There is no state-recognized same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions in New Mexico, but the Court ruled that a Christian photographer has to take gay wedding photos--and that neither protections of free speech nor free exercise of religion apply.

Clashing Claims  

 

Should public-accommodation 

law 

trump all religious liberty?

By Ryan T. Anderson

Yesterday we received a disturbing ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court. There is no state-recognized same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions in New Mexico, but the Court ruled that a Christian photographer has to take gay wedding photos--and that neither protections of free speech nor free exercise of religion apply. I did a quick reax on the Heritage Foundry: "Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in New Mexico" and a longer piece for National Review Online this morning.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico yesterday ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer's right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony--even though doing so would violate the photographer's deeply held religious beliefs. As Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elane Photography, explained: "The message a same-sex commitment ceremony communicates is not one I believe."

But New Mexico's highest court, deciding an appeal of the case, ruled against Elane Photography, concluding that neither protections of free speech nor of free exercise of religion apply.

Elaine and her husband, Jon, both committed Christians, run their small photography business in Albuquerque, N.M. In 2006, she declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the business had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation by declining to use its artistic and expressive skills to communicate what was said and what occurred at the ceremony.

The commission ruled this way according to New Mexico's human-rights law, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations ("any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . or goods to the public") on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation--among other protected classes.

Elane Photography didn't refuse to take pictures of gays and lesbians, but only of such a same-sex ceremony, because of the owners' belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. New Mexico law agrees--it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages. Additionally, there were other photographers in the Albuquerque area who could have photographed the ceremony.

Groups supporting Elane Photography filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The Cato Institute argued that, under the First Amendment, photographers have freedom-of-speech protections against government-compelled artistic expressions. The Becket Fund argued that New Mexico's Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the "free exercise" of religious liberty. The Alliance Defending Freedom--the lawyers defending Elane Photography--also argued that the First Amendment's free-exercise clause protects their client.

Today's decision highlights the increasing concern many have that anti-discrimination laws and the pressure for same-sex marriage will run roughshod over the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Thomas Messner, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has documented multiple instances in which laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as laws redefining marriage, already have eroded religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Indeed, earlier this year, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held an entire hearing on conflicts between nondiscrimination policies and civil liberties such as religious freedom.

After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than act against its principles by placing children with same-sex couples. Doctors in California were successfully sued for declining to perform an artificial insemination on a woman in a same-sex relationship. Owners of a bed and breakfast in Illinois were sued for violating the state antidiscrimination law after declining to rent their facility for a same-sex civil-union ceremony and reception. AGeorgia counselor was fired after she referred someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor.

.................

Read more: www.nationalreview.com