Wiser social observers in our society have realized some time ago that so-called anti-discrimination laws and rules are being used to shove the liberal homosexuality agenda down the throats of social conservatives in the name of progress and civil rights.
The Elane Photography case, already discussed a few times on this blog*, is a stark example. According to this Aug. 2013 article, a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for review of the case is due by mid-November. That means now.
( * Elane Photography – the Christian couple being harassed by two stupid lesbians in New Mexico – is going to the Supremes! // Liberals announce future legislation promoting gay rights – progress to come! // Another fake “discrimination” lawsuit from two men with a homosexual problem – Colorado bakery refused wedding cake // One of the best recent threads at The American Conservative – thanks to a few commenters who charitably bother improving the content of the site )
The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies, even though that state does not have gay marriage and the court acknowledged that providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’s sincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs. This becomes one of the first major cases where religious liberty collides with gay rights, and could now go to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Elane Huguenin is a photographer in New Mexico. She and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography. Specifically, Elane is a photojournalist—using a carefully-planned series of photographs to tell a story and convey a message. She is also a devout Christian, who believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
In 2006, Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography, asking Elane to photograph her lesbian commitment ceremony. It was a private commitment ceremony because New Mexico recognizes neither gay marriage nor gay civil unions. Elane thanked Willock for her interest, but explained that due to her religious beliefs she only does traditional weddings.
Willock filed a complaint against Elane with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, citing a state law that does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ruled Elane’s decision illegal, and imposed a fine of $7,000 to cover legal fees.
Elane took this matter to court, represented by Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The trial court upheld the fine, as did the court of appeals.
The New Mexico Supreme Court has now affirmed the lower courts, holding that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” and because they photograph wedding ceremonies they cannot refuse a gay-commitment ceremony (even if it is not a legal wedding).
Below is a short excerpt of some comments at the Breitbart news site above, some of which are very good.
I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. The compelled speech is just the type of compelled behavior (working for people who are destroying society because of their political agenda). It’s no different than being asked to take photographs of a Neo-Nazi event or a porn shoot and refusing.
There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it
to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root. This is just one more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual
orientation is a fraud and must be scrapped. Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.
Thus, everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. The right to total discrimination against others pushing pornography onto you is a fundamental human right. The right to total discrimination against prostitution, sexualization of kids, S&M, etc., is a fundamental human right. And so it is with people pushing a noxious and ignorant homosexuality agenda that normalizes homosexuality instead of trying to resolve it. Everyone who has such problems (LGBTs) is responsible for investigating their underlying psychological problems
that produce their dysfunctional sexual psychologies.
You and I disagree about most things, Alessandra.
What’s the problem with lovers who are building a family wanting a state-licensed commercial photographer to record their commitment ceremony?
Isn’t commitment a good thing?
Doesn’t commitment build a stable society?
Why not celebrate it?
You may not like it if “some people” want committed relationships and families, but the law does not seek your veto over who among us is included or excluded from all of we-the-people, thankfully
All they want to do is build FAMILIES that garner equivalent recognition and respect from the state, from our self-governance, and from businesses in public commerce …
… recognition and respect equivalent to what other families get, including serially divorced inter-partner families, inter-racial families, inter-generational families, inter-religious families, inter-cultural families, and so on.
Inter-gender — the new “inter”.
So, against your preferences, Alessandra, this state legislated that their own taxpaying public consumers deserve equal protection and due process regardless of you not liking it.
So, as some haters seek to exclude some classes of people, the state finds that it needs to remedy that, and statutorily include those heretofore excluded classes of people into protected classes in anti-discrimination statues.
If the haters like you would behave nice and keep it to yourselves and treat everyone same-same equal, then there’d never be any of this statutory remedy needed.
Anyway, you know that their state has laws to provide protection through legal recourse for their public consumers, so, in spite of your opening line “… I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint …”, I see that sentence is obviously a rhetorical ruse on your part — your subsequent writing reveals that you know precisely of the “protected class” law in this case quite well.
You don’t like it.
Is there an emoticon for Alessandra pouting?
Pout on, Alessandra.
You can hate, but you cannot discriminate.
Get over it.
1) Real commitment is not built on photographs – as the photo-ops of shoddy politicians kissing babies exemplify. It’s not by taking photographs that people exercise commitment. If people want commitment to any kind of relationship, they don’t need any photograph at all. This case is not about commitment.
2) Anyone can take a photograph. There is no need for sexuality pigs to have decent people take photographs of their sexuality circus acts. Moreover, sexuality pigs have no right to force decent people to take photographs of their perverted behavior or any re-enactment of it. If these two stupid lesbians wanted photographs, they could have gotten plenty of photographers without ethics to do the job, including those who take pictures of adult and child porn. The fact that they sought to harass this decent couple shows this has nothing to do with “commitment” of two dysfunctional women, but with harassing decent people who do not submit to the perverted sexuality views LGBTs want to shove down everyone’s throats.
3) Commitment in a healthy heterosexual relationship builds society. Other deformed parodies of it do not. LGBTs are people who have profound psychological problems to such a degree that they are too deformed to establish a healthy heterosexual relationship. Most LGBTs are adamant about avoiding taking responsibility for their deformed psychologies and resolving their problems. These people only destroy society.
Speaking as a business owner myself, what people do not realize is that this opens up a Pandoras box that they do not want to open. Forcing a private business owner to violate their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs to provide a service is going to be a very dangerous path to go down. The anti-discrimination laws were not intended to overstep the Constitutional rights of others, but are starting to be used for that very purpose.
The consequences of these laws will prove over time to be severe if this is not nipped in the bud by the SCOTUS.
You can’t expect anything from LGBTs that isn’t dysfunctional
Any statistical count shows that LGBT is a small percent of any population — high one- or low two-digit percent — so this anti-discrimination statute must have had support from people who are not LGBT themselves.
So considering that this statute must have come from presumably LGBT and non-LGBT people, well then, that includes just about everyone, so make your one-liner more accurate:
“… You can’t expect anything from everyone that isn’t dysfunctional by Alessandra’s standards …”
YOU are the odd one out.
That statute and its supporters certainly include a varied range of people who have adopted a homosexuality agenda.
You don’t need to have a homosexuality problem to promote a homosexuality agenda, just to be unethical (and usually quite ignorant as well).
But the core driving force for such statutes are the dysfunctional LGBTs, who, as we know, are too much trash of people to have ethics and go deal with their deformed psychologies
This is ridiculous! As an independent contractor, I reserve the right not to work with ANYONE. Just like I can’t force someone to hire me, someone can not force me to work with them.
On a completely unrelated note, did anyone get the license plate of that giant truck carrying away all of our liberty?