Emilee Carpenter, a New York-based wedding photographer who in April 2021 sued the state over public accommodation laws that required her to service same-sex weddings despite her religious objections
Posted on 04/08/2021 8:34:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Christian wedding photographer has filed a complaint against New York over a state law that requires her to service same-sex wedding ceremonies despite her religious objections.
Emilee Carpenter of Emilee Carpenter Photography sued multiple state officials, with the lawsuit being filed Tuesday in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
Named defendants include New York Attorney General Letitia James; Jonathan J. Smith, interim commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights; and Weeden Wetmore, district attorney of Chemung County.
At issue, according to the litigation, are provisions in state law that require businesses like Carpenter’s to provide services. This included New York Executive Law § 296.2(a), which “unlawful discriminatory practices … because of” sexual orientation in “any place of public accommodation.”
“… the Accommodations Clause forces Emilee to celebrate same-sex engagements or weddings and would require her to promote messages that violate her religious beliefs or require her to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, something she cannot do,” stated the lawsuit.
“Likewise, the Publication Clause prohibits Emilee from asking prospective clients questions sufficient for her to learn whether they are seeking photography services celebrating same-sex engagements or weddings so that she can be honest with them about the photographs she does and does not create.”
According to the lawsuit, Carpenter would also refuse to do weddings that include “irreverent” themes like vampires or Halloween and would also oppose doing business with entities that promote abortion, such as Planned Parenthood.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm that has argued religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, is representing Carpenter.
ADF Legal Counsel Bryan Neihart said in a statement released Wednesday that the government should not “treat some people worse than others based on their religious views.”
“Creative professionals like Emilee should have the freedom to create art consistent with their beliefs without fear of the government closing their business or throwing them in jail,” Neihart said.
“Emilee serves all people; she just cannot promote messages which contradict her religious beliefs about any topic, including marriage.”
In recent years, several legal battles have been fought between states and Christian business owners over anti-discrimination laws that require them to service events they morally object to.
The Carpenter complaint comes as Congress debates the Equality Act, a federal bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and is being considered by the Senate.
If enacted, the Act would add gender identity and sexual orientation to federal anti-discrimination law while also removing various religious liberty exemptions.
She could take the jobs, tell the clients she is reluctant about it, and do a crappy job. Word will get around—Don’t hire her for weird weddings.
How could a moral person take a deposit, accept a job & then purposefully do a lousy job?
Maybe the Left would operate that way with impunity & no cognitive dissonance but I doubt if a principled person could.
Whether it’s a florist, photographer, or caterer being solicited for a wedding they morally object to, the service provider should make their sentiments known.
And if the “loving couple” threatens legal action or social media attacks, concede and go ahead and do the job.
And give them a wedding day they’ll never forget.
So are they saying the LGBT are to stupid to have any photographers?.
I find it interesting that the LGBT folks never bother Muslim caterers or Muslim photographers. I wonder why that is. Maybe the Muslims are just too darn expensive. What other reason could there be? /s
Triple her rates. Have a family and friends discount for your past clients and for people you deem family and friends.
Oh and get a waiver and non-refundable large deposit.
“Gee, I’m busy that day and that day too and also that week and month”
Bad idea. As it is, it's a valid civil rights case. Going this route makes it a valid tort.
Photographer would be sued for poor performance and have to return their fee. Couple (of what exactly, I don't know...) would have friends take pictures so they still get some.
Result would be Christian photographer losing a weekend of business, and it would costthose garassing her nothing. Rinse and repeat until photographer goes out of business.
Though I agree, I believe killing this in the courts is the higher path.
You assume the "loving couple" actually want her to do the job.
They don't. This is SJW "gotcha" lawfare, and upon rejection, they run to an SJW lawyer.
With warning, under threat of suit, I don’t see a problem. Is every individual craftsman supposed to bear the cost of a suit by an LGBT gang with greater resources in the name of standing on principle?
We need to make it a priority to protect Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
If you are willing to break your moral precepts because someone is pressing you they are not very strong.
That is what the left is counting on BTW. Then they would sue you for a job done poorly. It’s all about intimidation and isolation.
But, then again, I’m not in a protected class.
And likely you're not a Gen X'er who received a lifetime of "You Tried" awards.
Some businesses have to provide service to anyone yet Facebook, Twitter, etc, can pick and choose who their customers are?
As long as they are not denying service because of a person's race, creed, sexual orientation, age, ability, or any other protected class reason.
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.