NM Supreme Court rules, Photogs can't refuse Gay Weddings

[spuwho]

New Mexico Supreme Court rules that a Christian woman who runs her own photography business can't make definitions on which kinds of wedding business she will take on. As one of the Justices said "There is a price we all have to pay in our civic life"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/august/nm-supreme-court-photographers-cant-refuse-gay-weddings.html

In a closely watched case on gay rights, religious freedom, artistic freedom, the speech rights of businesses, and a host of other legal hot button issues, the New Mexico Supreme Court today ruled that wedding photographers could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies.
"When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races," the court said in a unanimous verdict.
The court rejected each of photographer's Elaine Huguenin's arguments, particularly one in which Huguenin had argued that her refusal did not discriminate against same-sex customers. Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage. Likewise, she said, she wouldn't shoot heterosexuals in a context that endorsed same-sex marriage.
The court rejected any legal differentiation between homosexuality and homosexual conduct.
"The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual's sexual orientation on the individual's conduct," wrote Justice Edward Chávez. "To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA."
In the court's view, saying you'll photograph gay people but not gay marriages would the same as a restaurant offering a full menu to male customers, refusing to serve entrees to women, and defending itself by saying women could order appetizers.
The court also rejected Huguenin's free speech argument, saying that the NMHRA does not compel speech. "They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws." Likewise, the court said, the law doesn't regulate the content of the photographs. "The NMHRA does not mandate that Elane Photography choose to take wedding pictures; that is the exclusive choice of Elane Photography."
But it is Justice Richard Bosson's concurring opinion, not the majority opinion, that is already getting the most attention. The Huguenins, he wrote "now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. 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."
He continued:
The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.
In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.
In a press statement, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, who represented Elane Photography in the case, said the decision was a step toward tyranny. "Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country," he said. "This decision is a blow to our client and every American's right to live free."**

I don't think its right to have a business, setup a "shingle" to tell everyone you are available and then tell certain people you won't serve them. This is wrong regardless of what the photogs beliefs are. There is no tyranny here, just a recognition that we can't discriminate in this way. Taking pictures of a gay wedding is not an endorsement of someone else's private decisions.

[FSBA]

This is a stunningly bad decision.

I believe living your life as you see fit and without harming another person is fundamental. However, when did someone get the "right" to force a private business to take wedding photos? Using the same logic the court did, if a gay photographer refused to photograph a fundamentalist church retreat, that would be discrimination. In both instances, the photographer should just be able to say no and the other party can find another photographer.

[JayBird]

^ at first read I agreed, people whom have certain moral or religious beliefs should not be forced to go against those just to operate a business, but then I thought about it and came to the conclusion that it is no better than someone denying work at a wedding because it was an interracial marriage. Perhaps the decision would've been wiser to be written as "may not deny work based on sexual orientation". Keep in mind, this can still occur. Using this situation as an example all the photog has to do is say that they have another obligation.

[carpnter]

This is a stunningly bad decision.

I believe living your life as you see fit and without harming another person is fundamental. However, when did someone get the "right" to force a private business to take wedding photos? Using the same logic the court did, if a gay photographer refused to photograph a fundamentalist church retreat, that would be discrimination. In both instances, the photographer should just be able to say no and the other party can find another photographer.

I agree, the court got this one wrong.  You cannot deny someone their rights (religious freedom) in order to grant someone else a right.  I've always been a fan of the saying "Your rights stop at my nose."  The rights of one person should never affect the rights of another person.   

[BridgeTroll]

Suppose this person owned a restaurant... should they be able to refuse service using religious freedom as the reason?

[NotNow]

I believe it should be up to each state to decide "protected classes".  Personally, I would limit those quite a bit.  I still believe that declaring homosexuality a "protected class" leads us down a dangerous road, but to be honest, I don't have another solution to offer either.

Perhaps we need to think "outside of the box" and come up with another way to provide for such protections.

[NotNow]

Suppose this person owned a restaurant... should they be able to refuse service using religious freedom as the reason?

Since the objection was to gay marriage, it would seem to be more accurate to say "should a restaurant owner be able to refuse to host a gay wedding reception using religious freedom as the reason?

Again, using the system that our forefathers gave us, this is a state matter.  IMHO.

[fsquid]

So a black man owning a catering service can't refuse to cater to an Klan wedding reception? He would have to compromise his conscience to the "contrasting values of others"?

[Tacachale]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

[fsquid]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

I'm all for states making their own rulings, doesn't mean I can't roll my eyes at it.

[JayBird]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

[NotNow]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

Agreed, this is a state issue. 

[NotNow]

Suppose this person owned a restaurant... should they be able to refuse service using religious freedom as the reason?

Since the objection was to gay marriage, it would seem to be more accurate to say "should a restaurant owner be able to refuse to host a gay wedding reception using religious freedom as the reason?

Again, using the system that our forefathers gave us, this is a state matter.

Or a black one, for that matter.

Not the same thing.  IMHO.

Well, actually that is not true.  If the state of New Mexico chooses to make homosexuality a "protected class" just as race, sex, age, etc., then it would be the same.  I just don't see it as the same myself.  I'm still grappelling with how to handle this myself.  I am interested in the ideas of others.

[NotNow]

I didn't know that.  Which religions prohibit mixed racial marriage?

Also, note my correction to my original post.

[carpnter]

What a revealing conversation. It seems the folks who are usually the biggest proponents of the states making their own decisions in these matters, are now crying foul when a state upholds a law that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Too telling.

Isn't this a state issue? It was a New Mexico Supreme Court decision, not federal. So does that mean that those that favor state rule must then agree with every decision made by the state?

The state cannot ignore protections granted in the Bill of Rights, nearly every right granted in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the individual states as well.