New Mexico’s highest court ruled Thursday that the owners of an Albuquerque wedding photography company violated state law when they turned away a lesbian couple who wanted to hire them to take pictures of their ceremony.
Upholding a lower-court ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the company’s refusal was an act of discrimination. They rejected the argument of the devout Christian owners of Elane Photography who claimed they had a free speech and religious right not to shoot the ceremony.
The decision comes at a time of turbulent debate over gay marriage in New Mexico, where a county clerk gained national attention this week by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples against the advice of the attorney general (though he’s not challenging it). As Law Blog noted earlier, gay marriage hasn’t been legalized New Mexico, though there’s a dispute over whether state law prohibits it.
Under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it’s unlawful for a public accommodation to refuse to offer its services to someone because of the person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.
“When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court stated in its opinion.
“Even if the services it offers are creative or expressive, Elane Photography must offer its services to customers without regard for the customers’ race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected classification,” the court said.
Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jonathan, the owners of the company, argued that shooting the ceremony would have conflicted with their fundamental religious tenets and given the impression that they were supportive of gay marriage.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the photographers, said the decision amounted to government-enforced coercion. “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free,” stated the group’s senior counsel, Jordan Lorence.
The case dates back to 2006 when Vanessa Willock asked the Huguenins to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that she and her partner were planning to hold in the town of Taos.
After getting turned down, the couple accused the company of discrimination in a complaint to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The state body found that the company engaged in sexual orientation discrimination and ordered Elane Photography to pay thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees.
“When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. The ACLU filed a brief in support of Ms. Willock.
In a concurring opinion Thursday, Justice Richard C. Bosson said the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about.” The company’s refusal, “no matter how religiously inspired, was an affront to the legal rights of that couple,” he wrote.
“All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” Justice Bosson wrote. “Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/22/photographers-discriminated-against-gay-couple-court-rules/
As a Catholic, I find this turn of events rather appalling. I would hate to be in a position where I have to choose between compromising my moral and religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine. Any law that would put me in that position is a bad law.
But even from a secular perspective, I have a couple of problems with this case. Shouldn't the First Amendment prohibit this, since it was essentially compelled speech? Shouldn't the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which forbids the government from substantially burdening freedom of religion unless it is the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest) prohibit this, since Ms. Willock was easily able to find another photographer?
After all, the purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that minorities have access to essential services, not to browbeat everyone into compliance with the anti-discrimination norm. As I just said, Ms. Willock was easily able to find another photographer, so why did she and her partner feel it necessary to go after Ms. Huguenin?
So, NSG, what do you think?
EDIT: Here's the sequence of events that lead to the human rights complaint:
In 2006, Vanessa Willock e-mailed Elane Photography about photographing a “commitment ceremony” that she and her partner were planning. Willock said that this would be a “same-gender ceremony.” Elane Photography responded that it photographed “traditional weddings.” The Huguenins are Christians who, for religious reasons, disapprove of same-sex unions. Willock sent a second e-mail asking whether this meant that the company “does not offer photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane Photography responded that “you are correct.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-tangled-web-of-conflicting-rights/2012/09/14/95b787c2-fddc-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
