A inch is Given, a mile is taken!

[Slimland]

Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61342

The state of New Mexico has ordered a family owned photography company to pay more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony, and a lawyer who is working on an appeal says it is an example of how "non-discrimination" or "hate" laws can be weapons in the hands of homosexual activists.

"The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate there conscience," said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is working on an appeal.

"The commission's decision shows stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights, and we will appeal…," he said.

The case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission was brought by Vanessa Willock against Elane Photography LLC, which is run by owners Jon and Elaine Huguenin.

The couple that included Willock approached Elaine Huguenin and wanted the Huguenins to photograph a "commitment ceremony" the women wanted to hold.

"Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony," according to the law firm.

Willock then alleged she was a victim of "discrimination" because of her sexual orientation, and brought the complaint before the state agency.

In its ruling this week, the commission found: "Complainant, Vanessa Willock, proved her discrimination claim based on sexual orientation. The Complainant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent, Elane Photography, LLC, discriminated against her because of sexual orientation, in violation of … the New Mexico Human Rights Act."

The Christian couple was ordered to pay Willock $6,637.94.

The ADF, however, said the case will be appealed because of the significance of the constitutional issue at stake.

"The constitutional right of Americans to refrain from participating in a ceremony or other event because their sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with its message is at stake," the organization said. "Christians could be forced to advocate for viewpoints with which they disagree or to participate in events that violate their conscience."

Lorence told OneNewsNow that New Mexico's state law is similar to laws in 19 other states, as well as the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and if such precedents aren't overturned, they could be used to silence biblical Christianity.

"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 said.

The AFD noted that the "commitment ceremony" was proposed to be held in Taos, N.M., despite the fact neither marriage nor civil unions are legal for members of the same sex in New Mexico.

"The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood," said Lorence. "Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate."

WND reported earlier on a plan that would impose such "non-discrimination" requirements on the nation.

The congressional proposal, H.R. 3685, failed. But the Employment Non-Discrimination Act plan would have given special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

"If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors," said Matt Barber, a policy analyst with Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's group.

"It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door," he said.

President Bush, before the bill's support fell short in Congress, had suggested it likely would be vetoed because it would have raised "concerns on constitutional and policy grounds."

The White House "policy statement" on the issue said H.R. 3685 would extend employment-discrimination provisions to set up "a comprehensive federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

But the White House said the plan was "inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible.

The White House said the issue involves such "imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on 'perceived' sexual orientation, or 'association' with individuals of a particular sexual orientation."

However, various local governments already have approved such regulations, ADF said.

[Fozzy]

Why do I have this strange feeling that this "christian" photog works on the Sabbath, wears makeup, and wears clothing made of mixed fabrics... I'll also bet that she has taken photos of illegitimate children and other couples who live in sin without ANY commitment to each other... More BS to gain attention. I do not think they should be sued.. they should just be ashamed of themselves as usual.

[headborg]

well I side with the photographers- they should have the right to decide who's business to take and who's not to take.. just like any restraunt can refuse to serve whomever they chose( or used to)

When I first started reading this-- I was expecting to find something Legit like- the couple paid a deposit or an advance $$$, booked the job, then on wedding day- too late to find a new photographer-- the photographer "Only then" realized it was a Gay wedding and backed out-- leaving them without professional photos. This I think would have been-- grounds for action.

But to think you have to do business with anyone who walks in to your shop...

[Uturn2001]

Uh oh......I agree with headborg on something 100%. Somebody shoot me.

I could see it if the woman walked into the local Piggly Wiggly or Win Dixie or what ever and was refused service at the deli but being involved in a wedding/commitment ceremony etc is something of an intimate situation even for a photographer.

[headborg]

Uh oh......I agree with headborg on something 100%. Somebody shoot me.

I could see it if the woman walked into the local Piggly Wiggly or Win Dixie or what ever and was refused service at the deli but being involved in a wedding/commitment ceremony etc is something of an intimate situation even for a photographer.

well maybe next time someone wants them to do a "commitment ceremony" warning bells will go off--- and they will politely quote them a upfront, non-refundable $100,000.00 price tag!


Oh but then-- they'll get sued for over-charging?

[RebelDarlin]

Let's continue to legislate ourselves into oblivion here by dictating whose "rights" are more important.

The photographers have every right to decide where and when they can deliver their services, as well as the right to their personal beliefs. That isn't discrimination, that's business, and a private business has every right to decide which clients they will take. If they were not comfortable photographing a 'commitment ceremony" (which is not LEGALLY recognized in New Mexico) then they were right to decline the job.

And Fozzy if anyone was looking for attention it was the lesbian who sued the photographer, not the photogrpaher who was trying to stay out of a questionable situation. And what, pray tell, do wearing make-up and/or clothing made of mixed fabrics have to do with anything? Which cult are you talking about?


Call me old school, When in doubt...DON'T! I wouldn't have taken the job either!

[Fozzy]

And what, pray tell, do wearing make-up and/or clothing made of mixed fabrics have to do with anything? Which cult are you talking about?

The same cult that incessantly selectively uses their "religion" be tools. The cult that the photographer claims to be a member of. The same section that she uses to pretend to be so devout towards also forbids the things (and many others) that she almost certainly does on a daily basis.. hypocritical? You bet!!!

[RebelDarlin]

Since most Christians aren't bound to Jewish Law, I still don't see how bringing that into this issue is relevant in any way.

The issue at hand is a business owners right to refuse service, for whatever reason they see fit. Quit trying to turn it into something else.

Hypocritcal??? How about the lesbian seekeing legal redress to assert that her right to not feel discriminated against is more important than the photographers right to not be involved in an ILLEGAL ceremony?

I choose not to associate with drug users, is that discrimination? You bet it is!!! Same sex mariages are not LEGAL so why should anyone be forced by the law to participate in them in any way? Calling it a commitment ceremony is an attempt to subvert the law and no law abiding citizen should be forced to participate in it.

[Fozzy]

Since most Christians aren't bound to Jewish Law, I still don't see how bringing that into this issue is relevant in any way.

Because it is the standard (tired) excuse almost always given and referred to in these cases?

[quote="RebelDarlin"]The issue at hand is a business owners right to refuse service, for whatever reason they see fit. Quit trying to turn it into something else.

And I stated that I did not believe that the photog should be sued... just that the photog is almost certainly breaking more of these supposed religious rules than the people that they are complaining about as is the norm in these cases.

Hypocritcal??? How about the lesbian seekeing legal redress to assert that her right to not feel discriminated against is more important than the photographers right to not be involved in an ILLEGAL ceremony?

Illegal? In what way? To whom? There is no legal ceremony going on here.. but there is blatant hypocrisy, which these supposed religious types so good at.

I choose not to associate with drug users, is that discrimination? You bet it is!!!

I'd love to hear how these people can be compared to drug dealers in any way. The point is that this photog is claiming that they cannot or will not provide a service based on their religious rules when everyone knows that it is pure 100% Bull.

Same sex mariages are not LEGAL so why should anyone be forced by the law to participate in them in any way?

Photogs do not "participate" in anything. They take pictures. If the photog was a professional, they would have taken the gig.. Again, I do not think that this is an offense worth being sued over.. just another blatant case of "do as I say not as I do" hypocrisy.

Calling it a commitment ceremony is an attempt to subvert the law and no law abiding citizen should be forced to participate in it.

Thats just convoluted nonsense. There is no legal ceremony going on here in the least.

[Slimland]

I think the whole point here is the fact that it is there buisness.. Not any one elses but there's.. They have a right to refuse or accept..

A lot of people talk how religious people push there views on every one. And now we see the oposite. So how many wars will be faught in the name of Homosexuality..

Just a tool for man to use..

[Uturn2001]

Photogs do not "participate" in anything. They take pictures. If the photog was a professional, they would have taken the gig..

If done in a certain context the photography of nude children is 100% legal. If a professional photographer is approached to do a nude photo shoot of a 9 year old should they accept the job just because it is legal even though the photographer is highly uncomfortable with it on moral or religious grounds?

[Phantom433a]

Photogs do not "participate" in anything. They take pictures. If the photog was a professional, they would have taken the gig..

If done in a certain context the photography of nude children is 100% legal. If a professional photographer is approached to do a nude photo shoot of a 9 year old should they accept the job just because it is legal even though the photographer is highly uncomfortable with it on moral or religious grounds?

no offense here Uturn.....but why would anyone want to take pics of nude children? I know......everyone has those pics of their babies naked, but after that....why?

[Uturn2001]

no offense here Uturn.....but why would anyone want to take pics of nude children? I know......everyone has those pics of their babies naked, but after that....why?

Beyond the answer of some call it "art" the only other one is that some people are sick. Regardless though it does happen.

[Fozzy]

I think the whole point here is the fact that it is there buisness.. Not any one elses but there's.. They have a right to refuse or accept..

This is correct, but it is also not very good business to turn away customers for BS reasons that they gave. This is no different than not doing business with blacks, Jews, Mexicans etc. It's just bad business.

A lot of people talk how religious people push there views on every one.

Because its just a fact...

And now we see the oposite. So how many wars will be faught in the name of Homosexuality..

That's just a foolish and insulting statement. but some people will say anything to try and make their points have some merit.

[Fozzy]

Photogs do not "participate" in anything. They take pictures. If the photog was a professional, they would have taken the gig..

If done in a certain context the photography of nude children is 100% legal. If a professional photographer is approached to do a nude photo shoot of a 9 year old should they accept the job just because it is legal even though the photographer is highly uncomfortable with it on moral or religious grounds?

Go ahead and try to hire a photog to take pictures of a nude 9 year old and see what happens to you. Go ahead and try to take the pictures yourself and have them developed somewhere.

There have been some fathers who have lost their parental rights, thrown in prison and labeled sex offenders for possessing the nude baby pictures of their own children let alone who attempt to take photos of them when they have gotten to be CHILDREN.

[RebelDarlin]

I think the whole point here is the fact that it is there buisness.. Not any one elses but there's.. They have a right to refuse or accept..

This is correct, but it is also not very good business to turn away customers for BS reasons that they gave. This is no different than not doing business with blacks, Jews, Mexicans etc. It's just bad business.


But it's their business and they have the right to refuse service on whatever criteria they determine. If they run it into the ground by refusing to deal with things they find offensive, so be it!

A lot of people talk how religious people push there views on every one.

Because its just a fact...

Representing your beliefs is NOT the same as pushing them on someone. So far in this Country, we still all have the right to stand up for what we believe in.

And now we see the oposite. So how many wars will be faught in the name of Homosexuality..

That's just a foolish and insulting statement. but some people will say anything to try and make their points have some merit.

It isn't foolish or insulting. Any time one group, whatever it is, tries to force their beliefs or opinions on another group it eventually leads to a fight. The battlefield right now is the court system, and our freedom is the only casualty because the Courts are trying to dictate what our moral view should be.

[RebelDarlin]

[quote="Fozzy"]

Since most Christians aren't bound to Jewish Law, I still don't see how bringing that into this issue is relevant in any way.

Because it is the standard (tired) excuse almost always given and referred to in these cases?

Why does the photog need any excuse? That's what is sad, is that she feels the need to even have to use religion as an excuse. Why can't she just refuse to do something that she doesn't want to do?

The issue at hand is a business owners right to refuse service, for whatever reason they see fit. Quit trying to turn it into something else.

And I stated that I did not believe that the photog should be sued... just that the photog is almost certainly breaking more of these supposed religious rules than the people that they are complaining about as is the norm in these cases.

As is the human condition, we can only do what we can rationalize in our own minds. We are all imperfect. And I didn't see anything saying the photog was complaining about anyone, they just chose not to take the job.

Hypocritcal??? How about the lesbian seekeing legal redress to assert that her right to not feel discriminated against is more important than the photographers right to not be involved in an ILLEGAL ceremony?

Illegal? In what way? To whom? There is no legal ceremony going on here.. but there is blatant hypocrisy, which these supposed religious types so good at.

That's the point, there is no LEGAL ceremony going on. Same sex marriages are NOT LEGAL. Just because they call it a commitment ceremony doesn't change the fact that they are having a wedding. You try to tell them they aren't "married"! So why should a business owner be forced to provide any kind of service for it?

I choose not to associate with drug users, is that discrimination? You bet it is!!!

I'd love to hear how these people can be compared to drug dealers in any way. The point is that this photog is claiming that they cannot or will not provide a service based on their religious rules when everyone knows that it is pure 100% Bull.

The point is we all have the right to choose who and what we associate ourselves with. You belive that religion is 100% bull and that is your right, but that doesn't negate anyone elses right to believe differently! Until same sex marriages are made legal, they are ILLEGAL! And calling it a commitment ceremony doesn't change the fact that these couples believe themselves to be "married" and have and will continue to use them to get the same benefits that married couples have.

Same sex mariages are not LEGAL so why should anyone be forced by the law to participate in them in any way?

Photogs do not "participate" in anything. They take pictures. If the photog was a professional, they would have taken the gig.. Again, I do not think that this is an offense worth being sued over.. just another blatant case of "do as I say not as I do" hypocrisy.

They don't participate??? Some photogs "stage" the whole wedding to get the best shots. They have to understand what is going on in order to provide the best shots. So how would this photog know what was going on at a commitment ceremony? Oh yeah, it's just another wedding! and the photog didn't tell them to "do as I say" they simply chose not to be involved!

Calling it a commitment ceremony is an attempt to subvert the law and no law abiding citizen should be forced to participate in it.

Thats just convoluted nonsense. There is no legal ceremony going on here in the least.

Exactly!! It is a mockery of a legal ceremony! I have been to 2 "Commitment Ceremonies" in the last year. They are weddings! And just an FYI, around here at least they don't want anyone that they don't know at these ceremonies, including the photographer. As a matter of fact they try to keep them out of the public as much as possible. The general consensus of my Gay friends is that this Lesbian was out to make a point and probably called every photographer until she found one to make her point with. Don't be foolish enough to believe that there aren't Gay Activists who are just looking for a fight. The majority of them just want to be left alone to live their lives out of the spotlight.

[Slimland]

I think the whole point here is the fact that it is there buisness.. Not any one elses but there's.. They have a right to refuse or accept..

This is correct, but it is also not very good business to turn away customers for BS reasons that they gave. This is no different than not doing business with blacks, Jews, Mexicans etc. It's just bad business.

A lot of people talk how religious people push there views on every one.

Because its just a fact...

And now we see the oposite. So how many wars will be faught in the name of Homosexuality..

That's just a foolish and insulting statement. but some people will say anything to try and make their points have some merit.

This is correct, but it is also not very good business to turn away customers for BS reasons that they gave. This is no different than not doing business with blacks, Jews, Mexicans etc. It's just bad business.

Agreed But it is still there buisness.

Because its just a fact...

Maybe so on some points, but still no diffrent than you or I pushing what we believe in a discussion topic of someone of a diffrent faith!

That's just a foolish and insulting statement. but some people will say anything to try and make their points have some merit.

[/quote]

How is it foolish Fozzy? What is the diffrence-Beside's the subject?
We have seen wars faught for Religion, Land, Disagreements etc.. I see no diffrence, Like I said a tool for man to use-- to impress there desire's upon another.. That is what War is all about.

[Fozzy]

How is it foolish Fozzy? What is the diffrence-Beside's the subject? We have seen wars faught for Religion, Land, Disagreements etc.. I see no diffrence, Like I said a tool for man to use-- to impress there desire's upon another.. That is what War is all about.

Trying to imply that homosexuality, has had, or could ever have the influence to start the actual wars and wholesale slaughter that religion has in the short history of mankind is almost as stupid as the buffet religious types that use it as a defense for their bigotry every single day. To imply this especially since the recent circumstances in my life was either horribly blatant stupidity or yet another classless low blow by someone who thinks it will bolster support by other buffet types.. Either of these is something that I have grown accustom to in this venue.

My son was supported and well loved by a few relatives and friends who happen to be homosexuals.. he was killed by the same logic and barbarism that the buffet religious types historically love to use to condone their actions.. Same behavior.

Have a good life... I hope your beliefs make you continue to feel superior to those you hate...

[Karnajj]

Why do I have this strange feeling that this "christian" photog works on the Sabbath, wears makeup, and wears clothing made of mixed fabrics... I'll also bet that she has taken photos of illegitimate children and other couples who live in sin without ANY commitment to each other... More BS to gain attention. I do not think they should be sued.. they should just be ashamed of themselves as usual.

Typical knee-jerk Fozzy reaction.

How the hell do you know what went through their minds when they decided to turn down the job? Have you become a mind reader in your bitter old age? And since when did you become the goto guy on what the definition of "professional" is? Your constant attacks on Christianity border on the pathetic. You couldn't turn down an oppotunity to spew your hate any more than a drunk can turn down a drink. And what the f*ck is your point in saying that some gays and lesbians supported you in your recent troubles? Who cares? Is their support any better than someone else's? Are you so bitter that you won't even accept a kind word from someone because they are Christian? Pathetic.