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

Skip to comments.

Weighing Free Speech in Refusal to Photograph Lesbian Couple’s Ceremony
New York Times ^ | November 18, 2013 | ADAM LIPTAK

Posted on 11/24/2013 5:08:56 AM PST by reaganaut1

WASHINGTON — A New Mexico law forbids businesses open to the public to discriminate against gay people. Elaine Huguenin, a photographer, says she has no problem with that — so long as it does not force her to say something she does not believe.

In asking the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to the law, Ms. Huguenin said that she would “gladly serve gays and lesbians — by, for example, providing them with portrait photography,” but that she did not want to tell the stories of same-sex weddings. To make her celebrate something her religion tells her is wrong, she said, would hijack her right to free speech.

So she turned down a request from a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth, to document their commitment ceremony. The women, who hired another photographer, filed a discrimination complaint against Ms. Huguenin’s studio, Elane Photography. So far, the studio has lost in the courts.

There are constitutional values on both sides of the case: the couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms. Huguenin’s right to free speech. I asked Louise Melling, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has a distinguished history of championing free speech, how the group had evaluated the case.

Ms. Melling said the evaluation had required difficult choices. Photography is expression protected by the Constitution, she said, and Ms. Huguenin acted from “heartfelt convictions.”

But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said, explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.

“This is a business,” Ms. Melling said. “At the end of the day, it sells services for photographing weddings. This is like putting up a sign that says ‘Heterosexual Couples Only.’ ”

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; huguenin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: RginTN

Forgot to add this: of course doing this necessarily lessens the honesty of the transaction, but I think that is fallout that cannot be avoided. Unfortunate, but a societal consequence of the feds regulating everything in sight...


41 posted on 11/24/2013 8:32:54 AM PST by LaRueLaDue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LaRueLaDue

Think outside the box.

What the homosexuals are doing is bullying and using the law to blackmail the photographer into taking pictures.

So ... get some friends and picket the event with signs that say “bully” and “blackmailers inside”. If they have a “just married” signed car, take water soluble paint and spray pain “bullys” and “blackmailers” onto their car.

You are not picketing them for being “gay”, but for their bullying behavior. Looks legal to me.


42 posted on 11/24/2013 10:43:40 AM PST by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sten

America is going down the drain. The perverted agenda has infested all branches of government. These perverts demand far more than pervert marriage. They demand approval for their sick behavior by all, and if someone dares not approve, they will be sued and sued and sued until they are ruined.


43 posted on 11/24/2013 11:21:32 AM PST by opres
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Public businesses should not be force to serve customers they don’t like except in cases of food, shelter, or emergency services.

Once you give the state any power at all to define who must be served by a private business, then you can't control who the state selects.

Either businesses are free to make their own decisions (even stupid ones like restaurants not serving black people) or they're not. Personally, I think a truly free market is self-correcting and would take care of most of these problems if left alone.
44 posted on 11/24/2013 12:00:31 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said, explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.”

That’s not what the Constitution says. It says “No Law” shall abridge the right of free speech. As Justice black said many years ago: “No law means no law.”


45 posted on 11/24/2013 1:59:32 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate. What will happen is that people will get savvy and simply find some objective conflict so as to avoid this kind of thing. These "Human Rights" laws are simply anti-religion laws.

who hired another photographer

Problem solved. Where's the crime?

46 posted on 11/24/2013 3:06:29 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albie

This isn’t a Freedom of Speech case, but a Freedom of Religion (belief/thought) case. The homosexual couple weren’t harmed in any way. They hired another photographer and life went on. Let’s not let them set the narrative here.


47 posted on 11/24/2013 3:08:30 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE

Bingo.


48 posted on 11/24/2013 3:11:18 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: umgud

The government gets to decide right and wrong, not the individual.


49 posted on 11/24/2013 3:14:15 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Liberty and equality are antonyms.

The Constitution was written to preserve the blessings of liberty. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more antithetical to liberty than forcing a business to take custom they don’t want.


50 posted on 11/24/2013 3:17:30 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
The government MUST officiate in instances where marriages fail or are contested by outside parties for various reasons - they simply must - and when they get involved at this level, there must be an understanding what marriage is: aka, a DEFINITION.

Government must recognize marriage for these various reasons, and therefore, must have a working definition of the institution. This is fundamental and cannot be avoided. Otherwise, it would be like saying the governmnent cannot be involved in the concept of "ownership" and is, thus, unable to enforce against thefts, burglaries or robberys.

51 posted on 11/24/2013 10:26:28 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
A New Mexico law forbids businesses open to the public to discriminate against gay people.

Ska-rew that!

Let the state photograph the whacks. And do the flowers, cake, provide the hall, the band...all of it.

Businesses may be "open to the public" but they are still private entities.

52 posted on 11/24/2013 10:30:52 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ("The government" is nothing but a RAT jobs program)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Or a vegetarian not wanting to shoot a hot-dog eating contest.


53 posted on 11/24/2013 11:04:12 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
Stack ranking the protected rights of Americans...a job only for the socialist dhimmicraps.

And here I thought homosexuals didn't want "special" rights. Turns out their rights are more special than everyone else's.

54 posted on 11/24/2013 11:10:12 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Can I hire Oliver Stone to direct a remake of Passion of the Christ and sue him if he turns down the offer?


55 posted on 11/24/2013 11:12:23 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

“So if you own a business you lose your right to choose who you want to service?”

Yep - under what most people would think was a good idea - the Civil Rights Act. I thought it was a good idea too for the longest time. The vote is one thing that I think was obviously needed. But forcing businesses to serve people they didn’t want to serve was dumb. If they wanted to lose business because they discriminated, so be it. But don’t force them to serve people.

If they can force the businesses to sell things, the next thing you know they’ll be forcing the customer to BUY things! (Naw - that could never happen. /s)

Hmmm. There are now incentives to hire minority subcontractors, etc. I imagine at some point in time companies will be forced to hire minority subcontractors. Although I suppose it might be forced now, as I think your percentage of minority subcontractors goes towards your ranking on some bids.


56 posted on 11/24/2013 11:20:44 PM PST by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“...go to McDonald’s and demand pizza?”

A good point. Although if one needed a gluten free meal, that might be the way to go to sue a restaurant. It would be interesting to do it, lose, and prove the point against forcing companies to serve gays. Then again - one just might win the case.


57 posted on 11/24/2013 11:24:30 PM PST by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Hannity had on an audience of “millennials” (twenty-somethings?) on Friday, made up of the talking heads who usually appear on FOX. He asked them a bunch of opinion questions and when he asked who supported same-sex marriage, 90% of them raised their hands, including many of the conservative commentators who I’ve only seen on there railing against Obama otherwise. I don’t think there was a question asked that came as close to unanimous support as the one about supporting same-sex marriage.

I don’t know how you undo this kind of mass brainwashing. And it is scary to think how, if liberals are able to engineer that kind of brainwashing within a span of 10-15 years, what other issues they’ll be able to reeducate the youth of the country on using the same techniques.


58 posted on 11/24/2013 11:30:59 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
some Freepers have suggested that in such situations the photographer should accept the job but do it poorly

I'm a photographer, and I know how to take pictures of beautiful women (brides), and romantic scenes and all that. But, a gay wedding has to be very different... with the normal roles being not defined in the same way, and with the lack of a normal couple.

If I were to shoot weddings, I would specialize in normal hetero weddings. If you want to marry a tree, or marry someone of your own gender, than I'm not your best pick, and I'll be honest enough to decline the job. Heck, I'll even be happy to hit the web to get you a dozen or so other choices better suited to your special requirement.

59 posted on 11/24/2013 11:40:25 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

If they can force this business to photograph a same-sex wedding, why can’t they force the boy scouts to accept a girl? Can a boy sue because he wasn’t allowed to be in the vote for prom queen? Do all mens and womens restrooms need to be outlawed for unisex restrooms?

What about plastic surgeons? Will they be mandated to provide breast implants to men?


60 posted on 11/24/2013 11:49:34 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 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