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 ...
Wow! Two separate articles, one posted in the religion forum, no common words in the title, no common keywords. I would never have found it:
My thread title: Studio Can’t Turn Down Gay Weddings (NM - Christian photography business)
Previous thread title: Court Rules it’s Illegal for Christians to Refuse to Photograph Same-Sex Ceremonies [New Mexico]
It has everything to do with your point; you were saying that the whole thing is based on feeling (that is, of the official[s] concerned; whether or not they feel like it's legitimate). That is, if they thought the politicos would not support them, they would not have done it.
All this crap/lawlessness is going on precisely because those in authority refuse to do justice: whether because they've seared their own conscience so they cannot tell good from evil, to whether they simply think "It's not worth the effort", to those who are afraid of losing their status for going against the stance[s] mandated for politicos to hold, to whether they are so arrogant as to believe themselves unbound by the Law (Constitution).
Is refusing hetero sex discrimatory now?
I don’t get why the homo couldn’t go to another studio.
Oh yeah, that would screw up the agenda.
Is refusing hetero sex discrimatory now?
If you own a photo business do you have the right to turn anyone down anyone for whatever reason you want or not?
What if someone wants to simulate child porn or satanic images or even nudist?
Seems reasonable one could say “no”? Again, for whatever reason.
But what about their “civil rights” I mean its your business to take photos and you can’t turn anyone down...especially for religous reasons?
Well that's an interesting question but not exactly on point. Invited guests are one thing. Certainly performing the ceremony is another. All of those functions "endorse" the ceremony so to speak. So I'm not sure it's the same thing exactly.
I submit the "hired help" like caterers and photographers and florists are something else entirely. They all have the right to deny the business, or certainly should have that right. I don't know that these guys, or gals, which ever they were, had any intention of actually using this firm. I think they were trying to be denied to make the stink out of it they did.
I would also point out one other thing: a professional prostitute was the single person chosen for the eternal honor of being the first to see the Risen Christ. Think about that. You got a problem with that?
I would also point out one other thing: a professional prostitute was the single person chosen for the eternal honor of being the first to see the Risen Christ. Think about that. You got a problem with that?
Christ, no doubt, whould tell her to repent and turn away from her sinful life.
The same way he would tell a couple of homos to turn away and stop sodimising and or pretending to be married.
I serious doubt he would submit to photographing homos holding hand and pretending to be getting married.
Wait a doggoned minute. First, you did make assumptions about my standards - go back and read your first reply.
Read it again if you missed it.
Secondly - standards? These are not the clergy. These are not the counselors. There is no assumed "standard" for the contracted out vendors and I refuse to concede that there are. It is foolish to assume they condone every marriage they've photographed nor should they be required to "bless" every marriage. They are taking pictures for crying out loud. They've probably performed this service for a lot of condemned to failure marriages - chances are 50% of them - and for sins on the part of one or both. That's why they are on a slippery slope high horse here. But again, I totally agree this is their right to decide - and the ruling that they are a public accommodation is a farce.
But folks chill - this is the photographer. It's no different than the florist or the cleaning crew or the caterer. Besides, if they were known as a "Christian" business, as the press indicates they were - then they were obviously set up and they obviously stepped right in it. That's not wise, period. That is my only point. They were fooled - when they could have had the last laugh but did not.
“It is foolish to assume they condone every marriage they’ve photographed nor should they be required to “bless” every marriage. They are taking pictures for crying out loud.”
Very true, and also very true. Taking pictures for pay is not an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination.
“They’ve probably performed this service for a lot of condemned to failure marriages - chances are 50% of them - and for sins on the part of one or both.”
Good point. That should be obvious, but I never thought of it that way. It puts it in a little different perspective.
Solved? Yeah provided you don’t get any applications with brides or groom named; Chris, Jamie, Pat, Dallas, Austin, Kit, Jessie, Casey, Sydney, Parker, Harper, or any number of other names common and uncommon that provide little or no clue as to the sex of the bearer.
Um..yeah. Jesus associated with REPENTANT people. Militant gays are NOT repentant.
My use of polygamy was hyperbole, and probably a poor choice, since it is specified in our constitution. A better choice would have been nudists. Two nudists ask a wedding photographer to do their wedding photographs, and the photographer declines, claiming that she would be be offended by the nudity, and that public nudity was against her religion and spiritual beliefs. Now then, PC and the nudist agenda have managed to get some politicians to go along with legalizing public nudity. After all, we are genetically predisposed towards nudity. So the nudists do what all activists do when the opportunity arises, they sue. ...Could this happen? It hasn’t been so long ago that the good citizens of New Mexico would have been stunned at the thought of gay marriage. Certainly it was so far from the minds of our state constitution’s framers that they didn’t feel the need to codify against it. Too bad the Mormons weren’t into gay marriage. I doubt the framers were thinking about public, nude marriage either.
The real point of my point, so to speak, is that in any human endeavor, cultural, political, education, business, marriage, family, banking, religion and so forth, the values that come out are the values we put in. This nonsense won’t stop with homosexual marriage, and the existing laws won’t matter.
This has been the standard ruling in these cases. It should surprise no one.
As painful as it is to contemplate, I think our laws already don't matter.
Already statutes which are contrary to the [State] Constitution (a) exist, and (b) are rather unchallengable.
As a practical consideration/example, consider NMSA 30-7-2.4 which makes it a crime for a university student to keep [or bear] a firearm on student housing. Contrast that with the following:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Any time I brought the issue up with an official I got either redirected or dismissed out-of-hand; I never got a straight answer.
Furthermore, when I would bring up the issue there were a fair amount of people who would dismiss what I'd say on grounds of safety or common-sense or [federal] regulation, though I think most people were simply unaware that there could be such a conflict (perhaps even unaware that there are State Constitutions).
What happened to a business owner’s right to refuse service to anyone? I just don’t understand; the way I see it the photographer had the right to refuse and the couple had the right to get another photographer.
You asked for the linky I sent it
a bit snarky are ya?
:^)
How the hell is couple wrong? This isn't an issue of rejecting a client because she was homosexual. It was a matter of the photographer not wanting to participate in an event that violated her religious beliefs. Every citizen should have that right. No real Christian should participate in a gay "marriage" ceremony.
Because homosexual activists and leftists want to force dissenters to accept their sexuality. The goal is to erode freedom of religion and freedom of association.
He is. And, he claims to be a Christian himself. Yet, undermines social conservatism every chance he gets.
I remember when you brought this subject up here. It made me think about my experiences. I ignore rules that put me in jeopardy, and I always carried a firearm to campus, if not on campus. I did my grad work at Highlands, and they were lax about enforcing firearm rules, at least they were back then. I had gone there from Western, where the rule was to turn guns over to campus police upon entering the campus. I never complied. I asked several people at Highlands what the rule was, and they told me the 2nd Amendment.
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.