NM Commission Orders $6,000 Fine for Christian Beliefs

pixiedustboo

pixiedustboo

Redfidelboo
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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
The Other Guy said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
senojekips said:
Next, these activists will be wanting homosexuality made compulsory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
the_13th_redneck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 happen to love Brussel sprouts, but I don't make others eat them, and if I didn't like them I wouldn't go out of my way to talk about how disgusting they are.

If someone came to me and asked me to eat brussel sprouts (let's assume I don't like them) I'd say I don't care for them but I'll tell you someone who does...
 
Mummm!! TOG and Pixie are pickin' on me,...... That's discriminatory. :-D

Jus' you wait 'til my big brother gets home!!!

What sort of cruel and inhuman animal would make a kid eat Brussel Sprouts.
 
senojekips said:
Mummm!! TOG and Pixie are pickin' on me,...... That's discriminatory. :-D

Jus' you wait 'til my big brother gets home!!!

What sort of cruel and inhuman animal would make a kid eat Brussel Sprouts.
Click to expand...

I like fresh Brussel Sprouts, but after a couple of weeks in the refrigerator, they stink like crap when cooked. I like broccoli and cauliflower too. Maybe I am weird. Oh I almost forgot fried okra - yummy yummy!

So far as the original post topic goes, I think that there is no justification for attack dog tactics being used by any group to force a behavior upon a person whose beliefs are offended by a demand to PERFORM an act. A valid response is to instead picket them or boycott them or both, but not to sue them. The courts are not the place to legislate changes of behavior, but rather the local government. If a law is passed locally to forbid an action, THEN the courts have a mandate to enforce a law. But judicial interpretation of laws to stretch beyond the intent of the legislature is very BAD. Forcing someone to PERFORM an act is very different from forcing someone NOT to perform an act. Doesn't that make sense?

:hide:

Lonnie Courtney Clay
 
claylc said:
I like fresh Brussel Sprouts, but after a couple of weeks in the refrigerator, they stink like crap when cooked. I like broccoli and cauliflower too. Maybe I am weird. Oh I almost forgot fried okra - yummy yummy!

So far as the original post topic goes, I think that there is no justification for attack dog tactics being used by any group to force a behavior upon a person whose beliefs are offended by a demand to PERFORM an act. A valid response is to instead picket them or boycott them or both, but not to sue them. The courts are not the place to legislate changes of behavior, but rather the local government. If a law is passed locally to forbid an action, THEN the courts have a mandate to enforce a law. But judicial interpretation of laws to stretch beyond the intent of the legislature is very BAD. Forcing someone to PERFORM an act is very different from forcing someone NOT to perform an act. Doesn't that make sense?

Lonnie Courtney Clay
Click to expand...


As I said, no where does the bible forbid taking photos of gay people. It only forbids homosexual sex.

Secondly you do not have the right to discriminate regardless what you personal beliefs are. Thats the one caveat about the Constitution. Your rights no not allow guerenteed if they infringe the against the rights of another.

The 14th Amendment guerentees for equal protection under the law for everyone. Discrimination by its very nature infers an inequality among people., therefore discrimination is illegal.
 
mmarsh said:
Thats the one caveat about the Constitution. Your rights no not allow guerenteed if they infringe the against the rights of another.
Click to expand...

So, the homo's don't have the right to expect service from this photographer, because it infringes his right to refusal of service? that seems like the merry go round clause to me.
 
senojekips said:
So, the homo's don't have the right to expect service from this photographer, because it infringes his right to refusal of service? that seems like the merry go round clause to me.
Click to expand...

The "discrimination" content of the Constitution is a recent add-on which has not passed the test of time. It leads to a legalistic merry go round as senojekips said:
1) Any action which is not forbidden by law is compulsory.
2) Any action which is not compulsory by law is forbidden.
3) Lawyers in our society will be very happy since these preceding two clauses will make them wealthy. There will be so many inconsistent laws and regulations passed that nobody will be able to understand the law and everyone will be vulnerable to legal prosecution except government employees.

Which is where we are today. I call for a Constitutional Convention to rationalize the situation! I expressly desire that no member of the CC shall be trained in law! That way a consensus of common sense MIGHT prevail.

:hide:

Lonnie Courtney Clay
 
senojekips said:
So, the homo's don't have the right to expect service from this photographer, because it infringes his right to refusal of service? that seems like the merry go round clause to me.
Click to expand...

The turning point in this instance is not the photographers right to refuse service it is in the reason for refusing it.
- If they were declined because the photographer didn't want to do the job then its perfectly fine.
- If they were declined because they were gay then the photographer has lost his case.

The process is a lot simpler than people are making out here, in the end if the photographers were smart they would just say that they didn't want the job because they had other plans for those days but I can almost guarantee that should they roll out religion and fight this on some "pseudo-moral" stance they will lose.
 
this story is rediculous. I remember seeing it on Fox last week. This is one of those things where the photographer should have just said she was "busy" that day. But now the liberal A-holes have accomplished in screwing her. What a pain in the butt. Such as waist of court time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top