Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund will appeal a New Mexico Court of Appeals decision that upheld a ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission against an Albuquerque photography company. The commission ruled that the company, run by a young Christian husband and wife, was guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination under state antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”
“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
26 Comments
What does any of this have to do with marriage? NM doesn't have same sex marriage (or even civil unions).
Lane:
It has to do with fascism, which is the immediate concern of a great many of us, in the face of the marriage corruption movement's hysterically unwise legal strategy.
You will better understand come November.
Lane - One of the issues with redefining marriage to include homosexuals is it sets up a conflict between civil laws and religious beliefs. This case exemplifies that homosexuals will force this issue by harassment of people with Christian beliefs, whether under a nondiscrimination statute or the legalization of so-called same-sex "marriage" serving as the springboard.
If NM is contemplating so-called SS"M," this case will educate the population about the likely ramifications.
Prior to NOM, ADF, and ‘Yes on gr8’ the ACLU's agenda was moving through the courts like clock-work. These miscreants have been flailing around like Linda Blair in the 'Exorcist' ever since.
Godspeed, ADF. I wish them success in this case, whether it ends at the NM Supreme Court, or SCOTUS.
Are you saying a commercial photographer is a creative artist.? That hardly makes sense. A COMMERCIAL photographer is providing a public service and is therefore subject to public accommodation laws. It's that simple--or should be.
NOM and it's followers should be supportive of this ruling, after all it has nothing to do about 're-defining' marriage, which is there stated main concern.
Of course, if they are against homosexuals, well then I could understand their concern.
@Carlos
This has nothing to do with homosexuality. A company refused to photograph a ceremony and they are being punished? I thought this was a free country. Discrimination or not, they were well within their rights to refuse.
@Ash
It won't go to the SCOTUS. This isn't a case that really affects the entire country.
To the contrary- if this incredible perversion of the Constitution is upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court, it will certainly go to SCOTUS.
The First Amendment indeed affects the entire country.
Rick you are correct, Zack you are wrong, but I understand your reasoning behind your statement @ 4.
Zack, I read your post often here at NOM, and we think you for your support, but stop looking at the negative side everything all the time. Sometimes you will attract what you thinlk into reaity good or bad... be more optimistic!
Zack,
Eugene Volokh (the legal expert who NOM linked up to on the last post) believes that it can go to SCOTUS, and hopes it does if the NM Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the appeals court.
How can this have nothing to do with homosexuality, the business owners specifically said they would not perform the photo session because they were lesbians.
This may be a free country but busineses providing public services are not allowed to discriminate.
Carlos:
We are also, every man-jack and woman-jill among us, against fascism.
In fact, most of understand that marriage corruption is merely a tactic.
The destruction of religious liberty- and ultimately, all liberty- is the true goal of the Alinskyite radicals destroying our families, our financial system, and our common good.
So you can comfortably expect us to be in your face on all relevant fronts, winning battles over and over again, for the duration.
SSM activists always ask the question about how SSM effects others and this is a perfect example of how it effect others.
Actually Randy, I asked the question at the top of this post.
What does this have to do with SSM?
It has everything to do with it. If you cant realize that. That is your fault and not mine.
Layne Price, given the complaint against the photography business, and given the defense regarding conscience, would it really make a big difference if the "same-sex “commitment ceremony" was SSM as per, say, Massachusetts?
Come on. It is right in front of your nose. Gay identity politics for the SSM campaign is not about legal equality but about the assertion of a political group's supremacy over other highly significant considerations.
Freedom of consience being rather significant in itself.
Here is a scenario for you:
Let us assume a homosexual owns and runs a wedding photography business. They are not comfortable about nudity. A couple wants to have a nude wedding and wants to hire them as their wedding photographers. The homosexual declines.
Can the nudist couple then bring the homosexual wedding photographer before the NM court and human rights commision and sue them? Can they claim that their civil and human rights were violated? Or would this be another example of the old double standard and that only homosexuals get special rights and interpretations of the Constitution.
Randy,
It's not that they do not understand the true ramifications of their actions. They would just prefer that you did not understand.
"Who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes.'
Very true Randy King
Heh heh...I apologize for being negative. I believe the Conservative movement will eventually pull through...guess I'm one of those people who quivers in the darkest part of night just before the dawn.
Again, my apologies.
Lane Pryce: What do same-sex unions have to do with marriage? Nothing, really. But lots of people claim it has something to do with it.
Oh, Carlos: very clever! you say: 'which is there stated main concern'. Did i read 'which is their stated ONLY concern'? Nope. There can be more than one stated concern. And it's not 'there'; it's 'their' in proper English. Their! you are corrected.
Carlos: take it easy. We don't know the law suit was about self-declared lesbians. According to this post, it was for for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.” That sounds to me like a ceremony to honor a friendship, and does not require proof that the petitioner(s) were/are indeed so-called lesbian (from the island of Lesbos). Notice it says same-sex "commitment ceremony", not 'homosexual commitment ceremony". The case has been made one of sexual orientation by the judge with no absolute proof. I would simply ask: 'what date and time?' Oh, sorry but i have too much work around that date, so i would be glad to cancel the other work if you pay an extra $1000. But these young entrepreneurial photographers are much better Christians than i am. They don't lie - and trust God will finally, in the end, bless them in ways no one could have imagined. For one, the case has already made them much more famous that either you or me. It is starting to work. I wish someone would sue me like that.
Some people don't take NO for an answer. We call them rapists.
Yes, but we know you are fake, Fake Drudge