Court: Christians Cannot Refuse to Photograph Same-Sex Ceremonies

Catholic Culture ^ | 8/23/13

[marshmallow]

In a 5-0 decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld a lower court determination that it is illegal for a photography business owned by Christians to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony--even though New Mexico law does not permit same-sex marriage.

The courts based their decisions on the text of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which makes it illegal for “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.”

Referring to the business’s owners, Justice Richard Bosson said in his concurring opinion that the “Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation--photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony--than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims.”

[Elsiejay]

Where is it written that private businesses cannot refuse their services to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose, including a reason unstated?

[Girlene]

From the article:

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

What is the point of a belief if there is no conduct, no action to back it up? Answer? There is none.

Why do we "owe" respect to someone we believe to engaging in sin or an immoral action? We do not.

Tolerance is not part of the bill of rights last time I checked. Our unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not tolerance.

This judge thinks it's the photographers' civic duty to take pictures at a gay wedding?

This judge is an idiot.

[Cvengr]

Damn, I forgot the Compact Flash chip. /s

[Cvengr]

Give the gay guys photos of the lesbian reception and give the lesbians photos of the gay reception. No problemo!

[JCBreckenridge]

Finally. The best post in the thread.

If I were a photographer I’d be proud to defy an unjust law. They want to arrest me? Go ahead.

[okie01]

Aren't there two other ways out of doing the job?

Quote a prohibitive price.

Plead a previous engagement that day. Or a planned day off.

You don't have to tell a customer you don't his/her business because they're queer.

[Secret Agent Man]

i refer to that short period as “reset”

[Steve_Seattle]

"That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship."

The judge thinks he is being lofty, writing for the ages, but he cannot see the blatant contradiction in his own ideas, i.e., that he is forcing one party to abandon their beliefs, and siding with the beliefs of another. If he really believed what he was saying, he would have ruled that in a free country we can't always get what we want, and that that applies to gays as well as Christians, and that the gays could easily have found another photographer and then everyone would have been able to live according to their beliefs. But the man is a grandiose pr*ck.

[Secret Agent Man]

freedom of association.

freedom to not enter into a contract you do not want to enter into.

freedom to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. so many businesses have this clause on their doors. they also refuse service if you don’t look and act a certain way. they refuse service if you don’t meet certain physical requirements.

[Jonty30]

That wouldn’t work. What the activists would do is to establish a pattern of discrimination by showing straight couple were accepted, but homosexuals were not.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Aren't there two other ways out of doing the job?"

Your alternatives require that the photographer lie, which might also violate their Christian values, and also has the disadvantage that gays could sense the deception, make repeated requests for service, be denied every time, and thus find out the true reason for the refusal of service.

[Secret Agent Man]

republicans only, conservatives only. interesting angle.

[Steve_Seattle]

You beat me to it (see post #51).

[Secret Agent Man]

i don’t guarantee that they will like any of the photos.

[Jonty30]

By all rights, you should have beat me. I’m working through my phone and I’m serving a boatload of customers.

[Jonty30]

Christians are going to have to realize that it’s going to take bodily sacrifices to fix this. We must refuse to serve the state, regardless of the cost.

[Lmo56]

The courts based their decisions on the text of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), which makes it illegal for “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.”

Its black-letter law. When you offer fee-for-service, you cannot discriminate.

The only way I think you can get around this is NOT to offer wedding photo service to anyone. That way, you are not discriminating against anybody. You just do not offer that particular service.

However, you cut off your nose to spite your face by eliminating what is usually a photographer's bread-and-butter [wedding photos] ...

[Girlene]

Well said.

If these gay people truly believed in the tolerance they damand, they would have moved on to another photographer. The radical gay/lesbian activists are not satisfied with being tolerated; they want to force other people to accept/approve/and even participate in their lifestyle.

[Salamander]

Or forget to remove the lens cap.

[Maudeen]

THE BIG “PICTURE” . . . . “as in the days of Noah”! No flood is on the way but everyone better prepare. . .it is going to get worse.

Genesis 6:5
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Luke 17:26
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.