NM Supreme Court rules photographer c...

NM Supreme Court rules photographer cannot deny services to same-sex couple

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

Republican Bigots

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Aug 22, 2013
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision Thursday that a wedding photographer who refused to provide services to a same-sex couple violated the state's Human Rights Act.

"[W]e conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the [New Mexico Human Rights Act] and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," the state's highest court ruled. "Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."

The ruling comes in the case of Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, which was filed after Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, turned away Vanessa Willock and her partner in 2006 on the grounds that photographing the ceremony would violate her religious beliefs.

An investigation by the state Human Rights Commission that found the company was guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation was upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June of 2012.

In its decision today, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state's Human Rights Act, which was amended in 2003 to add "sexual orientation" as a class of people protected from discrimination, does not violate free speech because it does not compel the photographer to either "speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another."

"The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by states," the decision states. "Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs. They 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."

Grantsburg, WI

#3 Aug 23, 2013
MY God given right to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness, ends at the lens of my Camera, when the Collective Mob has Sheeple in Black Robes who will use the Force of Law to compel me to sacrifice MY Rights with MY Camera.....if Political Correctness demands it !

And we let stupid people like you have a vote!

Grantsburg, WI

#6 Aug 23, 2013
John Lee Anonymous wrote:
Let the legal pandering by out-of-control leftist judges begin.
This couple thinks their rights are more 'special' than yours or mine. This country has led them to believe that Religious Cultures that don't accept their lifestyle are invalid, homophobic, and now ILLEGAL!(unless, of course, it's Islam!)
This was my objection to legalizing gay marriage in the first place.
Before I do a search, can you tell me where in any of the Founding Documents I can find the "Right to Pictures"?

Grantsburg, WI

#7 Aug 23, 2013
I remember as a child that my Father taught me that "Your Rights end, at the end of my nose".

Kinda simple eh?

It used to be called "The Golden Rule". But when God was killed off by the Distorted Feminists in order that their Hedonism and Narcissism could be satisfied by their neighbors, the Golden Rule was no longer taught as the "Standard" in the Government Schools, which are dominated by the ambiguous/distorted Teachers who are the inheritors of the disturbed values of the Feminists from the last century.

Grantsburg, WI

#10 Aug 23, 2013
Consistent on Welfare wrote:
Apparently teabaggers believe that our constitutional protections only applies to angry old illiterate white men.
Businesses that choose to be public accommodations have been subject to laws since the beginnings of time. According to your racist logic, however, if someone wants to buy SuperAmerica or Holiday Inn and announce a "whites only" policy, it should be legal.
And yet you don't understand why America is running from your far right wing extremist views....
"choose to be public accommodations have been subject to laws since the beginnings of time"

Topix needs to change!

When a Narcissistic Idddiiot like you posts something as stupid and false as this because you feel that history started on the day you were born, a Grown up should be able to come on here and be allowed to smack people as stupid as you upside the head with the words typed on the page!

"Public Accommodations" is Newspeak of the past few years, and the bends and distortions required to codify it in law were only possible after enough ignorant Sheeple had been elevated to Positions of Authority with the 3 Branches of Government.

"Beginings of time"!(Who reminds you when it is time to take a breath?)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
smegma 1 hr space ace 3
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 4 hr texas pete 524
News Askov Finlayson + The Bachelor Farmer Candles: ... 10 hr USA USA USA USA 3
News Black Lives Matter Protest in Duluth over Minne... 16 hr Kelly F 2
Everybody Gets a Trophy culture Sat space ace 4
Minnesota Wins Top State for ISIS Recruits Sat Little Boy Blue 2
china vs japan Sat space ace 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages