Christian Photographer fined for refusing service

[Seegtease]

Old-ish, but found it worth sharing.
***

A Christian law firm will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.

Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs.

Jordan Lorence with the Alliance Defense Fund (http://www.telladf.org/) (ADF) represented the Huguenins. He contends the lawsuit reflects an attitude among homosexual activists.

"This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman," says the attorney. "This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches."

Lorence believes the Huguenins will win an appeal of the decision. But he warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs.

"There is a great threat to our religious liberties and our ability to speak out in favor of traditional marriage when these non-discrimination laws are interpreted in such a harsh way to censor Christians and others," he asserts.

Lorence said Americans do not surrender their freedoms of speech or religion just because they choose to open a business. He added that the Commission's decision is tantamount to the State of New Mexico forcing a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for a butcher shop.



http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547



***

This isn't what I was looking for (for the other thread), but it's a prime example one of the first steps of Christian convictions being illegal, starting with private business, hard to say where it will stop.



Thoughts?

[Bloodcinder]

The one thing I have to say is that this is a business, not a church, and part of incorporating a business is adhering to government standards to keep that incorporation valid. One of the rules of incorporation is non-discrimination.

The two thing I have to say is that people who sue for stuff like this are assholes and serve only to confirm the straight majority's belief that gay people are evil. I'm sorry, but the rest of us normal people aren't trying to force everybody to betray their beliefs.

The three thing I have to say is that I would think this decision would be reversed on appeal, and if it's not I would be sorely disappointed and blame it on the Democrats. [Face of "I'm kind of kidding, but not really."]

[nijili]

this infuriates me, i thought you can refuse your service to anyone you wish. Why would that stand up in a court of law? If i refused to photograph a porn shoot would i get fined for that too? where draw the line thats terrible!

[Seegtease]

Sure, I know you aren't all out to get the straight people. I'm not afraid of the homosexuals - I am afraid of the government going above and beyond to protect them, possibly at the cost of those with real convictions. I don't think gays are going to go nuts and oppress the people against homosexuality, but I believe it's entirely possible that those in power may.

[Bloodcinder]

nij, like I said, it's part of what you have to pledge to become a business. What if Burger King turned away black people or divorced people or Wiccans?

I know, Zeit, I was being general. A lot of people see news articles like this and it colors their entire perspective just like it does when atheists see something bad about people who are Christians.

[Seegtease]

Then they'd get fined up the butt.

My point being that those regulations should NOT exist. And this photography one is really stretching the laws that shouldn't exist to begin with. If BK did that and we had no laws, they'd still be digging their own grave, since it'd piss customers off and they'd stop going there.

[Bloodcinder]

I agree with you. Also, check my last post. I edited it.

[Seegtease]

No, you're right, but I try not to do that, since it bugs me so much. Like I said, I don't label homosexuals as responsible for this, but the Gov't. I blame them for pretty much anything. And most of the time, I'm probably right in doing so.

But then again, the homosexuals aren't telling the Gov't to stop because of the rap it gives them. As far as I know, they like the help. I still don't blame them.

[RonDo]

Does it say anywhere that their business is a corporation? I guess I was just assuming that they are a partnership but I guess the article doesn't go all that in depth and really, I guess it doesn't matter in the long run.

Personally, I feel that they should have their ruling reversed. If the customer lost money on the deal, then they should have it refunded since the service was not provided.

I don't see why they could not have just gone to another photographer as opposed to trying to make an example of Elane Photography.

[Bloodcinder]

RonDo, it's because the [lesbian] couple involved are angry and embittered and want to lash out. Society pushes them to that, but it's still not excusable.

Zeit, I know, I wasn't accusing you. Sorry if it sounded like that. But, um... "the homosexuals" is kind of broad, and you can't expect "them" to tell the government to stop. I try to tell the government to stop a lot of things, and so do a lot of gays I know. Just like in that other thread, not everybody who happens to share a characteristic and a name is really in it together.

[Gio Takahashi]

Personally, If it goes against people's religion, they should have the right to refuse service on that. Why should they be forced to do something that would violate their own religion?

[deathofcheese]

I don't really see how the lesbian couple could have a case. It's simple: in the business world, if you are refused service or find the service lacking, you are by all means free to take your custom to another business. If I was gay and a photographer refused to take my wedding pictures, I'd certainly feel insulted and discriminated against, but I'd find another photographer after filing a "discriminates against homosexuals" complaint against the first photographer with the BBB.

[Arainach]

Personally, If it goes against people's religion, they should have the right to refuse service on that. Why should they be forced to do something that would violate their own religion?It's their responsibility to pick a career that won't require violating their religion. How about muslim taxidrivers refusing people with guide dogs? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472393/)

[Bloodcinder]

Something just dawned on me. What exactly is violating Christianity about taking pictures of a lesbian wedding ceremony? I can't figure it out.

[RonDo]

Something just dawned on me. What exactly is violating Christianity about taking pictures of a lesbian wedding ceremony? I can't figure it out.

Because if you are taking pictures of lesbians getting married, you yourself are supporting same-sex marriages. Or..that is at least what I think they may believe. Eh.

I don't question their strong beliefs in the least bit nor do I condemn them in living their lives based on those beliefs but it doesn't make much business sense to eliminate potential clients based on your own personal beliefs. It's hard to say though..they may get rejected from one group of people..but because of their actions (and the publicity) they may be supported from another group.

[Charlie]

Personally, If it goes against people's religion, they should have the right to refuse service on that. Why should they be forced to do something that would violate their own religion?

Remove a few exclamitory uses of the words "fuck," "hell," "damn," "shit," "piss," "cock," and "cunt," and this is my reply in a nutshell.

[Gio Takahashi]

Meh, when it all breaks down to it, I'm pretty sure businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish.

[Arainach]

Meh, when it all breaks down to it, I'm pretty sure businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish.No, they don't. Didn't we learn this lesson in the 60s?

[Killer_Man_]

No, they don't. Didn't we learn this lesson in the 60s?

So, it's ok for Priests, Clergymen or whoever to refuse rights to marry but yet they can't refuse to serve people?

Last time I check, places don't have to do shit for you and if they want to they can ban you from the premises.

[Arainach]

Priests are officials of a religion. Religious organizations are treated differently than private businesses.

If there's an individual reason, yes, they can refuse service. What they CAN'T do is say 'we don't serve blacks/homosexuals/etc'.

[RonDo]

Priests are officials of a religion. Religious organizations are treated differently than private businesses.

If there's an individual reason, yes, they can refuse service. What they CAN'T do is say 'we don't serve blacks/homosexuals/etc'.

They can refuse service for a variety of reasons, which in some cases it is on a sign on a wall of their business so all can see. However, I don't think you can refuse service because of discrimination. I guess you could but you'll likely get in trouble for it.

[Killer_Man_]

So basically he worded it wrong. :X

[Seegtease]

It's their responsibility to pick a career that won't require violating their religion. How about muslim taxidrivers refusing people with guide dogs? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472393/)

I don't see the problem. There certainly shouldn't be any laws about this. If you run a business, you should have the right to turn down any customer for any reason. After all, you're hurting yourself too for the loss of business.

Trust me, if a bunch of businesses stopped serving certain groups, enterprising people would see this and start business to accept those potential customers. There's no reason for the government to moderate this. It will fix itself as people take their business elsewhere, or start businesses to take the refused customers.

Any law telling owners who they can and can't refuse to is absurd, and serves the purpose of another agenda.

[Arainach]

Your libertarian dreams are false. Time and time again it's been shown that people won't change their habits in enough numbers to make a difference.

[Seegtease]

Doesn't matter. It's not like everybody business is going to start refusing a certain group anyway. And if a few do, we can also exercise another American right. The right to take our business elsewhere.

If we are going to tell businesses who they can and cannot serve, we might as well tell customers who they can and cannot be served by.

[Bloodcinder]

Ary, I disagree. I don't think Zeit's libertarian idea is ridiculous. I think it would be much wiser. Getting to that stage would be hard because of all of the legal rubble we have.

[Killer_Man_]

I have to agree with Zeit on this one.

Just for the sheer fact that of this.

Think of a restaurant. A lot of menus nowadays have a insert in the middle that says, hope you enjoy your meal and please tell your friends and family about us BUT if you find something wrong or you didn't like one thing(Food or service wise), please TELL US.

Why? Because every business knows that one customer that is happy will bring in two or three more people in. One unhappy customer will tell as MANY people as they can on how horrible their place is.

Something like that.