Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding

by Mike Ensley on April 15, 2008 · Comments

Las Cruces Sun-News:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, contending that Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin told her she photographed only traditional marriages. Huguenin and her husband, Jon, own Elane Photography.

The commission’s one-page ruling Wednesday said Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation, and should pay $6,637 for Willock’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Willock, through her attorney, said in an e-mail that she was pleased by the finding.

As a Christian, my priority is to promote the Gospel and God’s offer of salvation to the world (and there are some other personal, private priorities, too). Unlike many “conservative Christians” I don’t see how actively and adamantly keeping those who live homosexually from certain benefits in life serves that purpose. I’m definitely not saying we ought to bless gay unions as God-intended marriages, but we ought to recognize the futility of trying to force people to obey a God they don’t know yet.

On the other hand, as an American and (I think) a logical person, I believe we ought to be free to live by and speak out of our convictions so long as those convictions do no harm. If someone doesn’t want your business, then that’s their business.

According to gay blogger Box Turtle Bulletin, the emails from the photographer which preceded the lawsuit went as follows:

Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.

And when asked to clarify:

Hello Vanessa,
Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
Have a great day.

Later that year Willock’s partner allegedly contacted Elane Photography again, this time posing as a different customer and without specifying the genders of the couple. When the photographers sought to follow up, Willock lawyered up.

While I don’t really know if I would make the same decision as the photographers in this situation, I don’t believe the lesbian couple had a legitimate legal case and I certainly don’t agree with the decision.

These ladies weren’t exposed to abuse or humiliation. Nothing was taken from them and no injury was done. And with foreknowledge that some will vehemently disagree, I believe they were not denied access to a service because of who they are; I don’t think about homosexuality that way.

From all public accounts, Elane Photography politely declined an invitation to profit from something that was in conflict with their spiritual beliefs (mind you, without saying it was due to religion or other). And Willock and her partner went after them.

Both sides of this ongoing debate have crossed the line in harmful ways. It harms the Gospel when Christians seek to take jobs, housing, etc. from gay-identified people. It harms freedom when gay activists seek to punish others for their beliefs.

Share on ...
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • TwitThis
  • Pownce
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • SphereIt
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

    Related posts (automatically generated)

Tagged as: , , , , ,

Viewing 61 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    That's outrageous! That ruling basically says that a state bill has the authority to overrule a constitutional right.

    I'd say this kind of thing needs greater legal discourse and interpretation.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't know Mike. A commitment ceremony is making a vow before God. I can understand the photographer exercising her freedom of conscience to not be a part of creating the very pictures that will remind this couple of their covenant.

    Maybe this could have been handled differently but it doesn't really help to play "what if" with an "already done it." I do agree with you though that if I ran a true public service or even a secular job type of situation I don't think I would make a distinction on who to serve or hire.

    What these ladies did to this photographer seems to be pretty vengeful considering there are probably a lot of quality photographers around.

    It's a sad situation.
    • ^
    • v
    it probably will. Similar cases are cropping up here and there. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is all over it.
    • ^
    • v
    I think we've hit a dangerous precedent here, because this ruling effectually says an artist can't limit their subject matter. If a painter only painted cats and refused a commission to paint my dog, I would have no grounds to sue. This photographer states, "we do not photograph same-sex weddings," and explains that she's limited herself to a certain list of subject matter. Where's the basis for a lawsuit?

    And what if we turn this around? If a photographer only took photos at homosexual commitment ceremonies, I should have no grounds to sue when he or she declines my traditional marriage. My project simply doesn't fit within his pre-defined subject matter.

    I'm hearing, "homosexuals should not be denied a photographer" here and that scares me. Laws like that encroach on the basic rights of all to impose special rights for a few.
    • ^
    • v
    I definitely don't mean to criticize the photographer here. For what she did, she seems to have done it the right way. As for the "decision" I referred to, I meant whether or not to to gay weddings at all in the first place. I could understand a Christian going either way.
    • ^
    • v
    Exactly. I felt the photographer was being punished for their beliefs--the couple was not being compensated because they suffered no loss or injury.
    • ^
    • v
    I know you weren't attacking her. I meant that "I" shouldn't play the what if game.
    • ^
    • v
    "And Willock and her partner went after them."

    That is what it's all about.

    A while back there was a video store that refused to duplicate some pro-gay material and they were sued. They won, fortunately. eHarmony.com is being sued now because they won't match same-sex couples. An online adoption website was sued because they wouldn't post same-sex couples who wanted to adopt.

    I have a hard time believing that these kinds of things aren't deliberate. I think businesses are sought out because their views are known, and activists want to force them to comply with their wishes or put them out of business.

    If a lawsuit wasn't the intended result, why the subterfuge with the second request?

    Does anyone have to ask what the outcome would be if someone went into a gay affirming business and asked to have some Phelps material duplicated or copied and they were turned down and sued? I wouldn't be surprised if a business turned around and sued the prospective client.

    You make good points, Randy, but the problem is that some people don't want peaceful coexistence. There are gay activists who want to eliminate any criticism of that community. Look around the world and you'll see it over and over and over again.

    I have to ask why? As I've said here before, most people don't care what others do in their bedrooms. Why are so many people embracing homosexual behavior and trying to make it something worthy of celebration and praise? It's like these people have been blinded. Sometimes I think that some people feel compelled to make others feel good about them so they can feel good about themselves. The pro-gay theology crowd does this. They don't like what the Bible says, so they imagine is says something else. Problem solved.
    • ^
    • v
    Good points, Steve. I think there are a lot of mature and reasonable gays and lesbians who don't mind coexisting with people of differing beliefs--but similar values on tolerance and love.

    There are others, of course. For instance, the response to this story about the outrage over Clinton and Obama visiting a Christian college that bans homosexual behavior. As commentor "AJ" said of another commentor:

    "...But then you have the hate mongers like Chris who think that both cultures should co-exist. What a bunch of crap."

    Also, several months back I blogged about a hit piece Pink News did on Gloria Gaynor, calling her a homophobe simply for desiring to "bring the love of Christ" to gays. She refused to even say homosexuality was sinful--but they assumed she believed it, so they labeled her.
    • ^
    • v
    I read about this a few days ago and I agree that the photographers had a right to not shoot the wedding...but I wonder if it was just because it was a gay "wedding" or do they routinely turn down shooting weddings that conflict with their beliefs? Do they shoot non-Christian weddings? Buddhist weddings? Jehovah's Witness weddings? Do they shoot receptions where there is a lot of excess drinking?

    I see reasons both to not shoot the wedding....or, on the other hand, to be present as a courteous and professional photographer who also happens to manifest the presence of Christ.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, anyone who does business in a particular state must follow the rules set forth by the state to have a business license.

    If the ADF goes to a higher court and gets the ruling overturned, it sets out a dangerous precident. If the courts throw out the law they wont throw out just the sexual orientation part, they'll throw the whole thing out. Meaning, if another photographer in the future decides that his or her (fill in the blank) faith does not allow them to do business with somebody of another (fill in the blank) faith, it'll be legal for them to do it.

    The other half of me says "fine, find another photographer" and publicize why you had to. Leave the court system out of it entirely and let the court of public opinion handle this business owner.
    • ^
    • v
    ...if another photographer in the future decides that his or her (fill in the blank) faith does not allow them to do business with somebody of another (fill in the blank) faith, it’ll be legal for them to do it.

    What would be wrong with that?
    • ^
    • v
    I don't see why someone who felt uncomfortable shooting gay weddings would need to also turn down all non-Christian weddings. The issue is not doing business with non-believers or people with different values--the issue is the event itself.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, if you look at the way a lot of spokespeople for the Church have acted in the past, it's not a stretch to think that's what Gloria meant.

    I've met Gloria, she's a nice lady and I know she's not a homophobe in the slightest.

    However, when somebody says anything remotely Christian to a gay person, the gut instinct is to assume it's going to be negative.

    I don't blame people for being gun shy after the treatment they've received over the years.

    Heck, there's some woman named Dwayna Litz who's coming to my town in May to evangelize to all the sinners at Gay Pride.

    Her marketing ploy is to put up a big banner that says: "GOD LOVES YOU just the way you are" to draw people over to her.
    (http://lightingtheway.blogspot.com/2008/03/ltw-...)

    Then, after she's tricked people into getting close to her, she's going to let loose with all the anti-gay stuff.

    So when Gloria Gaynor says something about leading gays to Christ whether or not she means something anti-gay or something pro-gay, it's not out of the question for gay people to be distrusting from the onset.
    • ^
    • v
    Do you honestly think the ADF wouldn't be all over a lawsuit if some athiest refused to serve a Baptist?
    • ^
    • v
    Who knows if they would? But people shouldn't be forced to do business in a way that conflicts with their faith. I would go with your other half and say, look, this person doesn't want to do business with Christians (or specifically Baptists). That's their choice and their loss.

    Chik-fil-a is owned by Christians who felt compelled by their convictions to close restaurant doors on Sundays. I'd say the vast majority of Americans don't personally observe the Sabbath in this way, but you don't see them banging on the doors of Chik-fil-a and filing suit because they can't get a Sunday afternoon sandwich. They just go somewhere else, and the owners deal with whatever financial ramifications come from closing on that day.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, legally closing your business to observe whatever day you wish is a little different than refusing to serve a particular customer.

    If Chick-Fil-A decided not to serve a man wearing a Yalmulke they'd be in a world of hurt for singling out somebody because of his faith. However, closing on Sunday treats anyone with a Sunday chicken jones equally.

    Here in CA, there is a chain of coffee places called Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf. Their owners are Kosher and are so strict about it that employees can't even bring in a lunch that doesn't meet Jewish dietary laws. Because the rule they set up treats all employees equally, it isn't an issue.
    • ^
    • v
    Mike- I'm confused as to how the issues is the event itself rather than not doing business with non-believers. If they aren't doing gay weddings, it's the gay part that they don't want to associate with, so it's pretty clear it's about who they are doing business with (gay people), not what the event is.

    Did you hear about the story last year wear a small landscape company in Houston refused to do business with a couple once they learned the couple was gay (they had originally said ok when they thought it was an opposite sex couple)? The gay couple did not sue, but turned to the internet to publicize the story.

    Anyway, the issue with that landscaping company was that they did not do business with gay people (which they said outright, unlike the photographers here). I think Nick's point is that if you are going to refuse to do business with people with different beliefs, you should at least be consistent. Legality aside, the stance (especially of the gardeners and I'd argue of the photographers too) simply isn't consistent. They are choosing which non-believers to do business with and which not to. But, the problem doesn't seem to be with non-believers, it seems to be specifically with gays. It may not be illegal, but surely it's a questionable way to uphold one's faith.
    • ^
    • v
    Some interesting thoughts..
    Suppose a doctor chose not to save you because of your religion. Your paying for a service with a doctor. Do they have the right to refuse you because your Christian/Gay/Black/Green? Why is sexual preference discrimination any different than saying I am not going to serve you food because your black or your an interracial couple? Would you have the same lack of outrage at a mixed race couple being refused wedding pictures? I imagine that many people would act differently to this story if the photographer had a sign up that said we do not take photos of black people marrying white people. Discrimination for any reason is a slippery slope as is political correctness.
    • ^
    • v