Photographer fined for refusing to photograph gay ceremony

[manifold]

Speaking of the right to discriminate... or lack thereof:

A young Christian couple will appeal the recent decision by a New Mexico judge, who found them guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”

Attorneys with Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund announced last week their plan to appeal the ruling, insisting that Christians in the marketplace should not be subject to “predatory legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs.”

“The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience,” commented ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy?”

In 2006, Elaine and Jon Huguenin of Elane Photography in Albuquerque were asked to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that Vanessa Willock and another woman wanted to hold.

When Elaine Huguenin declined the request, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Huguenin had declined because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

In response to the complaint, the commission held a one-day trial and then issued an order in April 2008 finding that Elane Photography engaged in “sexual orientation” discrimination prohibited under state law. Huguenin was ordered to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to Willock.

With the help of ADF, Huguenin appealed the commission’s decision to the 2nd Judicial District Court in the County of Bernalillo three months later, in July.

But the court ruled Dec. 11 that commission did not violate Huguenin’s freedoms of expression or religion and noted that there is no proof that the New Mexico Human Rights Act improperly impacts religious practices.

Following the ruling, Lorance said ADF will appeal the trial court’s decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals and insisted that the commission’s decision demonstrated “striking disregard for our client’s rights as protected by the First Amendment.”

Christian Photographers to Appeal N.M. Court's Discrimination Ruling | Christianpost.com

 

[SFC Ollie]

There is something wrong with this world.

 

[manifold]

and then some

 

[strollingbones]

i think the photo people had a right to decline the job. it would be different if they wouldnt photo a wedding when they got there and discovered it was a gay ceremony ..and the couple couldnt get another photographer...but that was not the case

 

[California Girl]

Wtf?

 

[xotoxi]

This is fucking bullfuckingcrap!

If the photographers were working for the government, there might be a case.

However, they are a private company.

 

[Immanuel]

I have to agree with SB. It would be different if they had contracted to do the job and then at the last minute pulled out because they found out it was a gay wedding, but my understanding is that they simply turned down the opportunity to perform a service and get paid for it. Since when is that a crime? Am I now going to be required to perform accounting services for an abortion clinic if they want to hire me and I find abortion to be something I am opposed to? How about pornography?

Both are legal businesses but not a business I want to be part of, why should I be forced to provide services for either one of these three?

Immie