Skip to comments.
Appeal to be Filed in Case of Photographer Fined for "Discrimination"
LifeSiteNews ^
| Thursday December 17, 2009
Posted on 12/17/2009 11:02:07 AM PST by GonzoII
![](http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/newtemplate/LifeSiteNewsLogo.jpg)
Thursday December 17, 2009
Appeal to be Filed in Case of Photographer Fined for "Discrimination"
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., December 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) will appeal a New Mexico judge's decision to uphold a ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission against an Albuquerque photography company. The commission ruled that the company, run by a young Christian husband and wife, was guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination under state antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony." "Christians in the marketplace should not be subject to predatory legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs," said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. "The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. "Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? American small business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate, nor can the government make people choose between their faith and their livelihood." "The commission's decision demonstrated striking disregard for our client's rights as protected by the First Amendment. We will appeal the trial court's decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals," Lorence said. In 2006, Vanessa Willock asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband, Jon Huguenin, of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" that Willock and another woman wanted to hold in Taos. Neither marriage nor civil unions are legal between members of the same sex in New Mexico. Elaine Huguenin declined because her and her husband's Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The commission held a one-day trial and then issued an order in April 2008 finding that Elane Photography engaged in "sexual orientation" discrimination prohibited under state law, ordering it to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys' fees to Willock. ADF appealed the commission's decision to the 2nd Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, in Elane Photography v. Willock in July 2008. The court issued its ruling Friday.
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121702.html
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
|
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: antichristianity; courts; homonaziagenda; homonazism; homosexualagenda; homostatism; homotyranny; law; moralabsolutes; religiousfreedom; religiousliberty; religiouspersecution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
1
posted on
12/17/2009 11:02:09 AM PST
by
GonzoII
To: greyfoxx39; CedarDave
You two asleep at the wheel lately? Let’s go! Pingaroo...
2
posted on
12/17/2009 11:03:14 AM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
Sounds like the couple are guilty of being properly sexually-oriented.
3
posted on
12/17/2009 11:05:07 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: skeeter
He should have just UPPED his fees, and charged $50,000 US Dollars....
To: GonzoII
The photographer will probably loose, just as a business cannot deny service to blacks.
5
posted on
12/17/2009 11:08:00 AM PST
by
DonaldC
(A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
To: GonzoII
Are you kidding me? A PRIVATE company cannot refuse service to whomever they want??
6
posted on
12/17/2009 11:08:04 AM PST
by
GnuHere
To: GonzoII
some enterprising folks need to find a muslim photog studio and hire them to shoot some homosexual wedding or Christian baptism or something- then file discrimination when they refuse
7
posted on
12/17/2009 11:08:24 AM PST
by
silverleaf
(More folks being invited to the White House for Holiday parties than are being sent to Afghanistan)
To: GonzoII
Sooooo they can be discriminated against because of their religion in order to keep from discriminating against someone’s taste in genital preference?
8
posted on
12/17/2009 11:09:16 AM PST
by
Adder
(Proudly ignoring Zero since 1-20-09!)
To: GonzoII
This seemingly frivolous lawsuit is deadly serious. It is intended to use the coercive power of Courts to punish those who do not follow the mainstream as prescribed by the Illuminati.
Even if the plaintiff loses, this case will still confront people with the choice of making a living by going along to get along or spending time and expense defending their own values.
There is a cultural war going on in all fronts and the family is a major target.
9
posted on
12/17/2009 11:12:21 AM PST
by
walford
(http://the-big-pic.org)
To: GonzoII
Wondering how the commission and the judge would view Tiger Woods’ sleeping habits... :-)
10
posted on
12/17/2009 11:18:26 AM PST
by
SteveH
(First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
To: GonzoII
Elaine Huguenin declined because her and her husband's Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. They should have simply said, "We're sorry. We have no openings available at this time. Thank you for thinking of using our service."
No lawsuit possible with respect to that response.
11
posted on
12/17/2009 11:33:35 AM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.)
To: DonaldC
>> The photographer will probably loose, just as a business cannot deny service to blacks.
I think the courts would be making a mistake in asserting equivalence of race and behavior.
The photographer objected to providing service based on the the client’s behavior, not the client’s race.
12
posted on
12/17/2009 11:35:49 AM PST
by
Gene Eric
(Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
To: GonzoII
Let’s follow this out to it’s logical conclusion. If I go to a bar looking to get laid, ignore a gay’s advances but get lucky and take a women home, the scorned gay can then sue me for rejecting him but accepting someone of a different gender? It’s coming, folks.
13
posted on
12/17/2009 11:37:59 AM PST
by
Bad Jack Bauer
(Fat and Bald? I was BORN fat and bald, thank you very much!)
To: GonzoII
They do not want tolerance they want forced acceptance from the heavy hand of the state.
Wow.
14
posted on
12/17/2009 12:07:58 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: DonaldC
Oh my local 7-eleven says “No shoes, no shirt no service”
I’m suing!
lol
15
posted on
12/17/2009 12:09:19 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: DonaldC
Only in bizzaro world.
You can't equate the two, although that is the Left’s tactic. They wish to equate the civil rights movement with the promotion of a mental disorder.
16
posted on
12/17/2009 12:25:44 PM PST
by
IrishCatholic
(No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
To: GonzoII; greyfoxx39
greyfoxx39 no longer maintains the Ping list and I have not decided to do so, hoping that a person with more time will take charge of it.
17
posted on
12/17/2009 1:41:51 PM PST
by
CedarDave
(FOX news:"Fair and balanced (no matter what the White House says) . We report because others won't.")
To: GonzoII
what if they refused to photograph a childbirth? a conception?
this is a slap suit pure and simple.
18
posted on
12/17/2009 1:49:58 PM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: GeronL
the homosexuals are tyirng to scare forced association.
What happens if a day care center (private) does not want to endorse “heather has to momies” BS?
If this spreads then homosexuals may be forced to admit their BEHIVIOR is seen negativly.
19
posted on
12/17/2009 1:56:08 PM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: GonzoII; LegendHasIt; Rogle; leapfrog0202; Santa Fe_Conservative; DesertDreamer; OneWingedShark; ...
NM list PING!
(contact me to be added or removed)
20
posted on
12/17/2009 3:31:54 PM PST
by
CedarDave
(FOX news:"Fair and balanced (no matter what the White House says) . We report because others won't.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson