Sunday, September 16, 2012

They’re coming for us now

In his article, The tangled web of conflicting rights, George Will, in his usual understated way, points out the way that the firm hand of government is already trampling upon the rights of Christians to follow their consciences. In reality, the rights of Christian photographers not to photograph a “gay marriage” is clearly trampled upon.

In 2006, Vanessa Willock e-mailed Elane Photography about photographing a “commitment ceremony” that she and her partner were planning. Willock said that this would be a “same-gender ceremony.” Elane Photography responded that it photographed “traditional weddings.” The Huguenins [the photographers] are Christians who, for religious reasons, disapprove of same-sex unions. Willock sent a second e-mail asking whether this meant that the company “does not offer photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane Photography responded that “you are correct.”

Willock could then have said regarding Elane Photography what many same-sex couples have long hoped a tolerant society would say regarding them — “live and let live.” Willock could have hired a photographer with no objections to such events. Instead, Willock and her partner set out to break the Huguenins to the state’s saddle.

Willock’s partner, without disclosing her relationship with Willock, e-mailed Elane Photography. She said that she was getting married — actually, she and Willock were having a “commitment ceremony” because New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriages — and asked whether the company would travel to photograph it. The company said yes. Willock’s partner never responded.

Instead, Willock, spoiling for a fight, filed a discrimination claim with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, charging that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” akin to a hotel or restaurant, that denied her its services because of her sexual orientation. The commission found against Elane and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.

Noting that this web of “conflicting rights” grows more tangled, Will asks the question, “In jurisdictions … which ban discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or ideology, would a photographer, even a Jewish photographer, be compelled to record a Nazi Party ceremony?”


  1. Of course, the moment the Catholic Church takes a stand against LGBT thugs bullying orthodox Catholics, inside or outside the Church, John Bugay will be there.

    Cheering on the LGBT thugs.

    1. Crude, just keep in mind, John Bugay is just reporting. And as for them "bullying", just remember it was an infallible council, chock-full of bishops and ratified by a pope, who invited them in.

  2. 'Cheering on the LGBT thugs.'

    Thanks Crude! I support you supporting us homosexuals and parts of the LGBT movement (though you are probably supporting us a bit tongue in cheek and in an unintended way at least it's still some form of support)! -- A proud gay liberal :)

  3. The kangaroo court here in New Mexico got it wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    It wasn't that Elane declined the job because of Willock's sexual orientation. It was because of the content of the proposed job. I'm sure if Willock had wanted Elane to photograph her fluffy kitty, there would be no problem. On the other hand, if one of Willock's straight friends had been the paying customer -- instead of Willock herself -- asking Elane to photograph Willock's "commitment ceremony," the job would have been turned down, because of the content of the job. In that case, it would be absurd to claim that the job was refused because of the customer's sexual orientation.

    1. Thanks for the clarification Mike.

    2. Mike Westfall, in my opinion, you can't make a meaningful distinction between sexual orientation and the content of the job here unless the people being photographed are merely actors following a script, because the sexual orientation of the two main people involved specifically determines the "content of the job", as you put it.

      I'm an anti-Christian pro-Gay rights atheist, and I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I support the idea of stressing fairness and equity for all people in the context of a public accomodation, especially in the sub-context of gay rights. On the other hand, my stronger feelings come from my Baptist background and the idea of freedom of conscience and individual liberty. I support a business' right of refusal within reason. I think Christians have been and continue to be treated unfairly at times. But I have not fully decided exactly where I stand on all of these issues.

  4. setting aside the article and the issues I would say something (from my personal experiences) about bullying by the LGBT crowd.

    I frequent the San Francisco bay area. I have been down in the Castro district. I have been walking along downtown streets near where Apple Computer has its main store. I have seen and felt animosity and bullying and overt expressions unwarranted and unwelcome by gay men especially when walking with my two sons.

    There is an evil lurking under the skin of this small yet loud obnoxious group of people.

    Once while driving in the Castro district behind an old lady, maybe to old to be driving, she accidentally lurch forward and almost hit a man. He exploded and started kicking her car and yelling propanities at this dear old lady. With my own windows down I could hear both the man and the little old woman. He kept yelling abuse. She kept apologizing.

    Make no mistake, just like we are seeing an uproar with Muslims around the world ( I am particularly concerned as I have one son, a crew chief on black hawk helicopter deployed right now as I type at Bagram air base in Afghanistan ) who are offending their prophet, we are seeing a similar "fruit of the flesh" with bullying gays and lesbians instantly getting hot under the collar when they feel offended or threatened.

    Make no mistake, either, God is not dead and is alive and well and His plan for the ages will come to pass:::>

    Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
    Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

    If they misunderstood Him in the days of His flesh and hated Him and His message and then killed Him, they will misunderstand us in our days of flesh and hate us and our message and kill some of us thinking they are doing God and man a service!


    don't stand down and keep reporting the TRUTH!

    God is on our side without respect of persons. Even though He is calling and electing, He still brings upon us what we sow and we reap for good or ill basis our sowing!

    1. Thanks for sharing this story Michael. I appreciate your encouragement as well.