Judge upholds ruling against photographers who declined work at homosexual ceremony

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 24

Albuquerque, N.M., Dec 18, 2009 / 04:12 am (CNA).- Attorneys for a small photography company charged with violating anti-discrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” are planning to appeal a New Mexico judge’s decision to uphold the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against them.

The Albuquerque company, Elane Photography, is co-owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon. They are being represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

In 2006 a woman named Vanessa Willock asked them to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that she and another woman wanted to hold in Taos, N.M. State law does not recognize homosexual unions.

Elaine Hugenin declined because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs conflicted with the message communicated by the ceremony, the ADF said. Willock 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 and issued an order in April 2008 finding that the company engaged in discrimination prohibited under state law. The commission ordered the company to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees.

“Christians in the marketplace should not be subject to predatory legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy?

“American small business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate, nor can the government make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” he continued.

Lorence charged that the commission’s decision showed a “striking disregard” for the company’s rights. He said the decision will be appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

Comments: 24

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Christian
USA -I think 08/01/2010 03:07 AM EST

I am a Christian, believe it or not. I am a photographer and business person. I also may choose who to do business with, last I knew this is still America. These gay people had every right to go find a gay photographer. I don't know what the Photographer was thinking in the first place when they did their consultation they should have realized this before hand. Most businesses have a sign in their window, we refuse the right to serve anyone for any reason. (are these stores asking to be sued or are they exorcising their rights?)If you don't like it, go some place else. This is why fringe groups of all kinds get bad press, they are sue happy. Crazy people.

Published by: Rick Belcher
San Juan Capistrano/CA/USA 01/22/2010 01:20 AM EST

The best work comes always when the artist can identify himself with you. In a wedding you need to connect with the photographer. After shown competence the best thing is to be in the same wave length. Your wedding day is supposed to be fun and bring you great memories when you see the photographs. Why would you want to be remembering a photographer that did not agree with your beliefs?

Published by: Jeffrey
Royal Oak, MI 01/08/2010 11:48 PM EST

I think we have to be very suspicious when individuals claim a religious conscience belief when homosexual issues come up. I think many "Christians" are expressing a personal dislike rather than a religious belief. Christ made a point of hanging out with "sinners." Anyway, businesses can't be permitted to use religion as cover for not serving various groups, such as gay people.

Published by: Lofn
Albuquerque, NM, USA 01/04/2010 07:06 PM EST

She should have used Photography by Solaria. Very pro GLBT and great photographers (I used them myself). Particularly because a photographer who is forced by law to do your wedding probably won't do a good job. I think instead of lawsuits, we should focus more on rewarding businesses that want our business.

Published by: JeanCatherine
USA 01/02/2010 10:59 AM EST

I think you should go over to the Courage Apostolate.

Published by: Mark T
San Antonio TX USA 12/24/2009 02:10 PM EST

So, the state does not recognize "marriage", thus the union is not valid legally therefore participants in the "commitment" should be subject to the consequences of breaking State law - where is the state's attorney general and why is he/she so silent??? I suspect being policically correct is more valuable than protecting the sanctity of marriage - I need to excuse myself, I think I'm getting sick . . .

Published by: bluprntguy
California 12/21/2009 03:36 PM EST

Can the local Target store deny you products and services because you are Catholic? Of course not. Similarly, this photography studio can not deny products and services because the customers are gay, black, asian, etc. The law provides protections for a reason, and these laws protect you as well as others equally.

Published by: Betty Horton
Kent/WA/USA 12/21/2009 12:11 PM EST

So was this photography company the only one in the whole state?! I can't believe that Ms. Willock couldn't have found someone else to take photographs. I'm glad Mrs. Huguenin stood by her convictions and I hope she and her husband win their appeal.

Published by: Paul-Joseph Stines
Ponce de Leon, FL, USA 12/21/2009 09:20 AM EST

We get so caught up in details that we lose sight of the real issues. This isn't about "gay-rights," or discrimination. It isn't about hating homosexuals. This is just another attack in the on-going war against Christianity. Soon it will be mandated, probably by the health care reform legislation, that Christians will be required to deny their faith by funding abortion, or to risk going to prison for refusing to pay their taxes. Again, we are being told, "It's only one little pinch of incense, and say,'Caesar is Lord.'" Will you choose to face the lions?

Published by: Bob Policy
Cleveland 12/20/2009 08:13 AM EST

Does the "involuntary servitude" provision also apply here?

Published by: drtrf
Metairie, LA, U.S.A. 12/19/2009 10:50 AM EST

I hope their business flourishes because they took the correct stand!

Published by: suzyQ
USA 12/19/2009 09:27 AM EST

Was the judge gay?

Published by: Ed Reece
Savannah/GA 12/19/2009 01:51 AM EST

Just politely say, "I hate you" and then hang up the phone. That way you didn't have to say NO and you can't be charged with a crime because saying "i hate you" is not yet a crime. But, by all means - don't compromise. Stand up for you belief in Jesus Christ.

Published by: torqueflite
Colorado 12/18/2009 11:32 PM EST

Very simply, if the photographer doesn't want to serve the public, he or she has no business being in business aside from operating as a private club (like Augusta, GA's country club of Master's Tournament infamy that bans women from its membership to this day), anymore than the Greenboro lunch counter had the right to bar black people from its service. The U.S. is still a secular nation until 'The Family,' aka the Christian Mafia, or the Catholic 'News' Agency, establishes its hideous theocracy over the rest of us once and for all.

Published by: torqueflite
Colorado 12/18/2009 11:20 PM EST

The same tired arguments were made for those white, religious bigots who barred black people from dining at the Greensboro lunch counters. Religion is no excuse for bigotry and religious attacks against U.S. citizens. Ours remains a country that recognizes the rights of all citizens, not just those whose religious beliefs are bigoted against people who are different from them. BTW, Jesus protected and defended people who were persecuted by the religious bigots of His own day. Take heed, His judgment against today's Pharisees--such as you Catholic 'News' reactionaries who torment gay people--will be the same.

Published by: Karen Grube
San Diego, CA, United States 12/18/2009 10:17 PM EST

I fully expect the appeals court to side with the photographers. This judge - and the Commission - were just wrong. Yes, the law that may have allowed the Commission to decide this way is wrong on the face of it and needs to be changed, but the appellate court can rule differently and set a precedent for changing the law.

Published by: Fr Eric
Wichita 12/18/2009 08:04 PM EST

Hazel has the right answer. Since when are people forced to do business in this country and make money if they don't want to. The entire thing is trumped up and stupid. Contractors blatantly charge too much when they really don't want the job. "I'm busy, I can't be there." Then, just go to your parish and tell Father Lunchbucket that you would like to film the Mass for a catechetical outreach program. Etc. Etc.

Published by: Miguel
Richmond, VA, USA 12/18/2009 04:41 PM EST

Rate: Very Good

Another circle around the toilet bowl for personal freedom in the U.S.A. "Tolerance" is a one way street for the degenerates who wish to destroy Christian civilization.

Published by: suzy Q.
USA 12/18/2009 03:53 PM EST

Why didn't they just agree to do it and do a lousy job? Do straight Americans have rights any more?

Published by: hazel
Wisconsin 12/18/2009 01:52 PM EST

I think this is a wakeup call for other photo shops. When customers come asking for the same, then tell them your schedule is full. The customers thus can't prove your schedule because they can't see it. And if later, they find out the business isn't booked, well, of course, you had a cancellation. White lies aren't all that bad if it saves the peace. A business doesn't need to explain anything about their schedule or faith to their customers. I think quiet protest is the very best defense.

Published by: A.G.
Flower Mound, TX 12/18/2009 01:28 PM EST

We are all sure the court would have ruled the same if it was a homosexual photographer who refused to work at a Catholic wedding right?...Bueller, Bueller...

Published by: Pimlico
Arlington, VA 12/18/2009 01:28 PM EST

This is a decision of an administrative court based upon an interpretation of state law. I don't know the New Mexico law, but an obvious remedy is for citizens of that state to clarify the law. If the law so interpreted represents the views of the majority of citizens, then the photographers should contemplate moving to another state.

Published by: Tahlib
Cincinnati,Ohio 12/18/2009 01:09 PM EST

I don't understand why anyone would want to have photos taken by someone who hated them? I wouldn't take a racist to court for denying my wedding photographs because he didn't like my skin color. I think these photographers should be permitted their ability to discriminate.

Published by: Ed Reinhart
Kansas City,Ks, U.S.A. 12/18/2009 11:40 AM EST

Rate: Excellent

My advice to Christians is to be politically active, and use civil disobedience as a last resort, suffer what you must, flee from evil if you can ( becoming more and more impossible). But if you have to suffer for Rightiousness, your reward will be great. Finally, they can't live without us. Evil degenerates into chaos.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com