Posted on 12/16/2009 4:11:28 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
The case is Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, and I blogged about it here, when it was being considered by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The decision was handed down last Friday, but the opinion wasnt distributed until yesterday. I hope to blog more about it today, but heres my analysis from last year:
Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elanes work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willocks same-sex commitment ceremonies, and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorneys fees and costs....
[The order rests] on two interpretations of state law: (1) This sort of photography company constitutes a public accommodation, defined by state law any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private. (2) A refusal to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony constitutes sexual orientation discrimination, which New Mexico law forbids. These may or may not be sensible interpretations of the statutory text. But the result seems to me to likely violate the First Amendment (though theres no precedent precisely on point).
[1. Compelled Speech.] Photography is an art, and Huguenin is an artist. It may not be high art, but it embodies a wide range of artistic choices (especially since she says she takes a photojournalist approach, rather than just doing normal staged photos). And though she sells the art to its subjects, that is of course part of a long and continuing tradition in the arts, including painting and sculpture, as well as photography. Certainly many of the works protected by the First Amendment (books, newspapers, movies, and the like) were created for money and distributed for money.
Yet the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. Theres no First Amendment case squarely on point, but this does seem pretty close to the cases in which the Court held that the government may not compel people to express views that they do not endorse (the flag salute case, West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, and the license plate slogan case, Wooley v. Maynard).
For whatever its worth, Huguenin also says she exercises political judgment in deciding what to photograph (for instance, she reports that she refuses to make photographs that put horror films in a positive light, or to take photographs that positively portray abortion, pornography, or nudity, as well as same-sex marriage). I dont think that sort of political selectivity should be required for photographers to be protected as artists, but it seems to me to highlight the scope of the artists judgment, and the artists constitutional right to exercise such judgment (just as a bookstore has the right to choose which books to stock).
Consider also a hypothetical analogy: Say that instead of Willocks trying to hire a photographer, Willock was trying to hire a solo freelance writer (or a writer in a two-person freelancing partnership) to write materials for Willocks (hypothetical) same-sex marriage planning company. The writer refused on the grounds that she didnt want to promote such a company.
I take it the law would cover the writer as much as it would cover the photographer (why wouldnt it?). Yet wouldnt requiring writers even writers of press releases and Web sites to write words that express views they reject violate the First Amendment? And if not, whats the difference between that and requiring photographers to take photographs that implicitly but strongly express views they reject? (Wedding photographs, of course, express views celebrating the event being photographed.) ...
[2. Religious Exemptions:] [And] the decision may also violate the photographers religious freedom rights under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The act, which is similar to the legal rules in place in about half the states and as to federal law, provides that
A government agency shall not restrict a persons free exercise of religion [i.e., an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief] unless ... the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Elaine Huguenins refusal to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony does seem to be substantially motivated by her religious belief. She is therefore entitled to an exemption unless applying the law to her passes strict scrutiny is the least restrictive means of furthering [and is essential to furthering a] compelling governmental interest.
What government interests might justify denying Huguenin the exemption? If the interest is in making sure that people have roughly equal access to services, regardless of their sexual orientation, then I doubt that requiring Huguenin to photograph the ceremony is essential to serving that interest. There surely are lots of other photographers in Albquerque, and I have no reason to think that all or even most of them share Huguenins religious objections; if Huguenin is given an exemption, same-sex couples will still have lots of photography services available to them. And given that a wedding photographer, to do a great job, likely needs to feel some empathy with the ceremony, forcing the Huguenins of the world into photographing a ceremony that they disapprove of will likely not give same-sex couples very good service.
But if the governments view is that people have a moral right not to be discriminated against entirely independently of any practical burden that such discrimination imposes on them based on their sexual orientation, then it would appear that every instance of sexual orientation discrimination would violate that right. And if the government has a compelling interest in vindicating that right, then granting an exemption even to a few religious objectors would jeopardize that interest, and denying the objection would be essential to maximally furthering the interest. On the other hand, can New Mexico assert such a compelling interest when it itself discriminates against same-sex couples in its marriage laws?
So the religious freedom issue would turn, I take it, on what version of the government interest New Mexico courts ultimately recognize the first version, focusing on practical access to services, which should lead to granting an exemption, or the second, focusing on a supposed moral right not to be discriminated against, which should lead to denying an exemption (if the government is seen as having a compelling interest in protecting that right). Incidentally, in a similar area, marital status discrimination in housing against unmarried couples, the several state courts applying state religious accommodation regimes have split, based precisely on this issue of which sort of interest is involved.
I have more thoughts on the subject, including some replies to responses that I had gotten to my original arguments, here; and, as I said, I hope to blog more on this soon.
In other words, the homosexual mafia will fine you if you dare to oppose them in any way.
It is happening here folks. In These United States.
The Trial Judge is a big time Obamunist who heavily contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign.
And here we thought Lincoln freed the slaves...
this f*cking BS needs to be uprooted out of our society. By revolution if necessary.
What a crock. Political correctness says yu must overlook what is right to you. Sometime soon I hope the hammer comes down on all these do gooders.
In other words, the government will be dictating to her the jobs she must accept.
She should have told the happy couple sorry but she was booked that day and give no other explanation.
Hope she goes the “I don’t photograph pornagraphy” defense route in an appeal.
Can also appeal on grounds that making her photograph a same-sex marriage would violate her religious rights NOT to do something that is against her religion.
Could be the start of something big.
This is a direct assault on the First Amendment. The Court has actually declared that Christians will be FORCED to accept jobs from homosexuals, even if their religious beliefs forbid it.
Under the "logic" of this ruling, If a homosexual pervert decides to hire a Christian photographer to shoot a homosexual perversion parade, the Christian could be fined for refusing.
Even here in our Yorktown schools there exists a “gay mafia”
of students, teachers and admins.
Politically incorrect thoughts/attitudes always get the non-member students punished.
I have 3 boys in this system and I’ve seen it happen many times.
Who else has noticed this phenomenon?
That is EXACTLY it. And we sure as sh*t better be slamming these worthless, treasonous vermin right back in the face. The blowback needs to be fierce.
Seriously, if the photographer did go and shoot the ceremony because she was ordered to do so, and then a portable hard drive crashed, would she be held legally liable because there were no shots? How can someone who is ordered by a court to perform a BUSINESS SERVICE be held liable when that service is substandard??
I ask this, because as a part time photographer, I've had a hard drive crash on me, with 2000 gorgeous shots we had just loaded onto it that day from a photo shoot lost -- forever. (sob, throw up, repeat as felt.)
We are photographers. We have thousands of dollars invested in our cameras. I saw nothing in the instructions of these cameras that told me I had to photograph anything. The courts could kiss my a$$. It’s my decision what I am going to shoot and what I’m not, not the courts.
Brother where we’re heading, only guns is going to undo this shit. If you thought the first civil war was bad, you have no idea how ugly the next one will be.
When it breaks, it’s going to break hard. There won’t be enough National Guard units to stop the unrest. And the Guard will be splintered by social and racial issues as well. Ugly real fast.
Is it going to be appealed to the Supreme Court? I didn’t see that, if it happens to be in the article...
Maybe it is time for some of these “mafiosos” to be found on cold mornings, reclining on barbed wire fences...
A.A.C.
Freedom of religion and freedom of association should always outweigh any so called “civil rights” legislation.
In essence the Court is enacting a Stalinist fine system against anyone who refuses the homosexual mafia's demands.
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.