From Say Anything comes this fun little tidbit of news. In New Mexico we have our very own Star Chamber. Two lesbians have taken a photographer to court for refusing to “service” them because of their sexual orientation. Well isn’t that dandy.
New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.
A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a commitment ceremony that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state anti discrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination. It Cant Happen Here – Say Anything
In the comments section of Say Anything we learn the identity of one of the “girls”. And we must not be surprised to learn that one of these “girls” is a pro at this sort of shakedown.
Ok so the name of the lesbian plaintiff is out there now.
Well guess what, it seems Ms. Vanessa Willock is something of an expert on the matter, as she is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. Not to mention a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico
So to the photographers, sorry but if your beliefs do not toe the line of the orthodoxy currently in favor with the State then you must be punished. To the “girls” thanks for helping me think good thoughts. And thank YOU New Mexico Human Rights Division for keeping us on the straight and narrow of acceptable thoughts.
Now I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that, hey the photographers are allowed to think whatever they want they just cannot enforce their thoughts with actions, or inactions as the case may be. There is plenty of precedence for that sort of State coercion whether we want to admit it or not. For example Barry Goldwater understood long ago what a particular portion of the Civil Rights Bill would do.
Here is the wikipedia’s description of his opposition.
Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, “You can’t legislate morality.” Goldwater, however had supported both previous attempts to pass Civil Rights legislation in 1957 and 1960. The reason for the opposition to the 1964 act was Title 2, which he viewed as a violation of individual liberty.
He was objecting to:
Title II : Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.”
What is the difference between telling a restaurant owner he cannot refuse to serve blacks and telling a photographer he cannot refuse to service the “girls”? Are we really going to distinguish between the sorts of behavior we as a state are trying to correct? Which begs the question why is the state trying to correct my behavior? Ah the joys of state coercion.
Thank you sir, may I have another!