ADF to appeal N.M. commission’s ruling against Christian photographer
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4467
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
April 9, 2008 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020 or www.telladf.org/pressroom
ADF to appeal N.M. commission’s ruling
against Christian photographer
Photo artist forced to pay over $6,600 in attorneys’ fees
for declining to photograph same-sex ceremony
“Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs anymore than anyone else should,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. The commission’s decision shows stunning disregard for our client’s First Amendment rights, and we will appeal this ruling in state court.”
A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband, Jon Huguenin, of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that the two women wanted to hold in Taos. Neither marriage nor civil unions are legal between members of the same sex in New Mexico.
Elaine Huguenin declined because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The commission held a one-day trial in January (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4369).
Wednesday the commission issued an order finding that Elane Photography engaged in “sexual orientation” discrimination prohibited under state law and ordered it to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to the two women who filed the complaint.
“The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”
A copy of the commission’s order in Willock v. Elane Photography is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElaneRuling.pdf.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
6 Comments
Surely there is more than one photo shop in Roswell. This is two women who are nothing more than bullies.
Amazing that the state doesn’t recognize their union as marriage. However, a citizen of the state must recognize this by forcing their interaction by taking pictures. If something is offensive aren’t all of us given the right to disregard or remove ourselves from participating (i.e. cussing, violence, sexual debauchery, etc.). We seem to promote that everybody can do as they please, but when one does that, they are wrong. Kind of a contradictory or applications.
Aren’t they discriminating against the photographers right to freedom of thought? They have the freedom to live like they do but they don’t have the right to make everyone like what they are doing.
I am wondering…Do Elaine and her husband also refuse to photograph marrying couples that have been divorced? Do they refuse to photograph teenagers, say for Senior pictures or prom, whom are known to be sexually active outside of marriage? If your stance is that your faith does not allow you to endorse the behavior, why pick just one? God is not just against homosexuality, he is against all forms of sexual immorality. In fact, Jesus spoke out against remarriage as adultery, but didn’t mention homosexuality-though that is wrong too.
When you pick one behavior to target, it is discrimination.
The Christian faith is not anti-homosexuality; it is anti-sin. Jesus died for sin in all its forms. This political topic is just a distraction from the Gospel. Let’s call sin sin-all of it, and not pick and choose.
Sheryl — Whenever one thing is chosen over another, it is discrimination. Human beings discriminate every day.
The key question here is “who gets to decide” the standards by which they will engage in their art/business? Will the private artists/business owners decide or will the government?
While being supportive of gay rights, it seems as if some exception might be made based upon the artistic aspect of a photographers profession. To me it seems clear that a gay couple should not be turned away from a hotel or a restaurant, however.
It would seem reasonable to me to apply whatever standard society would find acceptable for other religious opinions. If it would seem generally acceptable for instance that a photographer could decline to photograph an interracial marriage ceremony on religious grounds then it would likely be easy to argue that there truly is something significantly different about a photographer than a public accommodation such as a hotel, where it would clearly be illegal to discriminate against a bi-racial couple.
4 Trackbacks
[...] team who refused to do the photos for a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” According to the Alliance Defense Fund: Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund say they will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Civil [...]
[...] the NM Human Rights Commission held that Elaine’s religious conviction violated New Mexico law. In addition, the commissioner [...]
[...] ADF to appeal N.M. commission’s ruling against Christian photographer [...]
[...] clients in general, only that she would not take pictures of a civil-commitment ceremony, i.e., promote a particular message. That is not discrimination based on a customer’s sexual orientation anymore than it would [...]