New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Photographer Cannot Refuse To Work At Same-Sex Marriage

“In general, freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association. In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977), and Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977), the Court held that freedom of association is unconstitutionally burdened where the state requires an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees.”

I’m sure that for every law that I throw out, you can find one (or a dozen) that will contradict it. And that is my point – the law is very contradictory, and just arguing the law only ends in the appeal to authority (i.e. judge/jury).

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

I believe you could make a case that “pay” in the above quote would also include support, such as time and materials.

So in the end, what have you achieved by forcing the photographer to compromise his moral values by supporting an institution he finds reprehensible? He will most likely do a good job because he’s a professional, but he now realizes that the authority of the state is capricious. He becomes a libertarian.

Maybe it’s not such a bad thing after-all?


RainbowFlag125px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svgThe New Mexico Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a photography studio violated the the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) by refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. Vanessa Willock was told that Elane Photography had a moral objection to her gay wedding and sued under the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation.” The case is the latest in a growing number of such conflicts between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws. Because this is an expressive activity, it raises some difficult questions under the first amendment rights of the owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin. As one justice noted in concurrence, this is “the price of citizenship.” However, there remains the question of the right of citizens not to be forced to express ideas or values with which they disagree. That concern rests on…

View original post 906 more words

Author: Brad Slusher

A document covered with good intentions and proclamations, signed by men of questionable character, is incapable of restraining the avarice of a government.

%d bloggers like this: