Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 12/18/2009 10:11:50 AM PST by NYer
.- Attorneys for a small photography company charged with violating anti-discrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” are planning to appeal a New Mexico judge’s decision to uphold the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against them.
The Albuquerque company, Elane Photography, is co-owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon. They are being represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).
In 2006 a woman named Vanessa Willock asked them to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that she and another woman wanted to hold in Taos, N.M. State law does not recognize homosexual unions.
Elaine Hugenin declined because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs conflicted with the message communicated by the ceremony, the ADF said. 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 issued an order in April 2008 finding that the company engaged in discrimination prohibited under state law. The commission ordered the company to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees.
“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,” he continued.
Lorence charged that the commission’s decision showed a “striking disregard” for the company’s rights. He said the decision will be appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
And what if he opts not to photograph a nudist wedding or a nighttime orgy on personal grounds as well?
If discrimination against sexual behaviors are cause for prosecution, then the above two instances would also be included.
So now the courts can force Americans to work for homosexuals? They are truly Nazis. Pink Nazis, but Nazis nonetheless.
Does New Mexico have same sex marriages?
Could this photographer simply state I don’t photograph “commitment ceremonies”?
There is no tolerance for his religious diversity.
Walk into a Church’s Fried Chicken in NM then and ask for a ham sandwich. Church’s is now a muslim owned company that has a halal menu.
But they can’t discriminate against your religious beliefs which say it is okay to eat pork.
Are you confusing religous beliefs with ‘personal grounds’?
Why didn’t they just say they had other commitments that day and leave it at that? “Sorry, we are busy.” No reason to go fishing for trouble in a pond that is already full of attitude. And now the Huguenins are paying the price.
It seems like it is far more professional to turn the job down, then to be forced to take it and do a really... really... amazingly bad job.
Protest and civil disobedience goes both ways.
I want a Muslim Caterer to handle our Annual Pig Roast and if they refuse, I’ll sue. I wonder if that would fly.
Can a photographer say “I don’t photograph childrens’ birthdays”?
Personal reasons can mean “I don’t want to go there, too much hassle, not into it, etc.”
Taking photos doesn’t mean that every photo you take is one customers want to buy.
Some people photograph advertising, some photograph crime scenes, some photograph architecture, some photograph for medicine, some for art.
An independent operator should be able to decline any work for hire job that doesn’t suit him, religious grounds or otherwise.
You will notice that a photographer can say “I won’t photograph you for your political campaign because I think that Republicans are thugucrats and the spawn of the non-existent satan”. Discrimination against political ideology is not prohibited by such discrimination laws. Only sexual beliefs, religious beliefs, gender, and ethnicity.
That judge needs to be removed.
You have homosexual activists who are pushing this issue in a variety of arenas includeing transvestites who “want” to work at religious bookstores in drag.
Yet an employer can prohibit employee smoking both on and off the job.
“Paying the price”? They shouldn’t have to worry about it. What they do, what they want to do is up to them....not the courts. I would have done the same thing. It’s my camera, it’s my company, I’ll do what I want and shoot pictures of whom I want. These liberal judges have to go.
They can do what I do, the day is BOOKED!
Nope. Wrong religion.
“Paying the price” in that they had to hire a lawyer to defend themselves, pay court costs, etc. This is not free. I would have done the same thing, too. But I would not have offered an elaborate explanation to the obvious homosexual activist with a humongous chip on her shoulder. I would not have provided said activist with lawsuit fodder. I would just have had another engagement that day and left it at that.
All so called human rights or civil liberties commissions need to be disbanded and that asshat of a judge should be arrested, tried for grossly violating a citizen’s civil rights and executed.
It seems to me that the NM “commission” can make a ruling but they can’t go against the NM constitution. The couple should ignore the ruling and force the commission to take them to a higher court instead of the other way around.
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.