Source: Albuquerque Journal, N.儲存M.Nov. 12--The last word from a New Mexico court may not be the last word in a controversy that has been brewing here since 2006.That's when a lesbian couple asked an Albuquerque commercial photo studio to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. When the business refused, based on the Christian religious convictions of studio owners Elaine and John Huguenin, Vanessa Willock sued.The New Mexico Supreme Court in August ruled against Elane Photography, saying that the state Human Rights Act requires businesses to comply with antidiscrimination rules.A commercial business offering its services to the public "must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," Justice Edward Chavez wrote. Elane's refusal to photograph the couple's ceremony was a violation "in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."Attorneys for the studio now are looking for a higher authority to weigh in -- the U.S. Supreme Court.Elane Photography's attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a formal request Friday, or petition for certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case based on free speech issues. ADF is a "legal ministry," its website says, which litigates for "religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family."Elaine Huguenin, described in the petition as an artist with a degree in photography, is the speaker -- not the customer, the petition says. Huguenin contends that having the state's public accommodations statute applied to her business amounts to comini storagepelled speech in violation of her First Amendment rights."Ms. Huguenin's style of wedding and event photography is photojournalistic, meaning that she conveys stories and messages through her images and books," says the Elane petition. "The Huguenins will not create images that tell stories or convey messages contrary to their religious beliefs," including a belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman."Whether professional creators of this speech are disqualified from First Amendment protection -- and thus whether their expression-creating skills may be co-opted by private parties through government coercion -- is a question of great national importance," they argue on behalf of the court taking the case.The U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear only a tiny percentage of cases submitted to it each term.Willock, who was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and Tobias Barrington Wolff of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, can be expected to argue against the nation's highest court taking the case though the ACLU's legal director said no response is required.Laura Schauer Ives, legal director of the ACLU-NM, said the New Mexico Supreme Court decision was correct "and in line with what courts around the country have been saying for decades. Businesses have no right to discriminate against their customers. There's nothing the U.S. Supreme Court needs to review."Copyright: ___ (c)2013 the Albuquerque Journal (Albuquerque, N.M.) Visit the Albuquerque Journal (Albuquerque, N.M.) at .abqjournal.com Distributed by MCT Information Servicesself storage
留言列表
