Christian photographer dragged before court for refusing to cover gay "wedding"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html

[?=Read]Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job

By John Jalsevac
New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony", was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.
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.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography.
"On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony - that marriage can be defined as two women or two men."
In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees.
"Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money," said Lorence. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Lorence said that the ADF is framing its case in a similar fashion to the 1995 Supreme Court "Hurley" Case. "In the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade case the US Supreme Court said that the State of Massachusetts could not punish a privately run parade because it refused to allow a homosexual advocacy group to carry banners and signs in the parade. They said that would be compelled speech, ordering the parade organizers to help promote a message they do not want to promote. To apply the discrimination law that way violates freedom of speech. We are making a similar kind of argument in this case."
Lorence said that this current case is demonstrative of a "tremendous threat" facing those with traditional views on marriage and family.
"I think that this is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights. Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, 'We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people's right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.'"
But, in practice, says Lorence, "Business owners with traditional views or church owners with traditional definitions of marriage are now vulnerable for lawsuits under these nondiscrimination laws. There are 20 states that have these laws where they ban sexual orientation discrimination. Most of the major cities in the United States also have these kinds of ordinances. So these are a big threat, as the federal government debates whether to make this a blanket nationwide law.
"We see that these [non-discrimination laws] are not rectifying some unjust discrimination, but being used to punish those who speak out in favor of traditional marriage and sexual restraint," he concluded.
Lorence said that the ADF is "cautiously optimistic that the commission will do the right thing." If the New Mexico Commission, however, decides against Elane Photography, Lorence said that the ADF would appeal the decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
[/?]

Getthefuckouttahere! Oh fuck them dead in the ass. Piss away these people's money like this only makes me label them faggots and golddiggers.

This sucks. They've no business suing the photographer. No law says she has to work something that is against her beliefs. It's not like shes the only photographer in the state.

You know if someone doesn't want your bidness, just go the fuck somewhere else.

The photogs shoulda just said they had a previous engagement and left it at that. But they decided to tell the couple that they don't approve and probably a few other things.

The photogs are not too sharp.

I blame the faggots.

Those two faggots should have their lips sewn shut to remind them of the importance of not infringing on the right to free speech through communication or association.

The ability to force photographers to visually document your same-sex ceremony is a Human Right now?

Oh good grief. Didn't SCOTUS recently uphold people's right of free association when the Boy Scouts got sued?

Little tip for the people filing the complaint. DON'T hire a photographer who has ANY reason to screw up your pictures. Duh...

I wonder if this photographer had a sign that said CHRISTIAN PHOTOGRAPHER or just the writers hype?

Cuz they really shoulda looked for a gay friendly photog.

Absolutely ridiculous. No one's "human rights" were violated because a photographer declined a job due to a conflict with personal beliefs. Like the sign says: "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason."

That sign is not a legal statement.

Really now? They can't refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding? No problem....."Oops....forgot to put film in the camera! Oops - sorry your pictures came out as negatives....my mistake"

Yeah... and 10 bucks says those faggots would sue for that as well.

This is why gay marriage has been rightly outlawed in all civilized states. Give those shrill faggots an inch and they'll take a mile. Pretty soon they'll be hauling normal people into court because they won't let them stick it in their asses.

If they don't like gays... well, I don't see a problem with that. They're free to like or hate whoever they want. I can understand the photographers' decision.
They should have come up with a better excuse (for example, "sorry, we're booked").
It wasn't a human rights violation.
Another photographer will get paid for the job. Elane Photography will lose out on a customer, and the gay couple will tell their friends about the "homophobe" photographers (so it's less likely their friends will go there).

The lawsuit is ridiculous.

Oh man, the website in the OP is hilarious!

Way to screw it up for the rest of the world, you stupid. fucking. cunts. A lawsuit? Are you fucking kidding me? Neat. One step forward, two steps back.

I bet the photographer broke the contract once they realized the wedding they agreed to photograph was actually a gay/lesbian wedding - probably a week before the event.

And that's the reason for the lawsuit, conveniently not mentioned in ...(wait, who is he here?) Midnight Funeral's (apropos) article.

I hope you're right. If so, and if the contract does not give the photographer the option to cancel on these grounds or on such short notice, more power to the brides. But that would be a simple issue of enforcing a contract, and there would be no need to involve "the New Mexico Human Rights Division", would there? And it would likely mean they could sue for compensation, not for the right to have this guy photograph their wedding?

I fully support gay marriage, but I'll be damned if anyone, gay or not, can force me to take photographs, to write about, or to enter any such contract against my wish.

So sue for breach of contract. That doesn't involve a human rights issue. But dragging this before that "our feelings are butthurt" nonsense is just cheapening the point of that body, such as it is.

I can see this situation causing some social awkwardness in the future when this photographer tries to tell this story by starting out with "So I got screwed by this gay couple . . ."

I'm in full support for equal rights, equal justice, and equal protection under the law for homosexuals. However, my observation has been that homosexuals themselves are their own worst enemy.

Mainly because they often can't differentiate between tolerance (which they are entitled to) and acceptance (which they are not).

I remember seeing an Onion article one time that was titled something like "Gay Rights Movement Set Back 50 Years by Gay Pride Parade".

If the photographer broke the contract because of the couple's sexual orientation, that is a human rights violation.

I wish I believed you were right Jenee, but my guess is they *knew* this photographer would refuse, and asked her just so they would have a reason to sue. What assholes.

Wait I thought you understood lesbians better because they think more like men or something.

Why do you think so?