Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court upholds fine against Christian photographer for refusing to photography homosexual wedding.
Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 12-16-2009 | Eugene Volokh

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 wasn’t distributed until yesterday. I hope to blog more about it today, but here’s my analysis from last year:

Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elane’s work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock’s 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 attorney’s 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 there’s 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. There’s 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 it’s 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 don’t 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 artist’s judgment, and the artist’s 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 Willock’s 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 Willock’s (hypothetical) same-sex marriage planning company. The writer refused on the grounds that she didn’t want to promote such a company.

I take it the law would cover the writer as much as it would cover the photographer (why wouldn’t it?). Yet wouldn’t 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, what’s 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 photographer’s 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 person’s 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 Huguenin’s 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 Huguenin’s 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 government’s 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: alanmalott; alanmmalott; elanephotography; firstamendment; gaymafia; homosexual; homosexualagenda; malott; photographer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: panzerkamphwageneinz

I think you’re right. Keep your powder dry!


41 posted on 12/16/2009 5:46:41 PM PST by crghill (You can't put a condom on your soul. I'm an anti-antinomian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: panzerkamphwageneinz
Having served in three services over 32 years, I am sure that giving an order to military units to march and fire on civil unrest will not be in the best interest of the local commander. Ever since Kent state, the military has taught the junior enlisted repeatedly about use of force against civilians. This has been effectively proven in both Iraq and Afghanistan and would be more difficult in America by leaps and bounds.
42 posted on 12/16/2009 6:11:09 PM PST by wbarmy (Hard core, extremist, and right-wing is a little too mild for my tastes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Perhaps the government can compel the photographer to share their bed as punishment for exercising her First Amendment rights. I mean what the hell, if the government can compel you to provide a service to something you find repugnant, the punushment can be repugnant as well.

Freaking lunacy.

43 posted on 12/16/2009 6:28:20 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

The homosexuals will troll for Christian businesses on purpose so they can sue them all and drive them out of business.

...Just like the radical Islamists suing anyone who opposes them.


44 posted on 12/16/2009 6:28:40 PM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Joplin fan, eh?

What was the name of that song? Me & Booby McGee?


45 posted on 12/16/2009 6:34:44 PM PST by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

I bet these rules wouldn’t apply to a radical Muzzie.


46 posted on 12/16/2009 6:50:30 PM PST by Britt0n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2111USMC
"Joplin fan, eh?
What was the name of that song? Me & Booby McGee?
"

Actually, I never heard the Joplin version until a few years ago; but everybody and their brother has recorded that song, from Bobbie Gentry to Jerry Lee Lewis.

That line about freedom meaning "nothing left to lose" always stood out to me though...there's a lot of truth in that.

Kinda reminds me of when George Carlin said, "the only reason we have houses is to have a palce to keep our STUFF"

Lots of folks losing their houses, and having to sell their "STUFF" to eat these days, the obama steam roller is going to keep on pushing until folks will have "nothing left to lose"...then all hells going to break loose.
47 posted on 12/16/2009 6:51:36 PM PST by FrankR (oBAMA: I'd rather pay higher premiums and live, than sit before your Death Panels and die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Is there a fund where we could help pay the fine for them?


48 posted on 12/16/2009 6:52:12 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

The only way we will permanently get rid of this is to abolish the pernicious civil “rights” legislation of the 60’s. There is absolutely NO constitutional reason a business should be told how to conduct their business or who to serve.


49 posted on 07/04/2011 6:19:36 AM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson