New Mexico “Human Rights” Commission: Christian photographer “guilty” of “discrimination” for declining to photograph same-sex “commitment ceremony,” slapped with nearly $7K in legal fees
Posted on April 9, 2008
Update by GF: We’re solid here, no correction needed. Prof. Volokh actually confirmed my statement about an ACLU-affiliated lawyer serving as counsel. It remains an accurate description. In fact, the attorney herself calls herself an ACLU member in her bio. No, that doesn’t mean that this is an ACLU case, but it does say something about the types of attorneys that ACLU hangs with.
Update by Jay: Volokh says…no reason to fault the ACLU yet…the lawyer isn’t sanctioned by the ACLU. I trust my contributor here as a solid source and will hold off on any corrections until I talk to them and have time for further research. Do notice that he called them an ACLU-affiliated lawyer though. I’ll find out more tomorrow and update whether a correction is warranted or not. If so, I will make sure to do it promptly.
Volokh: Photographers Denied the Freedom To Choose What They Photograph
Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elane’s work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremonies, and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney’s fees and costs.
Photography is an art, and Huguenin is an artist. It may not be high art, but it embodies a wide range of artistic choices (especially since she says she takes a “photojournalist” approach, rather than just doing normal staged photos). And though she sells the art to its subjects, that is of course part of a long and continuing tradition in the arts, including painting and sculpture, as well as photography. Certainly many of the works protected by the First Amendment (books, newspapers, movies, and the like) were created for money and distributed for money.
Yet the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. There’s no First Amendment case squarely on point, but this does seem pretty close to the cases in which the Court held that the government may not compel people to express views that they do not endorse (the flag salute case, West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, and the license plate slogan case, Wooley v. Maynard).
For whatever it’s worth, Huguenin also says she exercises political judgment in deciding what to photograph (for instance, she reports that she refuses to make photographs that put horror films in a positive light, or to take photographs that positively portray abortion, pornography, or nudity, as well as same-sex marriage). I don’t think that sort of political selectivity should be required for photographers to be protected as artists, but it seems to me to highlight the scope of the artist’s judgment, and the artist’s constitutional right to exercise such judgment (just as a bookstore has the right to choose which books to stock).
Consider a few analogies:
Imagine a black photographer being forced by the “human rights” commission to photograph a KKK rally.
Imagine pro-abortion sign-maker being forced to print pro-life signs.
Imagine Stop the ACLU being forced to run Code Pink ads.
…and on and on…
This is an outrageous affront to the First Amendment, which protects not just the right to privately hold certain beliefs, but to live them out publicly. This sort of coercion and punishment is fit, not for the United States, but for the worst totalitarian regimes.
Thankfully, the photographer is being defended by ADF, who will surely take this ridiculous ruling from an extra-judicial tribunal to court.
Previous ADF release: Willock v. Elane Photography
ADF attorneys represent a Christian photographer being tried under state antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.â€
“Christians shouldn’t be penalized for abiding by their beliefs. The state cannot force unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience,†said Lorence. “The state’s prosecution violates our client’s First Amendment rights. The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their job.â€
A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a “commitment ceremony†that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.
We always hear statements like, “If we don’t watch out, things that are happening in Europe and Canada will come to our shores.†Well, it’s already here. We are already losing our liberty despite the First Amendment. THIS is exactly why legislation like ENDA and the “hate crimes†bill need to be opposed and are so obviously a threat to our fundamental rights.
Where was the ACLU on this one you may ask? Word has it that an ACLU-affiliated attorney represented the “offended” lesbians. “Foremost defender of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights“….yeah right. More on that later.
UPDATE: Volokh has more: Religious Accommodations and the Elane Photography Case
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Bigotry, Fascism, Gov.Censorship, Homosexual Agenda, News
Trackback URL
Comments
27 Responses to “New Mexico “Human Rights” Commission: Christian photographer “guilty” of “discrimination” for declining to photograph same-sex “commitment ceremony,” slapped with nearly $7K in legal fees”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
WTF where is the outrage against this? oh wait never mind the outrage is with Elaine for refusing to accept these poor innocent Lesbos
We can’t let this stand.
I think there’s another aspect to this. For most businesses, it’s axiomatic that they “reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” However, the business in this case just happens to be run by a Christian, which automatically makes this a religious issue (according to the NM HRC). Those Christians better just suck it up, darnit, or they’ll feel the fury.
The NM HRC is just trying to use the religious angle to deny a business owner the right that all others have: the choice of whom they will serve.
This is one of the greatest outrages I have ever heard of taking place in the United States. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are illegal in New Mexico, let alone gay marriage. I’m really indignant about this. Is there some sort of governmental organisation or place we could write to express our outrage at this folly?
This butts right up against the “right to refuse service” case recently ruled in the favor of the fast food restaurant owner who required all orders be made in English.
Hey, let me know if you find a country where there’s freedom of speech and justice for all. I’d like to move there. Unfortunately, I think the nearest place that fits that description today is the moon.
Why dont they fine this organization for discriminating against christians. What a bunch of low life idiots. But what do you expect from a state who’s governor supports Barrack Hussian Obama. No I will not apoligize for using the name Hussian. Screw you obama.
She has a case if the laws in her state ban same sex marriage. But if they support it then she may run into a problem. ACLU does not have rules and regulations to follow. Liberals get away with murder look at Ted Kennedy.
the instances cited above (black photographer forced to photograph a KKK event) have no merit when we’re talking about discrimination. a person or company is within their rights to reject a project for any reason, but “i’m not going to photograph you because you’re black/gay/jewish” is discriminatory and against the law in that state.
also remember that this photographer would be within her rights to sue a client who refused her services upon discovering that she’s a christian, or that she’s heterosexual. these protections go both ways.
“also remember that this photographer would be within her rights to sue a client who refused her services upon discovering that she’s a christian, or that she’s heterosexual. these protections go both ways.”
Wrong, if she performed the service and they refused to pay then you would have an issue. She did not want to, and refused to perform a service (photography). There is a huge difference in the two situations. If I don’t want to cut your yard, then why should I have to? It should not matter the reason only, that I choose NOT to do so. If she doesn’t want to photograph because they are gay, straight, ugly, mean, etc it should be her choice.
brian, she broke anti-discrimination laws. if you tell me that you don’t want to cut my yard, that’s perfectly legal. if you tell me you don’t want to cut my lawn because i’m BLACK, that’s ILLEGAL.
and like i said, those protections go BOTH WAYS: i can’t tell you i don’t want you cutting my yard because you’re white–that’s illegal. this photographer violated anti-discrimination laws. it had nothing to do with these anologies such as:
“Imagine pro-abortion sign-maker being forced to print pro-life signs.”
because there’s nothing illegal about refusing to print pro-life signs; no anti-discrimination laws have been broken. you can refuse service, but you can’t break laws.
I notice the religious folks have their rights protected against employment and housing discrimination. They are also protected in the current federal hate crimes legislation. So it’s good enough for you, but not for the gays??? You religious people want it both ways. You want to be able to discriminate against gays because your bible tells you so, but god forbid should someone discriminate against you because you are religious freaks.
Here’s the thing folks. Elane Photography chooses to do business in New Mexico, therefore they much abide by New Mexico law. Sexual orientation is just as much a protected class as race, gender, religious affiliation, etc. To be fair, all Elaine had to do was to offer the ladies a copy of her rate schedule. If they were still interested, she could have declined with any reason as long as it was not discriminatory. I’m washing my hair, I’m already booked, I don’t travel outside, etc. It’s as simple as that. If the ladies had refused to hire Elane because she is a Christian, the tables could have easily been turned and MOST of you would be screaming from the rooftops about how ELANE was discrimated against. Wah Wah Wah
I just don’t understand what everyone is defending here. Elane Photography owner(s) are wrong as far as NEW MEXICO law is concerned. You can yell, scream, stomp, throw yourself on the floor and hold your breath until you turn blue and this will still be the truth. So suck it up! You “conservatives” as whining so much that people are going to confuse you with liberals.
The last two comments are astounding in their lack of respect/understanding of the First Amendment and the religious liberty and freedom of expression it guarantees.
The fact is, New Mexico’s Human Wrongs Commission will be found, when all is said and done, to have stomped all over the photographer’s constitutional rights.
Broad — I suppose you’d say that blacks SHOULD have just sucked it up and got theirs a**es to the back of the bus. It was the law, you know!
You can’t convince me, no matter how hard you “scream, stomp, etc.” that it is constitutional to FORCE someone to take pictures of a same-sex ceremony, a seance, a Wiccan service or a nudist volleyball match.
Pretty funny that you think lies about hair care are a more legit route to go than defending your God-given right to decline to promote behavior to which one has a moral objection.
BTW — if a Muslim or homosexual photographer didn’t want to photograph a Christian wedding, I would say the same thing. They shouldn’t be forced to do it. Sorry to throw you “screaming from the rooftops” minus your preconceived, erroneous notions.
Many of the sites I’m reading about this are saying that the issue is about photographers being able to choose what they shoot, but ignoring the fact that you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation in N.M. If the photographer, had said “I can’t shoot your wedding” she would have been fine, but she said “I can’t shoot your wedding because your are lesbians.”
If she’d kept her reason to herself she wouldn’t be in trouble.
“Broad — I suppose you’d say that blacks SHOULD have just sucked it up and got theirs a**es to the back of the bus. It was the law, you know!”
um, i think Broad is arguing for anti-discrimination laws. you’re the one arguing for people’s right to discriminate, with:
“They shouldn’t be forced to do it.”
clearly, you support the “right” of people to push blacks to the back of the bus–the right of the majority to push around the minority. and that’s cool with you because whites and chrisitans won’t have to worry about such things: they’re in the majority. nice values you have there. just don’t go around accusing other people of what you practice yourself.
religious-based bigotry is finally getting the smackdown it’s had coming for a LONG time now. i hope “elaine photography” goes out of business and she winds up on the streets. bigots have no place in a moral, decent society.
G.F. You just have proven my point. If African Americans hadn’t taken a stand, they would still be forced to sit at the back of the bus, drink from only designated water fountains, have lesser opportunities for education, etc.
These women are taking a stand for something that should be very important to ALL minorities. If the HRC’s decision is overturned in another court, that opens up Pandora’s Box for any bigot to fall back on religion as an excuse. For instance, a business could refuse services to Muslims, Jews, Catholics or whatever they choose just because their “church” doesn’t support the same beliefs. The same could be said for inter-racial couples, disabled couples,etc.
Bravo to Willock for taking that stand!!!!
Oh geeeez…
Broad, I have not by any stretch “proven” your point. Rather, you have proven you fundamentally misunderstand liberty.
You wrote:
“Elane Photography owner(s) are wrong as far as NEW MEXICO law is concerned.”
This implies that you support following the law, whether it’s unconstitutional or not. THAT was my point and I think it was pretty clear why I wrote what I did. Even if the NMHRC has applied its version of the “law” in NM, what it has done remains unconstitutional. The government cannot force someone to participate in and/or promote ideas and behaviors that violate their constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights. It’s not really that hard to understand…unless you don’t understand liberty in the first place.
You make the common error of conflating skin color with BEHAVIOR that communicates an idea. But see, it’s not the same, so you are arguing from a faulty premise. For example, she would have declined to shoot a nudist wedding between a man and a woman. Would that be unlawful discrimination? After all, some nudists would argue that dropping their drawers is as much a part of their “being” as the two women in this case (who used the totalitarian powers of the state to punish this young woman) would claim their attraction to other women is. Couldn’t nudism be considered a “sexual orientation?” If nudists consider nudism a “sexual orientation” how can we argue…who are we to judge? So I guess you would argue that Elaine Huguenin should be forced to photograph nudist weddings.
I return to analogy:
Should a homosexual videographer be forced by the government to shoot a sermon in a church where the pastor is preaching from Romans 1?
Should Elane Photography be forced to shoot a group “marriage” ceremony?
Should a pro-abortion printer be forced to produce butchered baby posters for Operation Rescue?
Do you believe that the government has unlimited coercive power? Do you believe that someone should have to give up their deeply held beliefs and ideas in order to be a fully-protected member of society? It sounds like you do.
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?” — Stalin
This is all about ideas. You have demonstrated that you would like to arbitrarily eliminate some ideas (the ones YOU don’t like…quite a democratic standard), at the expense of our most precious freedoms.
Have you read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism?” No? Look in the mirror and you’ll see the thesis right in front of your face.
“religious-based bigotry is finally getting the smackdown it’s had coming for a LONG time now. i hope “elaine photography” goes out of business and she winds up on the streets. bigots have no place in a moral, decent society.”
Reprinting your own words says enough about you, penpal. Good day.
I wonder how consistently she applies this standard. For instance, would she refuse to photograph a wedding between two people who were previously living together and having a sexual relationship? How about if one of the parties was a drunkard? Or a glutton?
Exit question: Did Jesus make any furniture for sinners?
“Did Jesus make any furniture for sinners?”
Of course he did. But a chair can’t promote morally abhorrent behavior. If a dude asked for a chair with carvings of a pornographic scene or of a child sacrifice, Jesus would not have done it.
You know, Jesus loves sinners, reaches out to them, does not condemn them…but he also rebukes sinners…and certainly doesn’t endorse and encourage sinful behavior.
Jesus sez: “…go and sin no more.” (John 8:11)
What was your point again?
My point was Jesus did business with sinners, why shouldn’t Mrs. Huguenin? Don’t get me wrong, I think this fine is stupid, but as a Christian, I’m wondering what Mrs. Hugenin *should* have done, as an ambassador of Christ.
I really have to shake my head here.
I do not believe the photographer should be punished for living her faith, not matter if she lives it perfectly or not. I believe we all have a basic right to say “no”. Do we REALLY believe the photographer could get the court to fine this lesbian couple if they refused to hire this photographer because she was Christian? What if they had simply not even bothered to ask, because it was a Christian place? Is that discriminatory too? Are we now going to begin legislating how people think, or what they are allowed to believe? I mean, the whole thing is REALLY ridiculous if you just think about the fact that if what they really wanted was a photographer there are likely a dozen more who WOULD take the pictures. They could have done more damage, possibly, by moving on and then telling everyone they know about the terrible treatment they received.
I’m not sure saying WHY she did not want to photograph the ceremony was the wisest thing this woman could have done. Could be she was making as much of a political statement as the lesbian ladies. But since there seems to be some evidence these ladies chose this photographer BECAUSE they knew she would refuse on religious grounds I suspect maybe they asked why, and if this woman is a good Christian as she professes (I don’t know her and do not vouch for her) then she would not likely lie if asked directly. All conjecture anyway, all we really KNOW about this is what is available online and in the papers. We must conclude that it is POSSIBLE at least.
Of course, she MAY have missed a ministry moment, but again, conjecture.
What bothers me more than all that though, is the way a discussion that should be confined to the debate of ideas surrounding the civil liberties of some folks in New Mexico, has degenerated to some vitriolic personal attacks and name calling. Isn’t calling someone a religious freak just as bigoted as saying something derogatory about gays or blacks?
I try to remember that if your ideas sound ridiculous to me, it is very likely my ideas sound just as ridiculous to you. It is this difference in opinion that creates the potential for great debate, if we can refrain from attacking one another. My opinion, if you must attack the person instead of debating the idea, very likely you do not really have anything intelligent to say about the idea to begin with, but instead just have a strong emotional feeling about it.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant.
It’s seems today that everybody has rights to oppose except Christians. WHY? Perverts with children fantasies, Homosexuals with their be tolerant of my lifestyle and my fantasies, ethnic groups with don’t mess with my name or people group. What about the rights of Jews and Christians to express their points of view? Where are the rights of all those people who don’t fit into groups, again I state”Where are their rights”?
My question is why do we have a ‘Human Rights Commission’ anywhere in the United States? The whole purpose of our government is effectively to be the grandest human rights commission ever assembled. I see no need to generate a redundant extra judicial court for such nonsense.
This is a complete outrage. Every American should be appalled that this could happen in our country. The Photography Company should refuse to pay the fine, even if it means jail. The people should all patronize these people for standing up against the HRC. This is a time for CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. March on the Capital. Force the closure of State Government Offices. All Citizens should drive slowly on the shoulders of the roads to make a statement. Now is the time to act and to act loud to make it known WE AREN’T GOING TO TAKE THIS CRAP ANY MORE. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR NATION BACK FROM THE LIBERAL ELITE. THIS IS TYRANNY, WE MUST SAY NO TO THE GOVERNMENT. If they can fine us for refusing to cater to gays, whats next.
The fast food owner that wanted people to speak English when ordering NEVER refused any body service! Maybe you should do more reading before spitting out your bile!
OK Joe, let’s play that game.
You are correct: Mr. Vento of Geno’s didn’t refuse anyone service for not speaking English. What he DID do was to throw them a cheese steak not made to order, whatever came off the grill.
Should the photographer have said: “OK, I’ll take photos for you, but it will be photos of the Monarch butterfly migration through Taos, not of your ceremony.” ???
Anyway, I don’t think the cases are necessarily related. Vento didn’t refuse service, but there is nothing ideological involved that would implicate his religious liberty. Serving someone a sandwich doesn’t involve you in promoting ideas with which you disagree. This is also why this case is nothing like segregated lunch counters and other false comparisons we’ve heard related to the civil rights struggle, which was legitimate.
In this case, you have the state forcing people into a form of servitude against their will and in violation of their First Amendment rights. This is NOT a legitimate exercise of state power.
The First Amendment is more important than some lesbian activist’s hurt feelings that someone somewhere out there does not agree with her sexual behavior and does not want to be involved in promoting it through her art or her business.