want stronger borders and no illegal immigration, no gay "marriage", lower taxes, and Property Rights safe from state encroachment. We've become a nation that pays lip service to those once lofty principles.
“1 - You didn’t express any thought at all.”
I said that there was more thought in it, not that I had wasted bandwidth by belaboring the obvious.
“2 - I pointed out the law that exists in New Mexico. You can deny it, but if you do so while conducting business in NM, you will be fined. You do not have to like a law to be punished by it.”
Lex mala, lex nulla.
The commission is empowered by the court, meaning the commission renders a decision and the court (usually a judge) reads the commissions decisions, approves (usually carte blanche) and then enforces the commissions decisions. If for example, the photographer business refuses to pay the fine, the court will send police to enforce the commission’s decisions.
I am stating facts. This is absolute liberalism which is the same as communism. Communists are upfront about wealth reddistribution and enforcement methods using military units to enforce there will. Liberals use the courts and police, in other words stealth because most of us don’t have time to read every new law that comes into being.
The net result of Liberalism/Communism is the same, misery and loss of freedom. I moved from New Hampshire to Maine. In New Hampshire, the courts and police are nothing more then tax collectors/stealth. In Maine, I have my State income tax withdrawn from my paycheck. I prefer my Socialism upfront and not in the form of stealth, thank you very much. In Maine, the judges rule by law. In New Hampshire, they now rule on how they ‘feel’. I could name many specific examples but I would have to write a book for a post. Suffice to say, I will live in States that are still relatively free. When the entire country has been socialized, I will no longer live in the U.S. I will probably choose Mexico where I can shoot intruders, kill them and not be held responsible for the intruders medical bills.
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.