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 ...
Are you kidding? That's exactly what they wanted.
You bet it is.
NM Constitution, Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
That’s what they want, though. They want to force everyone out of business who don’t go along with their lifestyle. They are trying to force acceptance by way of the law.
How did you “go Galt”?
Sure they can. The court has no authority to order commerce. They need to read the Constitution.
The defense should be that the photographer only does weddings and that there is really no such thing as a homosexual wedding.
I agree - I think they'd side with the Muslims as well. It's always open season on Christians and Jews by these liberal judges...
If I am the Christian photographer who is forced by big thug government to photograph a pervert party then when it’s over, gee, how did all the pictures get so out of focus?
(shrug) You have to fight the scum any way you can.
No, because of this:
NM Constitution, Art XXI, Section 1. [Religious toleration; polygamy.]
Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship. Polygamous or plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation are forever prohibited.
“Wil refusing gay sex be discrimatory soon?”
According to this ruling it already is. If you refuse to consider homosexual sex then you violated the law. Sodomy is somehow a protected act under New Mexico law.
“I don’t see why they didn’t just say they were busy or closed that day?”
Perhaps they wanted to stand on principle.
If this has a way of getting to the Supreme Court, I think the photographers would win.
Demand payment in advance. Take several thousand photos and then delete all the decent ones before the "couple" looks at them. Oopsie . . . when you compel slave labor, you can't count on quality work. That would make it worth the lost day, and no lawyer could prove in court that the photographer was responsible for the wedding party and guests not being photogenic.
According to the judge. Religion is not a Human Right. Only sex is. Hmm, I thought that’s what separated the humans from the animals.
As a paying customer, I would not want to patronize where I was not wanted. What kind of service should I expect if I FORCED someone to do business with me? I don’t want to be eatin’ loogies in my burger. (IYKWIM)
There must be other photo studios in Albuquerque that could and would accommodate them without all the hoopla. But, as we all know - this isn’t about anyone’s “rights” to shop where they want...it’s about control.
My guess is they didn't want a photographer, they wanted a lawsuit. They probably knew of the studios policy before the first call was made. If the studio would have just sent a price sheet, the photographer would never have heard from this "couple" again.
Thank you for the constitutional clarity, even though it had nothing to do with the point I was making.
But these groups with a cause seek out and create situations to advance their cause. Who knows the motives in this case, but it would not be a shock to learn that they purposely sought a Christian wedding photographer and hoped to be turned down on religious grounds so they could challenge it in court.
Sort of like the activists and the ACLU hunting down every cross and nativity they can find that might make a good law suit to push their phony separation of church and state agenda.
Seems like it’s an unnecessary court expense and it gives the gays their desired publicity and validation.
...Evil is good; Good is evil..
I think the notion of not photographing their wedding is a phony principle stand. Jesus spent most of his time with sinners - not to condone their sin - but to be a light.
I also think they are falling prey to a scam, and by not agreeing to do it, they are stepping right into the doo doo layed out in front of them.
I would go to the mat for any owner to do as he/she pleases with a business, a property, etc. And I absolutely confirm their right to do whatever they want to to and refuse service to whomever they want to refuse it.
Are you denying MY RIGHT to say it was a foolish business decision?
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.