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 next last
To: sten

Yep. Simply ignore them. Refuse. Put all the business’ assets under an LLC and lease them to yourself. Then you have nothing the leeches can take in a civil action.

But stand your ground. God’s law trumps Man’s.


61 posted on 08/23/2013 7:26:34 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Very good point. The First Amendment protects the free EXERCISE of one’s religion, which includes the practice of that religion’s values and teachings in one’s everyday life.


62 posted on 08/23/2013 7:31:35 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Not since the civil rights laws were passed in the sixties.


63 posted on 08/23/2013 7:32:20 AM PDT by Chickensoup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

easy to say. I don’t see conservatives funding monies for these people.


64 posted on 08/23/2013 7:33:19 AM PDT by Chickensoup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
What about the right of a business owner to refuse to do business with whomever he or she wants.

In some establishments I can be refused service for not wearing shoes.

65 posted on 08/23/2013 7:36:47 AM PDT by Slyfox (Without the Right to Life, all other rights are meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Exactly...time to turn the tables and use the same tactics on these folks. Never let an opportunity/crisis go to waste.


66 posted on 08/23/2013 7:37:42 AM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs stay silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

They want us to think that free exercise means you can go into your building and do your thing: clap and stomp, liturgize, sing and shout, kneel and genuflect, or whatever is YOUR way of doing “Worship”.

That is just one piece of free exercise.

“Free Exercise” means getting to LIVE your religion.

I wish this photographer had been Amish or Hasidic Jew or something like that: can you imagine the courts disagreeing with the Hasidics about what does and does not constitute part of their religion?


67 posted on 08/23/2013 7:38:08 AM 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 62 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I’d either shut down my business, or I’d go photograph the wedding by taking blurry pictures of their feet and nothing else.


68 posted on 08/23/2013 7:42:54 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Sadly, the Christian community is being hoisted on the petard that many of them celebrated. Those that helped eliminate private property rights and the right of free association via smoking bans on private property, they laid a foundation that will be used against them by the homosexual community.

First they came for the smokers and many celebrated. Now these folks are reaping their just rewards. A few FReepers celebrate daily....

Privately owned businesses are no longer free to cater to whomever they decide is their target market, nor are they free to decline business to those that carry political favor.


69 posted on 08/23/2013 7:45:18 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

When it comes to law there is no difference. The country tried to legislate morality in the 60’s and this is the unintended consequence.

Good people allowed the creation of a bad law for what they thought were good reasons. Now you have to realize that the government does not consider homosexuality to be abnormal or immoral, thus they get the same privelidges that blacks were granted by the poorly concieved civil rights laws.


70 posted on 08/23/2013 7:47:49 AM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

“I was thinking that if this case goes to the USSC, then this ruling will be overturned. But then I remembered John Roberts.”

And Kilo.


71 posted on 08/23/2013 7:49:23 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

He is a fag. Photo says it all.


72 posted on 08/23/2013 7:50:48 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
 photo selection_199_56.jpg
73 posted on 08/23/2013 7:51:52 AM PDT by SkyDancer (A white woman would be accused of racism if she gave birth to a white baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: the_boy_who_got_lost
If I were the photographer I would make all the photos suck. =)

Roger that.

The ones that I think are funny are the people (gays) who force companies to cater / provide cakes for their weddings.

"Here's your cake. Keep in mind that I didn't particularly care for you to begin with, then you forced me to incur substantial legal bills, then tried to drive my family out of the business we've held for the past 20 years, for no other reason than 'you could'. As a result of your actions, my family and I have suffered constant insults and physical threats from hundreds of people just like you.

So......Bon Appetit!"

Man, I'd not want to be within 100 yards of anything provided in a situation like that.

74 posted on 08/23/2013 7:53:10 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: needmorePaine

“I thought involuntary servitude is not allowed in the US.”

That is abolished with Obamacare. If I am forced to purchase a product (health insurnce) from a private company, then someone MUST be forced to sell that product to me!

It was deemed “constitutional” to enslave others.


75 posted on 08/23/2013 7:53:13 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ontap; DManA
Choosing not to serve someone based solely on their God given skin color is repugnant.
Choosing not to serve someone based on their abnormal, harmful lifestyle choice is entirely another matter; especially when it directly collides with one’s religious beliefs.
76 posted on 08/23/2013 7:54:15 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Just wanted to say I hope you great NSA folks are enjoying my posts here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Photography, like cakemaking, is a service industry. The state can compel service but not good service.

I wouldn’t trust my photographs to someone compelled to take them and I damned sure wouldn’t trust food to compelled service.

These cases are about making a political point for sure. That said, it’s a hollow victory unless the winner is plain stupid on top of their other problems.


77 posted on 08/23/2013 7:55:26 AM PDT by ziravan (Not Guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I would tell them that of course I have to serve them, but if I were to vomit at their ceremony, that could cause a problem for them. Of course it is their choice. :)


78 posted on 08/23/2013 8:00:09 AM PDT by Truth2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland

I think it’s repugnant but my opinion is irrelevant. We delegated the right to decide what’s right and wrong to the Federal Government.


79 posted on 08/23/2013 8:01:50 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“I have no idea as to why your eyes are so read or where those horns on top of your head came from. I might suggest that you hire another photographer the next time you two boys get married”.

LLS


80 posted on 08/23/2013 8:02:37 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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

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