USSC will not review NM SC decision: businesses cannot refuse service to gay couples

[shira]

It seems to me that this non-decision dovetails nicely with the Hobby Lobby case. A NM photographer's claim that she should be able to refuse to provide photographic services at a gay couple's commitment ceremony, because the photographs would have "expressed a message" that conflicts with the photographer's religious beliefs, was rejected by the NM Supreme Court on the grounds that the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) makes it illegal to refuse service on the basis of (among other things) a person's sexual orientation. And now the USSC has refused to review that decision.

As the NMSC argued, the photographer's claim would have clearly been rejected if she had refused services to a mixed-race couple using the same justification, and a similar claim on the basis of sexual orientation is equally invalid.

"Whatever service you provide, you must not discriminate against customers when you engage in public commerce," wrote the gay couple's attorney.

Wash Post story

Supreme Court will not review New Mexico gay commitment ceremony photo case

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to consider whether a New Mexico photographer had a free-speech right to refuse service to a same-sex couple who wanted her to record their commitment ceremony.

Without comment, the court said it would not review a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court that the denial of service violated the state’s public accommodations law, which bans discrimination by those offering their services to the public.

The New Mexico decision had prompted some states, such as Arizona, to propose laws that would protect companies and individuals who say providing some services to same-sex couples would violate their religious beliefs.

The case at the court came from Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, whose company, Elane Photography, refused service for the 2007 commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth.

The Huguenins said they would “gladly serve gays and lesbians” by taking portraits. But photographing same-sex marriages or commitment ceremonies would “require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs,” according to their petition to the court.

The state human rights commission found that the Huguenins violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and the state supreme court unanimously upheld the decision.

“When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court said.

In their petition, the Huguenins and lawyer Jordan W. Lorence of the Alliance Defending Freedom mentioned religion frequently. But their plea did not cite constitutional protection of their right to freely exercise their religion. Instead, they rely on another part of the First Amendment: their right to free speech.

Elaine Huguenin’s work is artistic expression, the petition said, and she cannot be forced to “communicate messages antithethical to her religious beliefs . . . through government coercion.”

Tobias B. Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing Willock, pointed out in his brief that the Huguenins acknowledge that courts are not split on the questions they raised, normally a prerequisite for Supreme Court action. He said the issue is a simple one: “Whatever service you provide, you must not discriminate against customers when you engage in public commerce.”

 

[bradly1101]

I think from now on whenever I venture out to 'the middle', I'll just ask, "Are you a gay-friendly business?" If they say no they don't get my money and maybe a warning to others via Yelp.

 

[T9D]

That's pretty lame to force the photographer to have to take part in that crap. If they don't want to watch it and see it let them not have the work. So he's not comfortable being there. He has that right.

look at it this way, what if someone was not comfortable taking photos of a circumcision? Or what if someone wanted them to take photos of a nudist camp and that bothered them? Or whatever, there are a million things. People should have the right to pass up a job for whatever reason. The cost is that you lose money. That's the only loss someone should have for the decision. I'm getting sick of seeing all the harassment from all the gay communities.

 

[michal1980]

That's pretty lame to force the photographer to have to take part in that crap. If they don't want to watch it and see it let them not have the work. So he's not comfortable being there. He has that right.

look at it this way, what if someone was not comfortable taking photos of a circumcision? Or what if someone wanted them to take photos of a nudist camp and that bothered them? Or whatever, there are a million things. People should have the right to pass up a job for whatever reason. The cost is that you lose money. That's the only loss someone should have for the decision. I'm getting sick of seeing all the harassment from all the gay communities.

This is a new form of slavery. Gays forcing others into doing what those people don't believe in. Its amazing that the ~10% of the population can force the country to bend to their will

 

[schneiderguy]

This is a new form of slavery. Gays forcing others into doing what those people don't believe in. Its amazing that the ~10% of the population can force the country to bend to their will

3.8%

 

[cuafpr]

So two things 1) do you want a business doing business with you only b.c. they are forced to? 2) Do you think it will be quality work?


Its a big NO and NO from me.... I'll never understand the need to force a private business to do something they are against :/

 

[alzan]

Serving the public means serving all the public?

Who knew?

 

[himkhan]

This is a new form of slavery. Gays forcing others into doing what those people don't believe in. Its amazing that the ~10% of the population can force the country to bend to their will

Comparing this to slavery? How insanely insensitive to a class of people who had to live through the worst and ugliest years in America's history . Bonus star for being intolerant to multiple groups at the same time.

 

[fskimospy]

This is a new form of slavery. Gays forcing others into doing what those people don't believe in. Its amazing that the ~10% of the population can force the country to bend to their will

Lol, awesome hysterics. There is nothing that conservatives like more than thinking they are a victim.

 

[schneiderguy]

Serving the public means serving all the public?

Who knew?

Forcing a business to do business with anyone that asks is ridiculous.

 

[thraashman]

I believe this ruling would only apply in states that include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination laws.

 

[alzan]

Forcing a business to do business with anyone that asks is ridiculous.

They're not being forced, they're being told to abide by the laws that govern all public accommodation businesses. Perhaps they should have at least looked up the definition of "public" before applying for business licenses, bank loans, etc..

 

[fskimospy]

Forcing a business to do business with anyone that asks is ridiculous.

Yeah, I liked the world much better when we had whites only reataurants too. It made me think of freedom.

 

[SlickSnake]

Frankly, I don't want someone who is antigay making my food at all, if they previously know I am gay before making it. I would rather have them turn it down, than have them be tempted to mess with my food they were making. But in public business related activities other than food, like hotel accommodations or any other retail business, I don't see a good reason why a public business should be able to discriminate.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So two things 1) do you want a business doing business with you only b.c. they are forced to? 2) Do you think it will be quality work?


Its a big NO and NO from me.... I'll never understand the need to force a private business to do something they are against :/

Ah, the good old days.

 

[sportage]

3.8%

Every been to a pride parade out in L.A.?
More like 99.999%
I swear they come out of the woodwork.
At least I didn't say closet.

 

[drebo]

How about "I don't want to serve you because I don't want to serve you."?

Why does there need to be a reason? Nobody should ever be forced to do something they don't want to do. For any reason. At all. This includes a PRIVATE business engaged in PRIVATE enterprise. They are not a public convenience. They receive no government funds or aid. They should not be forced by the government to service someone they don't want to service.

If the market doesn't like it, the market can shut them down.

I have no problem with gay people, nor would I object to serving them at their union, were I in that business. I have no problem serving anyone who is willing to pay my prices work with me, regardless of color, sexuality, religion. I will not, however, make special accommodation just based on the perception I might be discriminating. I don't speak Spanish...if you only speak Spanish, then I can't help you, and I'm OK with that. You should be, too.

Wasn't the US set up to avoid the tyranny of the few? Seems like we've jumped the shark a bit.

 

[her209]

This is a new form of slavery. Gays forcing others into doing what those people don't believe in. Its amazing that the ~10% of the population can force the country to bend to their will

When did gays start selling people like livestock and making them perform hard labor for no compensation?

 

[cuafpr]

Ah, the good old days.

cause race totally ='s sexuality... and society isn't at a point that a civil boycott and social media shamming can force a business to change (firefox....). And hey if a store wants to kick me out b.c. i'm white I really don't care someone else gets my money, someone that i'd rather have my money than someone that doesn't support my race/life style.

 

[her209]

How about "I don't want to serve you because I don't want to serve you."?

Why does there need to be a reason? Nobody should ever be forced to do something they don't want to do. For any reason. At all. This includes a PRIVATE business engaged in PRIVATE enterprise. They are not a public convenience. They receive no government funds or aid. They should not be forced by the government to service someone they don't want to service.

Just because a business is PRIVATELY OWNED, doesn't mean it can do whatever it wants. Should it be able to ignore labor laws and hire undocumented workers and children and work them 12-16 hour days with no breaks? Pay them less than minimum wage? Pollute the air, land, and water as much as their heart desires? Ignore safety guidelines and make workers choose between their lives or their paychecks? Sell weapons and equipment to enemies of the state? Trade on insider information? Cook its books?

 

[her209]

cause race totally ='s sexuality... and society isn't at a point that a civil boycott and social media shamming can force a business to change (firefox....). And hey if a store wants to kick me out b.c. i'm white I really don't care someone else gets my money, someone that i'd rather have my money than someone that doesn't support my race/life style.

Lets say you owned a grocery store and the local farmers didn't want to deal with you because of a certain trait. Now because you have to truck in your meat and produce from farther away, your expenses are much higher, you are no longer able to compete with the other local grocery stores. You can either close shop or move out of the area. Now imagine if you're the customer whose only grocery store that would take your business shut down or moved away. Now your costs just went up. You can no longer afford to drive the long distance just to buy the food that you have to move out of the area. Congratulations, you've been effectively purged out of the area for your undesirable traits.

 

[SlickSnake]

Just because a business is PRIVATELY OWNED, doesn't mean it can do whatever it wants. Should it be able to ignore labor laws and hire undocumented workers and children and work them 12-16 hour days with no breaks?
So instead business goes to foreign companies with lax labor laws to get around those little speed bumps to profit.

Pay them less than minimum wage?
And make them work long hours without breaks called a SALARIED EMPLOYEE with plenty of unpaid overtime available.

Pollute the air, land, and water as much as their heart desires?
This sounds like what nearly every business out there does already in some way or another.

like Ignore safety guidelines and make workers choose between their lives or their paychecks?
Only if they are ignoring expensive nuclear safety concerns.

Sell weapons and equipment to enemies of the state?
Unless it sells to a shell company before selling to the actual buyer.

Trade on insider information?
Or buys premium rack space next to the NYSE servers.

Cook its books?
Only if the business sells cook books.

Message too short my ass.

 

[cuafpr]

Lets say you owned a grocery store and the local farmers didn't want to deal with you because of a certain trait. Now because you have to truck in your meat and produce from farther away, your expenses are much higher, you are no longer able to compete with the other local grocery stores. You can either close shop or move out of the area. Now imagine if you're the customer whose only grocery store that would take your business shut down or moved away. Now your costs just went up. You can no longer afford to drive the long distance just to buy the food that you have to move out of the area. Congratulations, you've been effectively purged out of the area for your undesirable traits.

last time i checked photography isn't needed for life? if its not life/limb/eyesight oh well. not to mention I'd take the opportunity to do a few things, 1) start my own farm 2) use media pressure to get them to cave (works for firefox), 3) lower my own prices via now having my own sources thus no middle man.

I understand not everyone could do that though, so it goes back to the life/limb/eyesight rule.

 

[DrPizza]

cause race totally ='s sexuality... and society isn't at a point that a civil boycott and social media shamming can force a business to change (firefox....). And hey if a store wants to kick me out b.c. i'm white I really don't care someone else gets my money, someone that i'd rather have my money than someone that doesn't support my race/life style.

Since it's rather well established that sexuality isn't a choice - it's something you're apparently born with, on what basis can you claim that "well, this particular personal characteristic is different. We should be able to discriminate against these people."

 

[brycejones]

I believe this ruling would only apply in states that include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination laws.

The only force this has is in NM.