Posted on 06/05/2012 8:54:59 AM PDT by CedarDave
A photo studio’s refusal to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled, rejecting the Albuquerque studio’s argument that doing so would cause it to disobey God and Biblical teachings.
It was the third loss for the studio, and victory for Vanessa Willock.
Willock first contacted photographer Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography in fall 2006 about taking pictures of a “same-gender ceremony” and was informed the studio only handled “traditional weddings.” When her partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, the studio responded with a price list and sent a follow-up email.
The Alliance Defense Fund, “a Christian legal alliance defending religious liberty, sanctity of life, marriage and the family,” stepped up to represent Huguenin and Elane. The fund didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission and District Judge Alan Malott have concluded in rulings in 2008 and 2009 that the studio violated the Human Rights Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Wouldn’t it just be a pity if their eyes were closed in every photo?
But muslim checkout clerks at grocery stores can refuse to wait on you if you have pork in your cart.
*head spins*
This is like the thread from yesterday where the lady refused to rent to a soldier.
This is like the thread from yesterday where the lady refused to rent to a soldier.
No, the studio is right in this instance.
the studio has the “right” to turn down a paying customer, which I think is foolish
You are implying that it's foolish to stand on principal if it interferes with profit?
Only the most ignorant and stupid libs would actually believe that this isn't exactly the goal of "gay rights".
Most libs revel in the idea that this can be used as a weapon against people with Christian beliefs.
I would assert that most of them that were "pooh-poohing" our objections were simply being dishonest.
Let’s put it this way: DON’T run a kissing booth at the state fair.
Businesses should be able to turn down whom they please for whatever reason. It’s a private business!!
Businesses should be able to turn down whom they please for whatever reason. It’s a private business!!
And people can refuse to sell birth control stuff too...
I just don’t understand why the couple just didn’t find another photographer. This makes no sense to me.
So I guess if they refused to photograph a polygamous marriage, they would get sued. When you celebrate perversion, you get filth everywhere, in every aspect of culture. ...These queers couldn’t do the decent thing, and go find a photography studio that wasn’t offended by them. They had to make a big legal deal out of it, in your face perversion. The instinctive revulsion they call homophobia is becoming reasoned hate.
My thoughts exactly. Sure, they won and now the photographer "must" push the shutter button; but there is a huge difference between a good photo and a horrible one. So, "By order of the court, I must take your photo's. By the same order of the court, here is your bill for $1,200+" and here are some out-of-focus, poorly placed, poorly timed photos of the ceremony. Naturally, like every other wedding photo, the negatives belong to the studio, and you may select as many prints (at additional cost) as you would like.
Then, if I were the studio; I'd look to see if they scanned or duplicated any of the "copyrighted" material the studio took. I'd look in FaceBook and any other venue where unauthorized photographic copies may be placed. Then, because what is good for the goose, is good for the gander; we could go back to court to discuss any theft of copyrighted material, as per the standard contract.
> Why would anyone want a photographer who is being FORCED to
> take your wedding pictures?
I am certain sure that the homos will not hire the Christian photographer in the end. They will hire someone else.
They just want to punish the studio with court costs, time out of work, bad press, etc.
They didn’t simply find another photographer because it was probably never about the photographs - it was about punishing Christians for their Christian beliefs. They probably sought out a Christian photographer with the intention of setting up just this sort of conflict.
I thought involuntary servitude was a crime...
Exactly... that's what I would do.
It’s about FORCING straight people into accepting or acquiescing to the homo agenda.
BINGO! The answer, of course, is that these are radical gay activist that are simply looking for businesses to sue... to make a point. They don't care about getting pictures... If that was their concern, they would have moved on to the next studio.
Good question!
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.