Photo District News: A New Mexico wedding photographer who refused on freedom of speech and religion grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006 has lost her anti-discrimination appeal.
Photograph Elaine Huguenin was challenging a 2008 ruling by New Mexico's Human Rights Commission(NMHRC). Last month, a state court judge affirmed the commission's finding that Huguenin had violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
The case arose after Vanessa Willock of Albuquerque contacted Huguenin's business, Elane Photography, about photographing her commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin told Willock by e-mail "we do not photograph same-sex weddings," but gave no explanation.
The next day, Willock's partner, Misty Pascottini, asked Elane Photography via e-mail if the studio would photograph her wedding in Ruidoso, New Mexico. Pascottini didn't identify herself as Willock's partner. Huguenin responded that she would be willing to travel to photograph Pascottini's wedding, and sent her pricing information.
Willock filed a discrimination claim in December 2006 with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. She sought attorney's fees, but no other damages. The NMHRC finally heard Willock's claim in January 2008, and handed down its decision against Elane Photography in April, 2008.
Under the state's Human Rights Act, it is discriminatory (and illegal) for "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction in offering or refusing to offer its services" on the bases of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation and several other factors.
This case has provoked a lot of debate in the photographic community. Most it comes down to political views. Should the photographer have a right not to photograph an event that she objects to on religious grounds? Does her 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion supersede the civil law.
Here are some common talking points and my responses:
She wasn't asked to change her views, just to photograph the event:
If a religion doesn't think homosexuality is kosher, then photographing a gay wedding would be involving yourself in a "scandolous activity" and wouldn't be kosher either. Forcing someone by law to violate their religious principles isn't the basis of a just society.
- Would you make a Hindu photograph cows being slaughtered?
- Would you make a Muslim photograph a pork eating contest?
- Would you make atheist photograph a Christian baptism?
- Should laws force a Orhtodox Jewish photographer to work on the Sabbath?
It's the law and she should have followed the law:
Should have Rosa Parks just went at sat in the back of the bus because it was Alabama law?
Non-religious people are going to say that the Christian photographer should be forced to photograph the ceremony because of the existing civil law. Civil law is the only law they know, so I don't see why they would argue anything else.
Religious people also have religious law, which they feel trumps civil law and are sometimes think that religious law first. While these don't often clash, there may be more cases like this come up. (Catholic doctors being forced to perform abortions is another issue)
Should a medical doctor being allowed to decline services to a black person?
Equating being forced to photograph a gay union and not providing emergency medical care to a person of a different skin color is a complete red herring. To begin, it's not a life and death situation. I do think that a doctor has a right to refuse to do an abortion or a sex change.
What specifically do you disagree with the Court's ruling:
The Court said that she wasn't required to participate in the ceremony, just photograph it. As such, that shouldn't violate her religious views (page 12). I think that they have taken a very narrow view of participation. I think photographing a ceremony has a sufficient degree of participation in it.
She can't deny services based on sexual orientation:
The photographer is objecting, on established religious grounds, to the action being performed, not the people involved. Remember, the photographer didn't deny any services to the lesbians, they declined photographing the event. If the straight mother-of-the-bride would have tried to hire her for the ceremony, and she declined, would it be illegal? Some photographer don't do weddings at all or some don't nudes. I imagine if she hired by the lesbians to photograph them and their dog in a studio session, she would have said yes.
The photographer is a bigot:
Some people have been quick to throw out the term bigot. If disagreeing with certain behavior or activity is bigotry, then most of us have a level of bigotry
For all of those who call the photographer a bigot, consider this:
--Do you approve of polygamy?
--Do you approve of an adult brother and sister marrying?
--Do you approve of father selling his 6 year old daughter off to be married?
All of these things happen today or have happened in the past. If you think they are wrong, then you could be classified as a bigot by those that support these activities.
Now if you disagree with a Sudanese man selling his 6 year old daughter to be married, would that make you a racist? No, because you are disagreeing with the action being taken, not the race of man doing it. The photographer wasn't refusing to perform photographic services at all for gays, but declined to photograph a gay union.
No comments:
Post a Comment