Appeal filed in photographers case by Alliance Defense

A Clear Travesty

A Clear Travesty

As usual we were going about our business soaring through various and sundry informative websites and blogs when S-L-A-P! It feels as though someone has just blazed a flat, wet-hand across your face on a freezing cold winter’s day. Know the feeling?
In this particular matter we were doing our level best to research where the Elaine Huguenin case sits as far as appeals, and your general special interest trying to watch out for one of the gravest 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 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.
Shortly thereafter Elaine and Jon Huguenin were being sued by Vanessa Willock in front of the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation.’ What? Yep that’s right; it’s ugly, it’s wrong, it’s immoral, lacks any kind of integrity and is void of any humane dignity.
During our search we went back over the particulars and much to our amazement we ran across this quote below by the Alliance Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel, Kevin Theriot, that simply stuck out so conspicuously — “…thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be ‘politically correct.'” (Must read so click here.)
“All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice,” ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot explains. “So-called ‘hate crime’ laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be ‘politically correct.’ No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans.”
As mentioned in previous writings – please see the tab marked Political Correctness on the Home page of The Thinker – especially where linguists, academians, and other scholars believe that the quickest way to defragment or disrupt and change a society is by changing its language which is believed is the major culprit behind being politically correct. Just a few examples: “Undocumented worker,” a “Blank – American” (hyphenated) and “handicapped to disabled” for a few examples.
Just for the record we like to inform everyone who reads this article or anything whatsoever about this case (Willock v. Elane Photography) that of the first part: Same-sex marriage or commitment ceremonies or civil unions — anything to do with the union of same-sex partners is illegal in New Mexico. Notice how decietful and scheming Willock was when she went to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission to bring suit. We are of the opinion that if an ‘act’ is deemed illegal in a state then anything to do with that act would likewise be illegal.

squiggly_blue

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. First of all. You should really research the laws in New Mexico before offering your opinion. Same sex marriages aren’t “illegal” in New Mexico. They may not be recognized, but they are not “illegal”. We are NOT a DOMA state and we do NOT want to be associated with the states that are. Our voting records prove that. We live and LET LIVE.

    Second, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, it IS illegal in New Mexico to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and transgendered people along with other protected classes. This applies to ALL businesses who CHOOSE to do business in New Mexico. If that photography business wants to discriminate, they should move somewhere where it is acceptable. The fact is that this is indeed a business they contract their services and they subcontract to other photographers. They have a business license. They are incorporated in the State of New Mexico. This was not an attack against a PERSON. It was a complaint about a New Mexico business.

    I admire these two ladies for standing up for their rights. The anti-discrimination law is in place for a reason. If it is not enforced, what is to stop people from refusing services to inter-faith or inter-racial couples. Did you not hear about the official in Louisiana that refused to marry the interracial couple just a couple of weeks ago. Do you find that acceptable? If laws that are put in place to protect people go unenforced, there is nothing to incent people to do the right thing. As the Lord preaches, “Love thy neighbor” “Do unto others as you would have done to you” and “Judge not, lest you be judged”.

    • Dear Melina Todd:

      Thank you for your insightful comment. However, and not to be debated here (email is fine by me!) same-sex marriage is neither condoned nor prohibited pursuant to New Mexico Statutes §40-1 and §40-4. Furthermore, one could always stand by the legal cliché that it is up to juries to decide the ‘legality or illegality’ of any matter, just to be safe.

      In addition, we more than understand the reasons for ‘protected status’ provided by the U.S. Constitution as well as the New Mexico Constitution. However, if one were to read the entire case – or the six or more articles offered at our various sites, there is little doubt whatsoever that the ladies who brought the stated action had much, much more on their agenda other than discrimination.

      This is a proceeding that never did gain the full respect of a court of law – albeit, it will now. Moreover, the tactics and skullduggery used by Ms. Willock and Ms. Collinsworth is questionable at the very least; consequently, it would be interesting to see if anyone would bring charges against them for perjury, fraud, infliction of pain and suffering and willful deceit.

      We suggest that anyone interested should take the time and read everything involved in this case. For starters, the photographer NEVER said she had a bias or discriminatory feelings about same-sex partners. Moreover, she was NEVER asked if she would photograph the “commitment ceremony.” Therefore we ask: if she said “No I won’t do it” then we feel this would constitute difficulty. However, the photographer NEVER stated that she wouldn’t because she simply was not asked to do it.

      Since you live in New Mexico we suggest that you look into why this case was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission by a tribunal; we also suggest for all residents of New Mexico to brush up on doing business within the state, and what the New Mexico Human Rights Commission has established as the “bar” for such a business to engage in discrimination. (Hint: accommodation)

      We recommend that anyone interested look at these articles for objective opinions:

      https://americanage.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/what-happens-in-new-mexico-should-stay
      https://americanage.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/how-about-you-give-me-5-minutes/
      https://americanage.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/give-me-10-minutes-and-ill-show-you-corruption/

      Again thank you for your comment,

      jps

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: