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

Skip to comments.

New Mexico photographer loses gay marriage case
AP/Deseret News ^ | 8/23/2013

Posted on 08/23/2013 6:48:09 AM PDT by markomalley

A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico's anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday.

Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography with her husband and is the business's principal photographer, refused to photograph the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

The court held that "a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients" is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights Act "and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples."

"Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony," the court concluded, the photographer "violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."

The court rejected arguments that the anti-discrimination law violated the photographer's right to free speech and the free exercise of religious beliefs.

(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 last
To: nathanbedford

The state law cannot override the First Amendment which includes freedom of association


101 posted on 08/23/2013 2:02:07 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

Where is the Westboro Baptist Church when you need them? If the Westboro Baptist Church does not show up, you might ask some frat boys to show up with God hates fags signs and t-shirts.


102 posted on 08/23/2013 2:06:31 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

As I heard a number of clueless people say on radio during the Massachusetts gay marriage debate...”I don’t see how it will interfere with my marriage.” Hey, clueless ones, they will use it to interfere with ANYTHING they want!


103 posted on 08/23/2013 2:10:09 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Well, assuming the concept of freedom of association extends to freedom not to associate, both the federal and state governments, fully enforced by federal and state courts, have been denying people the right to refuse to associate on the basis of race for decades.

Of course, in some areas they are more strict, especially in public accommodation, and some areas not all, like marriage or renting rooms in your house.

My problem is I don't see a difference in the constitutional basis for permitting or prohibiting a state from overriding the right to refuse to associate because of race as distinguished from homosexuality.


104 posted on 08/23/2013 2:14:08 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

homosexuality is a behavior

does a bank have a right to refuse entry to a known bank robber?

does a casino have a right to refuse entry to a known card counter?

Oh yes they do!


105 posted on 08/23/2013 2:45:17 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Not if the bank robber is black and the card sharp is gay.

But seriously…

Okay let's assume that homosexuality is a behavior and not a condition, not a condition inherited at birth, an assumption which the courts almost certainly will reject but one which we will make now.

What is the constitutional basis for prohibiting a state from requiring citizens to associate with people who exhibit a behavior as opposed people who exhibit a condition? Note the question asks what is the constitutional basis, not what is your common sense basis.

I take it sex (gender) is a condition and not a behavior. How do you justify the law prohibiting people from associating when they are of different genders? How do you justify the law that compels people to associate, such as in the Army, and the police force, in corporations, when they might not wish to associate?

Same question applies to age and many other basis upon which private people and states routinely discriminate.

In other words, I am trying to keep clear of falling into the same trap that I accuse liberals and the Supreme Court of falling into, which is to proclaim a constitutional right because they like the result which fits their agenda.


106 posted on 08/23/2013 3:39:06 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Courts might reject it but it is reality


107 posted on 08/23/2013 3:49:44 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

So its okay if a school decides that sodomizes the students is a valid form of sex-ed, that’d be okay? and those who object have no right to disassociate from it?


108 posted on 08/23/2013 3:51:21 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Of course it would not be okay it would be morally reprehensible.

The question however is, would it be constitutional? And why.

If we don't have those answers clear, eventually we will see our children sodomized in the schools with the state's approval


109 posted on 08/23/2013 4:04:31 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

The answer is we have the freedom of association which implicitly means the right not to associate as well.


110 posted on 08/23/2013 4:07:32 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher

So the New Mexico Human Rights Act trumps the US Constitution?


You used ‘Human Right0s’ in a sentence with ‘New Mexico’...........You gotta’ a lotta’ damn gall, or stupidity. /t


111 posted on 08/23/2013 4:34:44 PM PDT by S.O.S121.500 (Case back hoe for sale or trade for diesel wood chipper....Enforce the Bill of Rights. It's the Law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cradle of freedom
In response to your post #98.

I think your thinking sounds 110% accurate.

I'd guess conservatively speaking a minimum of 75% of these cases are premeditated in an attempt to push the agenda and force it on people.

The problem exists in PROVING it by proving that kind of thinking was involved in advance. Nobody with a "leftist" agenda is going to be truthful in a situation such as were discussing.

112 posted on 08/23/2013 4:44:42 PM PDT by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I thought it was the State Supreme Court that already denied them. They had that constitution in front of them, and apparently they ruled otherwise.
What do you do...ask for a do-over?

I'm going to write the State Bar, demanding that they rescind these Justices law licenses, and the State Legislature demanding impeachment.

113 posted on 08/23/2013 5:02:32 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

NM “Supreme” Court is an all-leftist Democrat creature.


114 posted on 08/23/2013 5:16:51 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Your constitution is absolutely clear that folks daily lives are permitted to be lived according to their faith.

I can’t imagine anyone interpreting it otherwise.


115 posted on 08/23/2013 6:26:02 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: HomeAtLast

In the states where I practice, yes. I cannot decline to take on a person as a client for a discriminatory reason (sexual orientation, race, sex, etc). ‘Course, there’s lots of other reason to decline to represent just about anyone.....


116 posted on 08/23/2013 8:04:00 PM PDT by MisterEd37 (TSA: You don't get on until we get off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The NM photographers ought to give the lesbian couple Russian vodka and the Russian flag.


117 posted on 08/24/2013 2:39:59 PM PDT by yongin (Putin is a more American than Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
I bet the court would not make a muslim restaurant make me a ham sandwich.
118 posted on 08/26/2013 7:47:18 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yongin

I’d give them photos complete with Grumpy Cat and Looter Guy photoshopped into every photo.


119 posted on 08/26/2013 7:52:01 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 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