• Current Happenings

    After considerable information gathering and some ripping research we at American Age have decided to bring our knowledge, experience, and insight to the slipping of America's never-ending saga of lowering the bar of acceptable standards of conduct and decency. We believe that it's time for that proverbial 'line' to be drawn in the sand primarily with, but not limited to: Illegal Immigration, Sexual Orientation, (or whatever that is?) and Education.
  • Oh! Here it is!

  • Significant Developments

  • Click, share the link:

    Pop Culture Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory
  • My favorite Chess Hang out!

  • Advertisements

Give me 10 minutes and I’ll show you corruption…

Even until today — to this end — I couldn’t fathom what about the Willock v. Huguenin case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission was tearing at me with the talons of demons. Quick brush up: This little excerpt is from the Associated Press:

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.

This account looks all neat and tidy — all of the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed; however, this is not nearly the true account of what really happened.

We will be pulling our ‘over preponderance’ of the evidence that the NMHRC made an improper decision. Furthermore, we believe that we can prove with the same evidence, that this act was brought intentionally for the pain and suffering of the Defendant(s), Elaine and Jon Huguenin.

For the Record: As a matter of material fact, Elaine Huguenin (Elane’s Photography) never refused to do anything. The court record clearly shows that Ms. Vanessa Willock, by email, on September 21, 2006 contacted Elane’s Photography requesting pricing information: Here it is from the court transcript:

Ms. Willock’s Inquiry: We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information. Thanks

What immediately stuck out to me and to everyone whose seen it since, is in the wording, “If you are open to helping us…” and of course there is no signature. What if Mrs. Huguenin stated she wasn’t open? It is critical to look at the date of the request! (September 21, 2006)

September 21, 2006 Elaine Huguenin responded in a clearly professional manner, on time, gentle and specifying the work of Elane’s Photography:

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

We have no problem with that response at all. It is courteous, informative, and above all, meets every specification pursuant to New Mexico law.

On November 28, 2006, a full sixty-two days after receiving this response Ms. Vanessa Willock again, by email sought more clarification. This is Ms. Willock’s follow-on question:

Hi Elaine,
…I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?….Vanessa

In our humble opinion this is precisely where the collisional entrapment begins vis-a-vie Elaine Huguenin inasmuch as she did not say that. More importantly is the fact that if she had stated it, she would have been breaking the law and discriminating against Ms.Willock.

This unfortunate saga gets way, way better: Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s Follow-on Response:  Same day – November 28, 2006

Hello Vanessa,
…. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!

Clearly the original declaration was made by Ms. Willock and not Elaine Huguenin. Clearly Elaine Huguenin is doing nothing more than affirming what Ms. Willock had stated.

Sorry folks but at this time we started smelling rats on deck! A manipulation of a couple of words, and of course the suggestion, “…are you saying…” coupled with a overly long period of time for contacting the photographer (this is important in the ruling!) helped us be quite uneasy.

And just one more little nugget to get you back here tomorrow for further skullduggery!

On November 29, 2006, Ms. Willock’s partner, Ms. Collinsworth, officially known as Ms. Pascottini, sought to verify Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony by making a similar email inquiry about packages and rates to photograph a wedding, without any mention of same-sex. Ms. Collinsworth sent the following email to Elane’s Photography:

Sorry folks too long as it is…tomorrow we’ll see how the scheming continues.


2 Responses

  1. […] travesties of the 21st century. For those who don’t recall a quick, very quick refresher: (Also, please click here.) A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony […]

  2. […] travesties of the 21st century. For those who don’t recall a quick, very quick refresher: (Also, please click here.) A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: