Posted: 3/11/2008 4:45:27 PM EDT
|
Tolerance, again, shows its true colors.... Christian Prosecuted Refused to Photograph Homosexual ‘Commitment Ceremony’ BY PHILIP S. MOORE REGISTER CORRESPONDENT March 16-22, 2008 Issue | Posted 3/11/08 at 11:02 AM http://ncregister.com/site/article/13866 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — As a Christian, Elaine Huguenin is against efforts to legitimize same-sex “marriage.” So, when the Albuquerque photographer was asked via e-mail in September 2006 to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for two women, Huguenin declined. That was the end of the matter, she thought. But Huguenin didn’t take into account New Mexico’s anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hiring another photographer, one of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a civil complaint against Huguenin’s company, Elane Photography. Now, in one of the first cases of its kind in the state, a three-member tribunal of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission is considering the complaint brought forward by New Mexico’s Human Rights Bureau, operated by the Labor Relations Division of the state’s Department of Workforce Solutions. The tribunal will decide whether Huguenin should pay actual and punitive damages to Willock because of her decision not to take pictures of the homosexual ceremony. Established in 1969 by the New Mexico Legislature to enforce state law preventing discrimination based on race and gender in employment, housing and public accommodation, the human rights commission is taking its first steps to incorporate a 2006 expansion of the act to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” “It warps the whole concept of discrimination to an absurd extreme,” said Jordan Lorence, senior council for the Alliance Defense Fund, the Phoenix-based organization which has come to Huguenin’s defense. Lorence represented Elane Photography at a Jan. 28-29 hearing and is coordinating post-trial briefs. He doesn’t expect a decision for several months. But whatever the outcome, Lorence said, the fact that Huguenin must defend herself before a state tribunal “makes this a serious threat to religious liberty and the right of conscience.” Lorence said the New Mexico case is only one example of a growing trend to use human rights tribunals and civil courts against individuals who make decisions based on their religious beliefs. Said Lorence, “It is becoming more and more common as a way to tighten the noose on religious bodies and anyone who has a traditional view of marriage and family.” Lorence cited a local Knights of Columbus council in British Columbia, which was fined $2,000 by the province’s Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 for refusing to rent their hall for a same-sex “wedding” reception. In another case, a Methodist facility in Ocean Grove, N.J., faces a tax bill of $20,000 after its state tax-exempt status was revoked for refusing to host a homosexual commitment ceremony. And in late February, the threat of a discrimination lawsuit forced a Catholic hospital in California to agree to perform breast augmentation surgery on a transsexual man. The transsexual man, Charlene Hastings, filed a complaint against the Daughters of Charity Health System in San Francisco Superior Court for harassment and discrimination after the hospital group’s Seton Medical Center refused the surgery. In a written statement in February, health system spokeswoman Elizabeth Nikels said the hospital was simply following “our ethics and standards of behavior in health care. The hospital does not perform surgery procedures contrary to Catholic teaching; for example, abortion, direct euthanasia, transgender surgery of any of its related components.” But on Feb. 27, Bay Area TV station CBS News 5 said the hospital had changed its position, the California Catholic Daily reported March 1. In a statement to CBS News 5, a hospital spokesman said, “We regret any confusion that may have come from this situation. We want this patient and her physician to know that they are welcome at Seton Medical Center.” Hastings’ lawyer Chris Dolan said that his client would continue to seek monetary damages despite the hospital’s reversal of policy. Said Dolan, “Like any good religious experience, first you need enlightenment and then you need atonement.” In the New Mexico case, Labor Relations Division Director Francie Cordova said she’s simply enforcing the law. Cordova, who personally approved the prosecution of Elane Photography as director of the Human Rights Bureau, said Huguenin’s religious beliefs are irrelevant to the question of whether to initiate a prosecution. “For the division, we look at whether anyone who holds themselves open for business refused service based on race, gender or any other protected status,” Cordova said. “If prima facie evidence is found, it is our obligation to prosecute.” The complaint against Huguenin is about artistic freedom as well as religious freedom, according to her attorney Lorence. “You’re saying the government can compel anyone to use their talents to further goals you don’t agree with,” he said. “Otherwise, there will be retaliation.” Said Lorence, “If you give government the right to punish people for having a different opinion than the prevailing secular orthodoxy, you’re saying whoever controls government can suppress dissent. I think we embrace that idea at our peril.” Philip Moore is based in Vail, Arizona |
Lets say a Christian Identity member owned a Denny's and didn't want to serve blacks for religious reasons, is that ok? I know Denny's got in trouble for that a decade ago, would it make a difference if it were done for religious reasons? Personally, I think you should be able to refuse service but I can think of quite a few examples where it isn't allowed under current law.
apparently in that state, homosexuality is a protected status. I disagree with any law that forces someone to provide service, but it is the law. |
|
That's ridiculous. I believe in the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone for any reason*. I also believe in the right of a group of people to boycott a business for any reason. Establishment X doesn't want Group Y's money? That's fine, ensure that they never get any money from Group Y, any of Group Y's friends, and anybody else who happens to disagree with Establishment X's decision. The free market will determine whether or not Establishment X made a sound business decision. *government should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason, of course. |
There is a difference between Denny's serving food to the general public and contract work. I could argue that now all photographers could be forced to photograph ritualistic gang bangs in a satanic church which would be no different than forcing this photographer into a contract to provide services against her will. When a contract is involved the equation changes. |
GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA |
There are much greater genetic differences between races then there are for homo and hetero sexual people of the same race. To discriminate based on sexual preference and NOT on biological race is nothing but IRONY, and there is no way around that. You being upset because you were compared to a racist, but then discriminating based on sexual preference makes me laugh. |
Your inability to grasp the difference between being a racist and discriminating makes me laugh.  -3D |
Go ahead and clear it up for me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination I will discriminate based on sexual preference, but if you accuse me of discriminating based on race there will be hell to pay......seriously, its very ironic |
Your use of wiki makes me laugh as well... Tell me, what is the "genetic differences between homo and hetero sexual people" that you speak of? -3D -3D |
We dont know it, but we do know several between races. Again, thats why it is ironic of you. Genetically you are much closer to a homosexual of the same race then you are a different race. |
Did you read where Dino twice said he didn't agree with the law? 
|
I'd be fine with it. If someone didn't want me in his restaurant because I part my hair on the wrong side, that's his business. Nobody deserves to conduct business with another private party. |
|
I would say then that as a Christian, she has an affirmative defense based upon her absolute right to the freedom of religion. As such, she cannot be compelled to render services which violate her religious freedom, and the government is powerless to make her do so. Plenty of case law backing up that position. |
No. I disapprove of the act of adultery, the act of murder, and the act of homosexual sex equally, regardless of who or what race engages in them. The real irony is that you believe in something that is neither measured nor proven when you simultaneously DON'T believe in God because He is neither measured nor proven. Cute how you not only call Christians racists, but say Christians are even MORE racist than Aryan Neo-Nazis. The Anti-Religion Forum living up to its reputation again.  -3D |
I did no such thing. the question was asked if you had the right to refuse service. I answered it with an example taken from memory. I then asked if it would be ok for religious reasons and even gave a group that has racism built into its religion (Christian Identity) Unless you are a member of Christian Identity, I don't see how you could take offense. The simple fact is due to our laws (which I said I was against) we no longer have the right to refuse service for certain protected minorities. My preference is for the free market to decide which businesses survive. If you run an anti-gay photo place, and you can take the negative publicity and still turn a profit then more power to you. If the backlash means you don't make enough to pay the bills, too bad for you. |
So can a member of Christian Identity refuse service to black people? Do religious rules trump the law? Here is a for instance: My religion supports the right of homosexuals to marry. In Texas, it is illegal for homosexuals to marry. Can my congregation use religion to force the state to allow homosexuals to marry? I don't believe so. If you don't like a law you feel affects your religion, then work to get the law changed, don't claim your religious beliefs trump the law. |
agreed unfortunately that isn't the current state of things in America. |
I believe that it would certainly be your right. It would also be the right of me, my friends, and any freedom-loving individual of any religion or lack thereof to not eat at your restaurant in the hopes that it would drive you to change your policy or put you out of business. That's the way the free market works. If you have enough customers who are cool with that policy, then that's fine too. But the law disagrees, apparently. Of course, it's hardly the first time the law has run contrary to freedom. |
Only as a Private club and that can also backfire, you are a public accomodation, the Law says you can not dscriminate in a public accomodation....no equal facilities, you want to do public business you have to comply, that is what the whole civil rights era was about. |
It seems to me that you are under the impression the homosexuals are homosexuals by CHOICE, as shown in you comparing them to murderers, etc. Sorry, but that is just not true. The fact that I cant name the specific gene that controls sexual preference is in NO WAY the same thing as not believeing in a god. Funny that you try and bring it there. Sorry, but me saying that Christians are even more racist then Aryan neo-nazis never happend. In fact, I dont agree with that at all. Honestly, I have no idea where you got that.
My comments to you had NOTHING to do with religion!!! My comments had everything to do with you being upset about being compared to a racist, but then discriminating based on sexual preference. I simply pointed out how that was ironic. End of story. Edit: To keep face with the topic. I believe that anyone should be able to refuse buisness. It saddens me greatly that someone would refuse buisness because of their religious convictions, but at the same time it is their buisness. With as much good as churches do, they certainly do breed a lot of hate.... |
Too late.  (Not blaming you or anyone else in particular, that quote was just handy and it fit...) IMHO this thread has been predominantly a discussion of the law, agreement or not therewith, and a smattering of nature vs. nurture thrown in -- but a religious discussion it ain't. No harm, no foul, but I'm shutting this one down. |