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 ...
I think the notion of not photographing their wedding is a phony principle stand. Jesus spent most of his time with sinners - not to condone their sin - but to be a light.
I also think they are falling prey to a scam, and by not agreeing to do it, they are stepping right into the doo doo layed out in front of them.
I would go to the mat for any owner to do as he/she pleases with a business, a property, etc. And I absolutely confirm their right to do whatever they want to to and refuse service to whomever they want to refuse it.
Are you denying MY RIGHT to say it was a foolish business decision?
Let me be clear: you are a nauseating self righteous JERK for that statement. And ignorant to boot, to think that my god is "money" and not God by what I said. They have fallen for a trap. It's obvious I would bet that their faith is part of their business and they've been set up just for this kind of thing.
They would have disarmed the entire episode had they simply agreed to the gig and charged a premium for it. Be wise as a serpent, and gentle as a dove. In that passage is nothing about being a self righteous ignorant jerk. Maybe you should look it up.
A photographer is an artist; the customer is commissioning works of art, not the services of a camera operator. Any monkey can snap pictures. As such, the photographer’s expression of artistry is protected free speech.
Put a condom over the lens; a latex type of filter.
The artist is expressing his viewpoint on what the ‘marriage’ is based upon.
We all can cite numerous examples of court decisions where some offensive leftist piece of junk was considered art and was allowed to be displayed. Now, it’s our turn to use this approach.
A photographer is an artist; the customer is commissioning works of art, not the services of a camera operator. Any monkey can snap pictures. As such, the photographer’s expression of artistry is protected free speech.
Put a condom over the lens; a latex type of filter.
The artist is expressing his viewpoint on what the ‘marriage’ is based upon.
We all can cite numerous examples of court decisions where some offensive leftist piece of junk was considered art and was allowed to be displayed. Now, it’s our turn to use this approach.
They should have said “We don’t photograp ugly people.” I don’t think that’s a protected class.....yet!
What a fascinating question! I'll bet the queers are cherry picking a judge and prostitute in Nevada right now to test just that.
Are you saying that Jesus would attend an event where two men pretended to get married?
How much do you want to bet they "shopped" for photographers and finally found one who refused to take pictures just to force their agenda?
Sure. Easy for you to say - you're Wright.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. It’s just sad that people have the need to screw with other people because of their beliefs. Makes me sick!
****violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act,****
In my youth I remember seeing signs that said...”WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!”
I guess that does not apply anymore.
A “loser pays” judicial system would eliminate a huge amount of this type of abusive crap.
Your statement is too general.
“people” aren’t screwing with “other people” because of their beliefs.
The Left, using the government, is attacking Christians because of their beliefs.
It doesn’t go the other way.
A “loser pays” judicial system would eliminate a huge amount of this type of abusive crap.
P.S. If the plaintiffs never got married, they would have no case as they would have never been damaged.
Far be it for me to stop stupid.
“Seems like it’s an unnecessary court expense”
Maybe, but the law needs to be challenged or it’s de facto how things run. Stands must be taken.
Yeah but what about the legal and bureaucratic fees associated with that (along with name recognition) and other intangibles. Libs are intollerant of one’s freedom of conscience/religion.
“They would have disarmed the entire episode had they simply agreed to the gig and charged a premium for it.”
Wow - I sure struck a nerve with you, Edmund! Having a bad day are we? Relax and take a deep breath...
I never said your god was money. I simply said their God was God, and not money. Also, to ‘disarm the entire episode’ by accepting the job would still have violated their faith and offended God, irrespective of what the customers were willing to pay.
But you have to admit, the fact that you think that violating their core beliefs would be justified as long as the price was right demonstrates that your standards are indeed different that those people.
Standards that honor God are higher than standards that do not honor God. I’m sorry if that offends you.
Take two asprin and get back to me in the morning.
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.