Posted on 06/05/2012 8:54:59 AM PDT by CedarDave
A photo studio’s refusal to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled, rejecting the Albuquerque studio’s argument that doing so would cause it to disobey God and Biblical teachings.
It was the third loss for the studio, and victory for Vanessa Willock.
Willock first contacted photographer Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography in fall 2006 about taking pictures of a “same-gender ceremony” and was informed the studio only handled “traditional weddings.” When her partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, the studio responded with a price list and sent a follow-up email.
The Alliance Defense Fund, “a Christian legal alliance defending religious liberty, sanctity of life, marriage and the family,” stepped up to represent Huguenin and Elane. The fund didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission and District Judge Alan Malott have concluded in rulings in 2008 and 2009 that the studio violated the Human Rights Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Freedom is a hate crime.
NM list PING!
I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics
To see NM articles by keyword, click here:New Mexico Keywords
To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Remember how the libs pooh-poohed the idea that this was the beginning of a slippery slope?
This is messed up - it will touch every aspect of our lives outside our front doors.
There is already a running thread on this article.
Dissolve the company and start again.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, ...........
I wonder if the company asked up front what type of marriage it was, then rejected it, would it still be an issue?
A private business should be able to refuse any potential customer.
I have been a contractor for many years. I turn down jobs all the time because I think the customer is a deadbeat, prick or because I just don’t want to do the work for someone. I don’t want or need the government to tell me who my customers will be.
there fore Jack the price up to where they go elsewhere.
No one is right here. But of course, the studio has the “right” to turn down a paying customer, which I think is foolish, but it should be their right.
The “public accommodation” argument is terrible. The couple is wrong. Everyone is wrong.
their mistake was TELLING them why they refused to take the Job, next time have the people fill out an application for services where all the names of the parties are listed as well as the event. All applications will be reviewed and a decision will be made within 48 hours as to whether or not we will be able to do the Job., Problem Solved
Why would anyone want a photographer who is being FORCED to take your wedding pictures?
Would the same judge force a Muslim to photograph a Jewish wedding?
Make it so your standard sales contract has a limitation of damages clause that limits any damages to the purchase price. Then “accidently” leave the lens cap on the camera for your gay weddings. Refund the money after the wedding for your “mistake”. Soon they’ll get the message.
Gotta link? Don't see one with the same title or under NM topics or keywords.
Personal freedom and freedom of religion is a Constitutional right, and trumps ANY so-called “Anti discrimination” legislation
This is BS. God bless the owners for fighting this outrage.
Wil refusing gay sex be discrimatory soon?
Wil refusing gay sex be discrimatory soon?
discriminatory
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.