In 2006, Vanessa Wilcock sued Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her commitment ceremony with her partner. Consisting of husband and wife team Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, the company politely declined, stating that it did not photograph same-sex ceremonies.
Wilcock did what any rational person would do and found another photographer willing to work within her parameters. Oh wait, no she didn’t -- she filed a lawsuit against the Christian couple for violating the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA). For equality!
The court sided with Wilcock, then Elane Photography appealed, and last week, the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico upheld the lower court’s decision. Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were found guilty of unlawfully discriminating against lesbians.
What happened to the right to refuse service?
This is not a civil rights issue; it’s a freedom of religion issue. Like it or not, homosexuality is a lifestyle, whether one is born with the innate desire to live it or chooses it him or herself. Wilcock and her partner were specifically demanding that the couple behind Elane Photography act in a way that is contrary to their belief system.
The Huguenins were not on a crusade to end homosexuality, or petitioning other businesses not to take on gay couples. They only declined to photograph a particular couple because they felt uncomfortable doing so. What business is it of the government’s to decide what articles of faith someone might practice?
Freedom of choice in the country is a fantastic thing. Gay people are no longer forced to live in the shadows of society, hiding their ‘shameful’ secret from friends and family. That doesn’t mean that they have higher status than other people, or that their rights trump anyone else’s.
A person’s rights end where someone else’s begins … except for gay people in New Mexico. Their rights apparently supersede freedom of religion and expression, not to mention the free market.
Image via Annafur/Flickr
Ashley Is a Widow Who Stays Strong...
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
Comments 153
Re: "lifestyle choice" and sexuality. You CHOOSE to have sex. It is not like skin color. You CHOOSE to live according to your desires (whether they're inborn or a chosen preference - I've heard of both within the gay community), be they straight or gay...or both, in the case of bisexuality. Some people CHOOSE to be celibate - priests, monks, nuns, etc. Sexuality is not a basic human necessity.
People who are black might choose to live a "ghetto" lifestyle, or they may choose to live a Huxtable lifestyle. People who are white might choose to live a "redneck" lifestyle or they may choose to live a Romney lifestyle. Same thing. You CHOOSE to live the way you wish, and that includes indulging sexual urges. Or not.
Fraoch, skin color and sexual attraction are not the same. That's like saying that an elbow and grief are just the same. Disagreement is not hate. Stop accusing those who disagree with you of hatred.
Jason, because they're Christians.
Frankly, Jen, I just see this as a way for you to float your own true beliefs about the whole subject of gay marriage – that you are too 'fair-minded' to admit – period. Go on! Just say it: You Don't Agree With Gay Marriage! You know... "freedom of religion and expression, not to mention the free market," and all that. C'mon, you can do it. It's OK!
Some people choose to be celibate b/c of their profession. It's a job choice, not a lifestyle choice. I don't live a heterosexual lifestyle by choice. It's who I am, who I've always been. If I decided to become a nun, I'd still be heterosexual, just celibate b/c my job requires me to be. Just like there are those who are supposed to be celibate but are not with both the same sex and opposite sex. The job requires them not to have sex, not their bodies.
This would have been easily averted (the original issue of the photographers denying the couple) if the photographers stated...we're booked that day. They made it about sexuality, not the lesbian couple. I see there being no difference between them telling a mixed raced couple they will not be able to take their photos as they do not support mixed raced marriages.
Fraoch, skin color and sexual attraction are not the same.
~~
Of course they are as it's impossible to control either of them. You are who you are. You can't chose your skin color any more than you can chose your sexual preference. You are attracted to who you are attracted to.
There is no evidence supporting homosexuality as something inherent. There is no "gay gene" or anything like that. In fact, the only thing that valadiates homosexuality are psyche studies (for as much as that's worth).
On the other hand. Men have a penis. Women have a vagina. They work REALLY well together. We have an entire reproductive system that function on the assmption that your using the proper components. Millions of years of evolution have been built around the male/female coupling.
And then there is the anus, which is where the poop comes out.
The way I see it is if your words cause harm to others, there is no reason to say them when you are a business owner.
I can only stress that I view this equal to someone telling a person of color (or another religion) that they will not photograph your event based upon their color (or religion). There is no need to say anything like that to anyone. Saying, I'm sorry, we're booked that day, would ensure that no one was hurt, your business didn't suffer and people who never met you didn't judge you ;-)
Now, if the photographers were a well-known Christian couple who only do Christian events and have posted somewhere they are Christian and follow Christian beliefs within their work and these two came in, I'd say they ladies got what they asked for b/c it was all upfront to start with. Is that what happened, or was it a run of the mill wedding photography company?