NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Genivaria]

Just another example of Big Government stomping on the rights of the little guy. Drawing comparisons with the civil rights struggle is BS.

Uh no there are significant parallels between the Civil Rights movement and the LGBT movement.

[Wisconsin9]

Just another example of Big Government stomping on the rights of the little guy. Drawing comparisons with the civil rights struggle is BS.

And protecting the rights of another little guy. Much as you'd like the world to be black and white, and the government to always be drawn with a hefty amount of shade, it isn't.

[Zottistan]

I don't see a problem with this. It's their choice( or should be) to serve whoever they want.

However, I don't see a reason for why you would have a white-only service. By having that you get less customers, thus making it unprofitable.

Which is why the South had no businesses whatsoever until the 1960s.

Like this would be a problem nowadays.

[Horsefish]

I don't see a problem with this. It's their choice( or should be) to serve whoever they want.

However, I don't see a reason for why you would have a white-only service. By having that you get less customers, thus making it unprofitable.

This assumption has two flaws:
1) People make rational decisions in regard to business
2)There is enough competition to allow for this loss in profit to create a problem. If the only store in your area bans blacks/gays/women/whatever then, tough luck essentially.

[Gauthier]

Which is why the South had no businesses whatsoever until the 1960s.

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

I just love this argument that discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's not mandated by a state.

[Enadail]

You know, I kinda get why so many people are turned off from NSG. This is the first time I think I've been in the minority opinion, and everyone is looking down their nose at me as if I'm a two year old, when in other threads, many of these same people have complimented me on my arguments. Its more then a little disturbing.

Thoughts and actions are certainly different, but again, I don't believe that forcing people to do things they want to do will solve anything.

After all, lets say the photographer is forced to take the job, and then does a bad job of it because they don't want to be there. Then they'd be open to a lawsuit on top of that.

As I've said multiple times, I'm torn. I agree discriminating is wrong, but private business to take on work they don't want also feels wrong to me.

If the person really doesn't want to do it, they can't be made to. Sure, they'll be fined, but there's no way to make someone do a job they sincerely don't want to do.

And I'm failing to see why they should be fined.

Interestingly, this has yielded an interesting double standard I realized from a flawed argument of mine from before. I was citing that as a vegetarian, should I have to take on business from a restaurant that specializes in steak? And its a bad argument since neither group is protected (even though quite often, I do feel discriminated against because I don't eat meat), but actually, in the reverse it is. As I am/was a Jain, I don't eat meat from religious reasons... so while I could turn down business from someone who eats meat, they couldn't turn me down because I don't.

[Genivaria]

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

I just love this argument that discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's not mandated by a state.

That's American 'Libertarianism' for you.

[Enadail]

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

I just love this argument that discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's not mandated by a state.

Did I make that argument? Please, show me where I made that argument.

[Auralia]

Why? Why should they be forced to make that choice?

Because if you're going to run a business, you have to be prepared to cater to all parts of the population. If you don't like it then you're either going to have to put up with it or find something else.

Again, why?

[Sdaeriji]

Which is why the South had no businesses whatsoever until the 1960s.

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in public facilities, but merely allowed segregation in private facilities.

[Enadail]

I just love this argument that discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's not mandated by a state.

That's American 'Libertarianism' for you.

I'd love for you to also show me where I made that argument.

[Enadail]

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in public facilities, but merely allowed segregation in private facilities.

But weren't venues like restaurants considered public for the grounds of the laws?

[Farnhamia]

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?

This bad law also protects from being discriminated against because you're Catholic.

[Alqania]

If they didn't want to take photos of weddings, including all those who can legally have a service, they shouldn't have offered the service.

Why? Why should they be forced to make that choice?

What is it that you believe makes this discrimination just?

I believe participation in gay marriage is morally wrong, and people should have the right to refrain from morally wrong actions.

You are wrong. You have the right to be wrong of course, and so does your church, but there's no right to refrain from an action simply because a person believes the action is morally wrong. For example, it's not like I'd have a right to refrain from paying taxes if I believed that taxation was morally wrong.

[Auralia]

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

I just love this argument that discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's not mandated by a state.

It's not a question of whether discrimination is morally right or wrong, it's a question of whether the government should force that morality on private businesses.

[Zottistan]

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?

This bad law also protects from being discriminated against because you're Catholic.

It shouldn't.

[Magna Libero]

I don't see a problem with this. It's their choice( or should be) to serve whoever they want.

However, I don't see a reason for why you would have a white-only service. By having that you get less customers, thus making it unprofitable.

Because some people didn't get visited in the night by the Free Market Fairy and get bopped on the head by her Invisible Hand of Rationalism.

Your point was?

[Genivaria]

That's American 'Libertarianism' for you.

I'd love for you to also show me where I made that argument.

Apologies, wasn't talking about you specifically, more directed at the 'libertarians' who DO hold this attitude.

[Xsyne]

Which is why the South had no businesses whatsoever until the 1960s.

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

Which does not, in any way, shape, or form, change the fact that you would be getting fewer customers and would therefore be unprofitable. If Magna Libero's assertion is correct, it would be impossible for any business to exist in the South while Jim Crow was in effect.

[Mollary]

Because if you're going to run a business, you have to be prepared to cater to all parts of the population. If you don't like it then you're either going to have to put up with it or find something else.

Again, why?

Because that is the point of providing a service that a diverse cross-section of society will require at some point; not doing so is discrimination which is ethically wrong and also poor business sense.

[The Tovian Way]

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?

Any action of the government whatsoever which compels a private business to accept clientele it does not wish to engage with, or to turn aside clientele it does wish to engage with, is unjust, immoral, and un-American.

[Enadail]

I'd love for you to also show me where I made that argument.

Apologies, wasn't talking about you specifically, more directed at the 'libertarians' who DO hold this attitude.

Well, with all due respect, you're arguing against a point that wasn't yet made :-/

[Genivaria]

I just love this argument that discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's not mandated by a state.

It's not a question of whether discrimination is morally right or wrong, it's a question of whether the government should force that morality on private businesses.

It forces building codes, public health laws, and workers rights on them. Why not discrimination?

[Auralia]

For example, it's not like I'd have a right to refrain from paying taxes if I believed that taxation was morally wrong.

True, but the government forcing someone to pay taxes is different from the government forcing someone to offer a service to someone else.

[Gauthier]

Again, a time when discrimination was institutionalized and mandated. Which is not the same as now.

Unless I misunderstood Jim Crow laws, even if I WANTED to not discriminate, legally, I'd have to.

Which does not, in any way, shape, or form, change the fact that you would be getting fewer customers and would therefore be unprofitable. If Magna Libero's assertion is correct, it would be impossible for any business to exist in the South while Jim Crow was in effect.

And of course everyone saw the South's economy implode during Jim Crow. *nod*