NM Court: Christian Business Owners Have No Rights

[RonD1120 62]

The Case

The trouble began for Elaine and John Huguenin, owners of Elane’s Photography, in 2008 when Vanessa Willock inquired about hiring Mrs. Huguenin to photograph her “commitment ceremony” to her lesbian partner. New Mexico does not allow homosexual marriage.

As the court described it, Huguenin was civil in her answer: “Elane Photography quickly responded, thanking Willock for her interest but explaining that Elane Photography photographs ‘traditional weddings,' ” the court wrote.

Unsure what Elane Photography meant by “traditional weddings,” Willock sent a second email asking Elane Photography to clarify whether it “does not offer [its] photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane Photography responded affirmatively, stating, “[y]es, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings,” and again thanked Willock for her interest in Elane Photography.

Of course, Willock knew exactly what Mrs. Huguenin meant by “traditional weddings,” so the angry woman then, apparently, importuned her lesbian partner to set the photographer up for the discrimination claim.

According to the court, “Partner, without disclosing her same-sex relationship with Willock, sent an email to Elane Photography the next day.”

The email mentioned that Partner was getting married but did not specify whether the marriage was same-sex or “traditional.” Partner also asked Elane Photography whether it would be willing to travel for a wedding. Elane Photography responded that it would be willing to travel and included pricing information. Elane Photography also offered to meet with Partner to discuss options. When Elane Photography did not hear back from Partner, it sent a follow-up email to determine if Partner had any questions about the offered services.

You know what happened next.

The lesbian partners accused the Huguenins of “discrimination,” a violation of the state’s human rights law. They hurried down to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission with their brief. As expected, that august body of solons decided that the Huguenins did indeed run afoul of state law, fining the couple $6,637.94.

The Huguenins, to their credit, appealed with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, which defends Christians from the insanity of the radical left; in this case, two lesbians who believe their right to be photographed trumps the right of the photographers to refuse business that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The Huguenins lost in district court, which led to the appeal they lost last week.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/11624-new-mexico-court-christian-business-owners-have-no-rights

So, does this mean no one has the right to choose with whom they do business or, just Christian businesses?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The Case

The trouble began for Elaine and John Huguenin, owners of Elane’s Photography, in 2008 when Vanessa Willock inquired about hiring Mrs. Huguenin to photograph her “commitment ceremony” to her lesbian partner. New Mexico does not allow homosexual marriage.

As the court described it, Huguenin was civil in her answer: “Elane Photography quickly responded, thanking Willock for her interest but explaining that Elane Photography photographs ‘traditional weddings,' ” the court wrote.

Unsure what Elane Photography meant by “traditional weddings,” Willock sent a second email asking Elane Photography to clarify whether it “does not offer [its] photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane Photography responded affirmatively, stating, “[y]es, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings,” and again thanked Willock for her interest in Elane Photography.

Of course, Willock knew exactly what Mrs. Huguenin meant by “traditional weddings,” so the angry woman then, apparently, importuned her lesbian partner to set the photographer up for the discrimination claim.

According to the court, “Partner, without disclosing her same-sex relationship with Willock, sent an email to Elane Photography the next day.”

The email mentioned that Partner was getting married but did not specify whether the marriage was same-sex or “traditional.” Partner also asked Elane Photography whether it would be willing to travel for a wedding. Elane Photography responded that it would be willing to travel and included pricing information. Elane Photography also offered to meet with Partner to discuss options. When Elane Photography did not hear back from Partner, it sent a follow-up email to determine if Partner had any questions about the offered services.

You know what happened next.

The lesbian partners accused the Huguenins of “discrimination,” a violation of the state’s human rights law. They hurried down to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission with their brief. As expected, that august body of solons decided that the Huguenins did indeed run afoul of state law, fining the couple $6,637.94.

The Huguenins, to their credit, appealed with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, which defends Christians from the insanity of the radical left; in this case, two lesbians who believe their right to be photographed trumps the right of the photographers to refuse business that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The Huguenins lost in district court, which led to the appeal they lost last week.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/11624-new-mexico-court-christian-business-owners-have-no-rights

So, does this mean no one has the right to choose with whom they do business or, just Christian businesses?

If they take it to the SC it will be over turned

The SC has a good record on the rights of private businesses

Of course they have to deal with this fucked up court first

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So, does this mean no one has the right to choose with whom they do business or, just Christian businesses?

Your question has the built-in bias of offering only 2 options; thus the correct answer is "neither".

Anyhow, your dispute is with the New Mexico Legislature, not with the court, which simply followed the statute.

But to the direct point of your inquiry, you'll recall from the history of the 1960's that the very same argument was used by, for example, owners of lunch counters in the South who refused service to Negroes: that it was the business-owners' prerogative to serve or not serve anyone they wished, for any reason. With respect to race, that issue was decided, legally at least, by the enactment of the federal Civil Rights laws, and the federal courts' enforcement of them.

NM's law, and many other states' similar laws, are broadly in the same category. All advocacy aside, my prediction is that as long as the federal and state constitutionality of NM's statute is upheld (and I predict it will be), the Huguenins' further appeals will likewise fail.

[Southern_Man 0]

Seems to me the Christian Business owners in New Mexico have exactly the same rights as every other business owner in New Mexico.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Seems to me the Christian Business owners in New Mexico have exactly the same rights as every other business owner in New Mexico.

And they have the responsibility to operate their business in accordance with the secular laws of the state that their business is in.

The USA is NOT a christian nation. It is a secular nation. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

[Shotgun 1]

Do you think a photography business should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple if that is something that violates the owner's morals?

[beowulf 1]

Bigotry in all forms is wrong. If this couple were black and denied service would you side with the business? If not then how is that different?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Do you think a photography business should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple if that is something that violates the owner's morals?

Personally, I think a business owner should have to right to choose whom they want to do business with. There are a lot of arguments on both sides. Andy9o8 pointed to the food service industry an example.

I was a restaurant manager in NM. We would serve a gay Indian pedophile but we would not serve a drunk obnoxious Texan. The reason was the former did not disturb our customers and the latter did.

If the photographer believed the gay couple would disturb his customers, I believe he should have the right to protect his business.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

See my post #8.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Do you think a photography business should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple if that is something that violates the owner's morals?

Personally, I think a business owner should have to right to choose whom they want to do business with. There are a lot of arguments on both sides. Andy9o8 pointed to the food service industry an example.

I was a restaurant manager in NM. We would serve a gay Indian pedophile but we would not serve a drunk obnoxious Texan. The reason was the former did not disturb our customers and the latter did.
....

How did you discover that one???

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[beowulf 1]

The distinguishing difference is that the drunk texan is disturbing the peace which is against the law while the gay couple is not breaking any law. Your stance supports bigotry.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Do you think a photography business should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple if that is something that violates the owner's morals?

Personally, I think a business owner should have to right to choose whom they want to do business with.

OK, so basically this is not a Christian thing. But it was a nice sensationalistic thread title.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

I was a restaurant manager in NM. We would serve a gay Indian pedophile but we would not serve a drunk obnoxious Texan. The reason was the former did not disturb our customers and the latter did.
....

How did you discover that one???

He was well known in the community.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jclalor 12]

Unless you can make it to one of your "freedom enclaves" you're destined to live the rest of your life a very bitter man.

"The times they are A-Changin"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Do you think a photography business should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple if that is something that violates the owner's morals?

Yes, I see no difference between that and a men's only golf club or a women's only health club.

If it is a private business, they should be allowed to serve, or refuse service to whomever they see fit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I was a restaurant manager in NM. We would serve a gay Indian pedophile but we would not serve a drunk obnoxious Texan. The reason was the former did not disturb our customers and the latter did.

If the photographer believed the gay couple would disturb his customers, I believe he should have the right to protect his business.

The problem here is that gays are a protected class, drunks are not, and for obvious reasons. In fact, the law often prohibits you from serving alcohol to people who are openly intoxicated.

I've read about this subject in professional photography forums. The law is fairly clear - this doesn't differ from refusing to serve to blacks. Some express fear that they might lose future business if they do a gay wedding. Others mock the idea of turning down business in a market that is saturated with providers. Lot of discussion about 'pretending to be busy' (iffy), flat out turning them down for being gay (invites this litigation), or telling them that they aren't comfortable with it and may not do their best work (customers will likely find a better provider).

[Southern_Man 0]

[reply
The problem here is that gays are a protected class , drunks are not, and for obvious reasons. In fact, the law often prohibits you from serving alcohol to people who are openly intoxicated.

I've read about this subject in professional photography forums. The law is fairly clear - this doesn't differ from refusing to serve to blacks. Some express fear that they might lose future business if they do a gay wedding. Others mock the idea of turning down business in a market that is saturated with providers. Lot of discussion about 'pretending to be busy' (iffy), flat out turning them down for being gay (invites this litigation), or telling them that they aren't comfortable with it and may not do their best work (customers will likely find a better provider).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In New Mexico they may be a protected class, this is not true everywhere.

will be soon enough. The need remains ever apparent.

no matter - in this day, people in the wedding business that want to keep making money will welcome the chance to work on gay weddings. When San Francisco first (illegally) legalized weddings, it was a boon for the local economy. Jewelry, flowers, photographers, alcohol, catering...it's silly to give up the business. Photographers are at risk of being put out of business by every layman like me with a 5d or a Nikon D700/800.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

In New Mexico they may be a protected class, this is not true everywhere.

will be soon enough. The need remains ever apparent.

no matter - in this day, people in the wedding business that want to keep making money will welcome the chance to work on gay weddings. When San Francisco first (illegally) legalized weddings, it was a boon for the local economy. Jewelry, flowers, photographers, alcohol, catering...it's silly to give up the business. Photographers are at risk of being put out of business by every layman like me with a 5d or a Nikon D700/800.

I have no idea how soon it will be, but it is certainly legal to discriminate on sexual orientation in VA, and I suspect it will be for some time to come.

I do agree that the professional photography business faces serious challenges, the ones I know are hustling for every school event, ball club pictures, etc. that they can (in addition to the wedding business).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

If it is a private business, they should be allowed to serve, or refuse service to whomever they see fit.

...for whatever reason or none at all.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

If it is a private business, they should be allowed to serve, or refuse service to whomever they see fit.

...for whatever reason or none at all.

Just to be clear, You do realize that's inconsistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, don't you?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If it is a private business, they should be allowed to serve, or refuse service to whomever they see fit.

...for whatever reason or none at all.

Just to be clear, You do realize that's inconsistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, don't you?

Just to be clear., yes.
Are you now going to say I'm racist?
If so, let me short circuit that up front.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If it is a private business, they should be allowed to serve, or refuse service to whomever they see fit.

...for whatever reason or none at all.

Just to be clear, You do realize that's inconsistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, don't you?

Just to be clear., yes.
Are you now going to say I'm racist?
If so, let me short circuit that up front.

What I'm going to say is that I, for one, happen to think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 resulted in a more humane society in the US, despite the fact that there are those who disagree.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Just to be clear., yes.
Are you now going to say I'm racist?
If so, let me short circuit that up front.

No, he's saying that the right of the private business to wildly discriminate isn't what it used to be.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Photographers are at risk of being put out of business by every layman like me with a 5d or a Nikon D700/800.

Uh, no. Not even close. Maybe MWACs (mom's with a camera) would be threatened, but no real photographer who has established clients, an amazing portfolio, and spent years upon years refining their craft will ever be threatened by some layman that thinks just because they plop down some decent cash on a camera, they can take good pictures.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.