A New Mexico wedding photographer who was found to have violated an anti-discrimination law by refusing to photograph the “commitment ceremony” of a lesbian couple is attempting to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the government cannot compel her to create expressive images that conflict with her religious beliefs.
Elaine Huguenin is appealing a New Mexico Supreme Court decision that said “a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the anti-discrimination provisions” of the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
The court in August rejected Huguenin’s argument that serving same-sex couples would unconstitutionally compel her “to engage in unwanted expression” because she has a deeply-held religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The case began in September 2006 after she turned down the request of Vanessa Willock to photograph her commitment ceremony, saying she only photographed “traditional weddings.”
In a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Huguenin said the New Mexico court’s decision “permitted a particularly egregious form of compelled speech” and could strip away the First Amendment freedoms of “all professional creators of expression, regardless of the nature or source of their convictions.”
“Such disregard for the constitutional rights of these professionals threatens to drive them from the marketplace,” the petition warned.
The Supreme Court grants only a few of the thousands of petitions for review it receives every year, but the Los Angeles Times has suggested Huguenin’s case could provide the justices with an opportunity to clarify whether the First Amendment imposes some limits on antidiscrimination laws.
“Not all wedding photographers imbue their work with a distinctive point of view, but many do,” the newspaper said in an editorial. “The Supreme Court should find a way to protect them and members of other ‘expressive professions.’”
Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography of Albuquerque with her husband, using her “artistic eye” to capture weddings and create “a picture-book for each customer by arranging the images to tell her story about the event.”
After she denied those services to Willock and her partner, Willock complained to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which found that Huguenin discriminated against the couple based on sexual orientation. Both the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the outcome could hinge on whether the government is, in fact, requiring Huguenin to “recite or display” a message that is contrary to her religious beliefs.
New Mexico’s Human Rights Act “does not require any affirmation of belief by regulated public accommodations; instead, it requires businesses that offer services to the public at large to provide those services without regard for race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications,” the state Supreme Court said.
“The fact that these services may involve speech or other expressive services does not render the NMHRA unconstitutional.”
Huguenin and her husband insist they do not turn anyone away because of their protected status but “they will decline a request, as the First Amendment guarantees them the right to do, if the context would require them to express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”