Quick! Somebody alert Bob Schieffer before he misses this story too.
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 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.
You must comply is the new tolerance.
This is what it comes down to and with more and more legal recognition of SSA, the impetus to force faithful Christians to comply grows every day.
This is a great battle of our day.
August 22, 2013 at 9:53 pm
We are a competing religion to the State.
August 22, 2013 at 10:30 pm
The court also gave them a smarmy little lecture about the importance of compromise in a pluralistic society, reminding them that they are free to practice their faith in private but not in the civic arena. That's America in 2013. (And, by the way, the decision is being HERALDED by the Catholics over at Commonweal.)
August 22, 2013 at 11:35 pm
This is free exercise of religion in modern America . . . your "free exercise" is to believe what you want, but keep it private, to yourself. Take your faith into the closet and keep it there. How ironic.
August 22, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Pushing Christians into the closet. Maybe we could find ways to do business with each other and avoid giving our money to others who clearly will use the money to promote values we disagree with. Sorta the reason I don't use amazon, Starbucks, eat Oreos, etc. why give money to those who will use it to suppress me? Seems stupid.
August 22, 2013 at 11:51 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 22, 2013 at 11:52 pm
So…they're being compelled to accept employment with a particular person, by force of law?
Yeah, uh, that violates the 13th Amendment. "Compulsory labor" has a shorter name, it's called "slavery". If you are not free to refuse a particular contract, you are not free at all.
August 23, 2013 at 12:36 am
Unfortunately, the court does seem to have ruled correctly based on the law. From its ruling: "The NMHRA prohibits discrimination in broad terms by forbidding 'any person in
any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services … because of … sexual orientation.' Section 28-1-7(F)"
It then explains how the US Supreme Court "has rejected similar attempts to distinguish
between a protected status and conduct closely correlated with that status." So there's not really any getting around that, is there? I don't think we should expect the court to rewrite the laws or overturn Supreme Court decisions when it sees fit.
However, there is also this: "[Businesses] 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." So there is that.
A commenter above said a Commonweal blog post "HERALDED" the decision. That post, written by a law professor at the University of Chicago, did express agreement with the decision but is written in a fairly calm and rational tone. Conservatives need to toughen up and learn how to beat people at their own game, instead of whining when things don't go their way. Again, this decision seems to be correct based on existing law and precedent. To suggest that those things be overturned by judicial activism just because you don't like them is immature. You need to argue either: (a) the decision is wrong in light of existing law, or (b) the existing law is wrong. And why. Whining about the big bad gays forcing us to do something just sounds weak.
August 23, 2013 at 1:26 am
Eduardo Peñalver has made his hostility to Catholic teachings on sexual issues the hallmark of his presence on the Internet. If he came across to you as "calm and rational" in his post on this court decision, overcaffeinated, that's because it gave him yet another chance to stick it to serious Christians with a hearty "I told you so."
The logic of his response was very like the logic Commonweal Catholics use to defend abortion: It's really for the best that we all go-along-to-get-along in our beautifully pluralistic world. In fact, I suspect Peñalver would be equally sanguine about the matter if the court had ordered the Christian photographers to document an abortion (which, like gay marriage, is "sacred ground" for elitists like himself).
August 23, 2013 at 2:14 am
That the court equated same-sex attraction to homosexual behavior leaves me speechless. The defense was that all persons will be served but not when they do something that offends the business owners. God discriminates against gay marriage. Gay couples cannot consummate the marital act. Now, we are all forced to lie about it and say that they do.
August 23, 2013 at 2:45 am
Mary, again, in the interest of rationalism maybe refer to the decision of the US Supreme Court that was cited. Being speechless doesn't help matters.
August 23, 2013 at 3:10 am
@overcaffeinated:
"Conservatives need to toughen up and learn how to beat people at their own game."
While I generally agree with you about the need to focus on more rational forms of argument, it is extremely difficult in our system of government to "beat" a US Supreme Court decision and to defeat those who have made it their focus to pursue their social/cultural agenda through the courts. Just ask the opponents of Dred Scott.
This breeds understandable frustration in a people who adhere to "We the People…", and not We the Courts, as the legitimate expression of self-goverance.
August 23, 2013 at 3:34 am
Could an African-American photographer refuse to photograph a KKK rally? I understand that a Klan rally isn't fundamentally connected to being white, but neither is gay "marriage" fundamentally connected to being gay. The respective relationships between the two identities and behaviors seem reasonably enough equivalent.
August 23, 2013 at 3:44 am
Tom, okay, but being frustrated doesn't do anything. As far as I can tell (IANAL), the decision was correct based on the law. It was NOT based on the whim of the court, as you seem to suggest, but on the law, particularly the NMHRA. If you disagree, then your disagreement is not with the court, but with the law, which was enacted by elected representatives of the state of New Mexico. As the court noted, "In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add 'sexual orientation' as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment." That is the problem, not court decisions based on the NMHRA.
In order to protect religious liberty, we need to work within the framework of the rule of law. We need to argue that sexual orientation is a dubious category for nondiscrimination. Or, argue that acts can legitimately be distinguished in this case from identities. Or, most difficultly, argue that nondiscrimination laws are inherently inimical to a free society. But just sitting around being outraged and speechless makes us look like sad losers.
August 23, 2013 at 12:23 pm
So….conversely, a gay caterer in Topeka must service weddings at the Westboro Baptist Church?
August 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Andrew and Joe: Per the appeals court ruling, the KKK and Westboro Baptist aren't protected classes. Some animals are more equal than others. Dave P.
August 23, 2013 at 2:53 pm
The Court said: "When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA]" The Court referred to a "same-sex commitment ceremony" to respect the photographer's religious beliefs about "so called same sex marriage" A photographer, a wedding photographer, does not have to photograph something that is not marriage or a real wedding. Even the Court recognizes that same sex commitments do not consummate the marital act. Marriage is the consummation of the marital act. One half of a consummation is no consummation, in the same manner that one half dollar is not one dollar. Do not make me lie that it is using my tax money.
August 23, 2013 at 3:02 pm
@overcaffeinated: "In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add 'sexual orientation' as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment." That is the problem, not court decisions based on the NMHRA." When a wedding photographer refuses to photograph "ceremonies" and the court decides he must, the court criminalizes the freedom of the photographer to choose to follow his calling. It is more than likely that the photographer NEEDS to photograph real weddings to remain sane, In which case, the court and the law is discriminating against a sane person. The church forgives sins, the state prosecutes crime: separation of church and state. For the state to redefine sanity as a crime is criminal.
August 23, 2013 at 5:12 pm
I'm no constitutional scholar, even though I took it in college (which was way too long ago, given how the law seems to be interpreted nowadays), but a query: if, per the decision, "[Businesses] 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," would a business be within its rights to include in that disclaimer that 100% of the proceeds from such a transaction would go directly to organizations dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage?
Would that be considered hate speech? Would it discourage same-sex couples from going to such a business, knowing that their money will be subsidizing a cause antithetical to their own? Would that possibility further complicate things for the business in question?
Merely curiosity as to whether or not this would be viable alternative, and apologies if it's been previously raised.
August 23, 2013 at 6:34 pm
Since they're being literally forced to do something against their conscience, spiteful as this may be, I suggest they take the absolute worst "pretend wedding" pictures one can imagine. They can simply plan ahead of time that the day's wages will be lost. Accomplish anything? No. But since they're being forced against their will, do it.
August 23, 2013 at 6:59 pm
By not taking any compensation for photographing same-sex celebrations, the photographer avoids any liability for the end product for surely these same sex practitioners are insatiable.
@Mitchell Hadley: "We only HONOR OUR MOTHER AND FATHER" as in the Supreme Court chamber. If the Supreme Court can post it surely citizens can.