New Mexico Commission Orders $6,000 Fine
for Christian Beliefs

Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow
4/11/2008 6:00:00 AM

A Christian law firm will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.

Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs.

Jordan Lorence with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) represented the Huguenins. He contends the lawsuit reflects an attitude among homosexual activists.

"This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman," says the attorney. "This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches."

Lorence believes the Huguenins will win an appeal of the decision. But he warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs.

"There is a great threat to our religious liberties and our ability to speak out in favor of traditional marriage when these non-discrimination laws are interpreted in such a harsh way to censor Christians and others," he asserts.

Lorence said Americans do not surrender their freedoms of speech or religion just because they choose to open a business. He added that the Commission's decision is tantamount to the State of New Mexico forcing a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for a butcher shop.

I'm not Christian, I hate Brussel Sprouts, I also have a strong aversion to Homosexuals. Neither of these personal choices make me a "Bad Person".

Next, these activists will be wanting homosexuality made compulsory.

"The Law is an ass"

I somehow doubt that the ruling will stand up to an appeal as I am not sure any business can be forced to take a job.

That being said it could easily become a discrimination case if the defense turns away from "I don't support the cause and didn't want the job" to a religious argument as it is pretty easy to make a case for discrimination based on religion after all you just have to look at the churches reaction to gay clergy.

Essentially I think the photographers have everything going for them until they try and bring religion into it, they should just stick to a "we didn't want the job" stance.

The fine should be revoked. If they don't want to, they don't have to. But they could have at least referred someone who would...

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

The fine should be revoked. If they don't want to, they don't have to. But they could have at least referred someone who would...

I agree but it is one thing to say "I don't want the job, thanks see ya" and quite another to say "I wont do the job because I don't like homosexuals and you will all burn in hell".

As it is I think in court it is wiser to go with option 1 than option 2 even if thats what you meant in option 1.

Personally I hope the photographers are smart enough to avoid the fine as it is their right to refuse service and if the play their cards right they can do a the world a service by helping discredit frivolous law suits.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Next, these activists will be wanting homosexuality made compulsory.

I can actually see this happening. Some kind of workshop where you must engage in homosexual relationships to "better understand what it's like" to be homosexual.

"SEE?? Getting plugged in the ass ain't so bad!!"

That kind of thing.

Its discriminatory and here's why:

All the Bible does is state that ACT of Homosexuality is a sin. It DOES NOT actually forbid Christians from serving gays, it just forbids same sex couples from committing acts of homosexuality. Incidentally, in the same paragraph it also forbids divorce, working on the Sabbath, eating meat on Fridays and a slew of other things. Do the plaintiffs refuse photograph people who have divorced? My guess is no. The fact that they are picking on the 1 group while ignoring the rest of what the bible says proves that they are in fact choosing to selectively discriminate against gays.

And while we are on the subject of sin. Christianity also says "hate the sin love the sinner", (learn to forgive people) "Vengence is mine" (only God can Judge) and "For he whi is not in sin cast the first stone". (We are all in boat so don't Judge others). But of course self-anointed "Christians" such as these always seem to forget these annoying details of the bible. Christianity is about love, and all I see from these people is hate. Its very convient to edit out the parts of the bible we don't like, its just not honest.

Its exactly like the Islamic cases of the Islamic grocer who sued his employer because he refused to handle alcohol. The Koran on blocks the CONSUMTION of alcohol, but it doesnt say anything about handling it.

Therefore the defendants cannot claim that the forcing to photograph a gay couple violates their 1st Amendment rights, they are however violating the 14th Amendment rights of the plantiff of Eual Protection under the law.

The only exception to this if they were freelance photographers, as MontyB stated you cannot force a person to do a job. But if it was a place of business that refused to serve because the clients were gay, then they are violating those people constitution rights, which by the way SUPERCEEDS a persons religious rights. Its no different than than a business that refuse to serve a black man. (And yes southern whites inthe 1950's did try to justify segregation/Discrimination by race by the bible as well). The constitution is clear that a persons constutional rights do not extend to infriging the constitutional rights of another. Ergo, you cannot claim the right to violate a persons 14th Amendment rights because of of your own 1st Amendment rights.

Never thought of it that way. Well said, mmarsh.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I can actually see this happening. Some kind of workshop where you must engage in homosexual relationships to "better understand what it's like" to be homosexual.

"SEE?? Getting plugged in the ass ain't so bad!!"

That kind of thing.

WTH??

Wow then school really would be a pain in the arse, but seriously folks I couldn't begin to imagine the level of resistance to that being made a school policy.

I don't like Brussel Sprouts. I will not eat them.

Is that discriminatory?