A right to discriminate against gay couples?

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for a Christian wedding photographer say they will appeal a New Mexico court decision that ruled she … Continued

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for a Christian wedding photographer say they will appeal a New Mexico court decision that ruled she violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.

The case has become a cause celebre among some conservative Christians, who argue that this and other cases represent a threat to believers’ rights to disagree with homosexuality.

“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the photographer.

The controversy began in 2006 when Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography, refused to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for Vanessa Willock and her partner. Huguenin claims her refusal was rooted in her Christian faith that views marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman.

The Thursday (May 31) decision by the New Mexico Court of Appeals upholds a 2008 ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission in favor of the same-sex couple that was subsequently upheld in district court.

New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples, but its Human Rights Act requires that places of public accommodation not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

For the ADF and conservative Christians, this is not a matter civil rights, but of government intruding upon citizens’ rights to act on their religious beliefs.

“Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court,” Lorence said.

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Universal Uclick.

  • obtusegoose

    Well, for starters, a commitment ceremony is not the same thing as a marriage. Why the photographer would make that association in a state that doesn’t allow gay couples to marry, is somewhat baffling.

    “For the ADF and conservative Christians, this is not a matter civil rights, but of government intruding upon citizens’ rights to act on their religious beliefs.”

    The ADF doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge that religious beliefs are chosen. People aren’t born religious. They chose to believe in religion. In other words, the ADF thinks that any “strongly held belief”, no matter where it comes from, should override the government’s interest in not having some members of society discriminate against other members of society. I’ll be sure to let the KKK member that owns that burger joint, that he has every right to deny service to black people and Jews. I have no doubt that the KKK also has “strongly held beliefs” about certain groups of people, and the public should respect that.

    Suffice to say, that bigotry couched in religious dogma is still bigotry. 60 years ago, this photographer could have use their religious beliefs to deny service to an interracial couple. I guess that whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” thing is just lip service.

  • moring1

    Nicely said!

  • Akger117

    She has every right to discriminate against gays. She doesn’t have the right to own a business that discriminates against gays. She has every right not to photograph gays so long as she doesn’t publicly offer her services for profit.