What’s not just for Canada is the penalizing of people by “human [civil] rights commissions” for acting on their religious beliefs. It’s just happened in New Mexico, and the victims are a Christian husband-and-wife photography team who refused to do the photos for a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” According to the Alliance Defense Fund:
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund say they will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission Wednesday because of its “stunning disregard” for the First Amendment. The commission found an Albuquerque photography company, run by a Christian husband and wife, guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”
“Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs anymore than anyone else should,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. The commission’s decision shows stunning disregard for our client’s First Amendment rights, and we will appeal this ruling in state court.”
A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband, Jon Huguenin, of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that the two women wanted to hold in Taos. Neither marriage nor civil unions are legal between members of the same sex in New Mexico.
Elaine Huguenin declined because her and her husband’s 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 Commission, accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The commission held a one-day trial in January.
Wednesday the commission issued an order finding that Elane Photography engaged in “sexual orientation” discrimination prohibited under state law and ordered it to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to the two women who filed the complaint.
“The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”
So this couple is being penalized financially for standing up for a moral principle that is still the opinion of the majority of Americans, and refusing to take part in an action that carried with it an implicit affirmation of the behavior of the women involved.
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has a pair of excellent posts on this case (here and here).
UPDATE: I hadn’t thought of this before, but consider the possibilities that Roger Severino outlines in the Washington Examiner:
Although the First Amendment protects dissenting houses of worship from being forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies against their will, that is not the end of the story — it is barely even the beginning.
Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.
Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.
We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.
It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.
It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.
Read it all, and imagine what the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission and its allies in the gay advocacy organizations could do with this (if New Mexico ever changes its definition of marriage).
(Via Stand Firm.)
The Reformed Pastor 
April 10, 2008 at 10:43 am
Many people — including moderate conservatives and evangelicals — would say this is just fear mongering. On the other hand, that’s what moderates called Phyllis Schafley’s opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. You may remember she predicted constitutional requirements not to discriminate on the basis of gender would eventually require approval of same sex marriage. And she turned out to be right — state equal rights clauses were the rational for civil unions in Vermont and homosexual marriages in Massachusetts. (And I note, parenthetically, none of those moderates who so severely ridiculed her have offered anything like an apology for her comments.)
Put a different way, it’s not fear mongering to yell fire if the building’s really on fire…
April 10, 2008 at 11:12 am
PJ: Agreed. And the trends in Europe–which typically lead “progressive” thinking in the US by several years–is definitely headed in this direction. I don’t think it will be long before we start hearing American liberals talk in these terms (in fact, in some academic enclaves and places like San Francisco, they already are).
April 10, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Don’t forget those who would revive the “Fairness Doctrine” for the radio! They could apply it to Christian radio as well.
April 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm
While I support these people’s right not to photograph the “ceremonies” we have to make sure that we are not hypocritical in these matters.
I remember a while back where Muslim cabdrivers in Detroit were refusing to drive people who were carrying Alcohol. Also, I remember situations where Muslim grocery cashiers were refusing to ring up beer and pork.
I also remember many Christians telling them, either do the job or quit. Don’t force religion into the marketplace.
I can say that I support the Photographers AND I also support the right of those folks not to sell alcohol or pork.
We must be careful to make sure that “what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.”
April 10, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Chip – it’s their own business – the photographers are not employees of others, like the cab drivers and the store clerks. If you have agreed to be an employee, then you do need to abide by the rules of the employer, as long as they are not illegal. But if it’s your own business, then it’s your rules (mostly). If a Muslim owned a deli and decided not to carry any pork products, I would have no problem with that – it’s his call.
April 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Branford,
That may be the case for the store clerks but the Cab Drivers, who own their own cabs and are “self employed” should be allowed the same “grace.” These men were going to be kicked off the airport.
April 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm
[…] FREESPEECH-WARS? It’s Not Just For Canada Anymore (UPDATE)– “What’s not just for Canada is the […]
April 11, 2008 at 3:55 pm
A law like this has just come into the UK
April 11, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Chip, the cab drivers are given their rights to be cab drivers with the understanding that they will serve the public which in an airport situation means taking all comers. Air travelers would always rather be somewhere else, so to tell them to take their business elsewhere is not reasonable; they can’t. Even if they own their own cabs, they are in some senses “employees” of the municipality that operates the airport and licenses the cabs – not on the payroll, but subject to its rules.