Weighing Free Speech in Refusal to Photograph Lesbian Couple’s Ceremony

New York Times ^ | November 18, 2013 | ADAM LIPTAK

[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.’ ”

[JediJones]

I really don’t think the law can or should force someone who does artistic or entertainment-based work to do something they don’t want to do. Is there any precedent for that? Can I as a man sue to get a job at Hooters, to compete in Miss America, or to be cast as Juliet in Romeo and Juliet? Are they not allowed to say that my gender disqualifies me from being a candidate for playing a role in the entertainment or artistic product they’re making?

[Blackirish]

Using this logic should they be forced to photograph pornography between consenting adults?

[theBuckwheat]

Marriage is an institution ordained by God, not man. Government is not some disembodied thing, it is an institution directed by men and in order for government to “officiate”, men must delineate powers and procedures. That was fine when the men who determined those powers and procedures were willing to be guided by what they read in Scripture, as were those who held public office.

However, today, too many people have cast Scripture aside and reject God’s role in their lives and in society. They have directed government in ways that are hostile to God’s institution of marriage.

Don’t forget that secular people will be happy to form and dissolve relationships outside of marriage and government, and government knows not to interfere. It is absurd to call upon government to protect marriage when that same government will not stop the neighbors from cohabiting or engaging in palamory.

It is time for government to get out of the business of determining who is married and who is not. It should be none of government’s business for the simple reason that when we do so, we must give government the power to define exactly what is marriage and what it is not. This power has become harmful to marriage as God defines it.