Tucson becomes second Arizona city to allow same-sex civil unions
Olympic diving champion Greg Louganis announces engagement
Former gender studies professor on FBI ‘Most Wanted’ list captured in Mexico
Brazil lawmakers OK bill to allow treatment of homosexuality as a disorder
Del. state House approves transgender protections bill
Eldest of ‘19 Kids and Counting’ joins anti-gay hate group FRC
Man pleads not guilty in New York City hate crime shooting
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Court of Appeals this week ruled that a professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony violated state anti-discrimination laws.
The appeals court decision was the third loss for the photography studio, and victory for Vanessa Willock.
The ruling against Elane Photography, whose owner claimed it was a “Christian” photographer, upholds a lower court ruling that said the photo studio is considered a public accommodation, similar to a restaurant or store, reported the Albuquerque Journal.
The case dates back to 2006, when Willock contact the studio’s owner, Elaine Huguenin, about taking pictures of a same-gender ceremony but was told it handled only traditional weddings.
When Willock’s partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, she was given a price list and sent a follow-up email.
Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which ruled that Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act and ordered it to pay nearly $7,000 in legal fees. A district court later upheld the commission’s ruling.
Elane Photography argued that categorically refusing to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies did not constitute discrimination, but rather reflected its owners sincerely held religious and moral beliefs that prohibit the practice.
“Could an African-American photographer, under that rationale, be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally?” Elane asked hypothetically.
“The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class,” the court noted. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins reacted to the ruling, and said, “In New Mexico, the private bedroom behaviors of homosexuals trump religious freedom.”
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based legal alliance of Christian attorneys and others that represented the studio, said it plans to appeal.
Filed under: New Mexico
Looking back 50 years: Huge strides for the gay rights movement
Rubio: ‘I’m done’ with immigration bill if gay couples are included
Marco Rubio: No ‘special’ rights for gay Americans — but I’m not ‘a bigot’
‘America’s Got Talent’ contestant disowned by family because he is gay
Christian college expels lesbian, wants her to repay grant money
Mugabe vows to strengthen penalties against gays: ‘They should rot in jail’
Lesbian may be forced to testify against spouse in Ky. murder case
Southern Baptists officially oppose Boy Scouts’ policy to accept gay youth
Russia to ban adoption by same-sex couples
E.W. Jackson: Using my past anti-gay statements against me is ‘persecution’
At LGBT Pride reception, Obama urges ban on workplace bias against gays
‘M’ or ‘F’? Outdated IDs worry transgender people
Idaho GOP leaders urge lawmakers to erase local LGBT protections
Interesting – what about medical personnel who won’t give the Morning After pill, or clerks who won’t issue marriage licenses to same sex couples claiming religious/personal opposition
Hey, hey. I live here.
Equality for all!
I’m not sure I agree with suing the photographer. If they were the only option, maybe. But really, why go through all that? I’m glad to have someone say upfront “I don’t want to photograph your ceremony,” you can move on and give your business to someone who does. I think in the long run this only stirs up animosity against glbt people.
I agree with you Karen to some extent, but if you think about it the photographer would have known in the first place that it was a gay wedding. So through the eyes of that lesbian couple, I can see why they would make that decision.
another bigoted cunt loses face again!
Karen, it is a matter of principle. if you wanted to go to a club and they said, sorry, your a woman, you cannot come in. you would? move on to a different place, or stand your ground?