Court Rules Christian Photographers Must “Compromise their Religious Values” for Gay Wedding

Say goodbye to your freedom of religion

Say goodbye to your freedom of religion

The First Amendment. It was nice while it lasted, wasn’t it?

In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” in the town of Taos.

Huguenin and her husband declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. She was later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote. “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

Why must we “compromise our values” to accommodate clashing values. Why can’t the people acting out their imaginary wedding compromise their values instead by leaving photographers who don’t want their business alone?

Why is the need of two lesbians to have a wedding photographers more compelling than Freedom of Religion?

Isn’t that freedom what the nation is about? If we had wanted a system that would force people to compromise their values because the state decided they should, why even bother with a revolution?

He said the Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and following religious teachings, but offered a sobering warning.

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

But it’s not the Huguenins who squeezed out the lesbian couple. It’s the lesbians who squeezed out the Huguenins.

Under the existing scheme, the lesbian couple had the right to hire anyone who would take their business and the Huguenins had the right to accept anyone’s business.

Under the new scheme, the lesbian couple get to compel a wedding photographer to perform for them while the Christians lose their religious freedom.

They’re the ones who have no more space left. And that is why gay rights is such a basic threat to the civil rights of everyone in the long run.

“The New Mexico Human Rights Act does not violate the photographer’s free-speech rights, the court concluded, because it “does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another.”

Ah but it does.

Gay rights is a government-mandated message. That is why it has special protection.

One of the more hilariously absurd passages in Judge Bosson’s twisted ruling is that the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act which protects the right of freedom of religion applies only to government agencies, but not to the courts.

Meaning that Justice Bosson is free to compel you to violate your religion.

  • Nabuquduriuzhur

    The Lord curse Mr. Bosson in Jesus’ Name.

    • moneekwa

      instead we should pray for his immortal soul to be saved, the sooner the betteer so he’ll stop making stupid decisions like this.


    It’s time for Christians to draw the line on the authority of civil officials on Divine Truth and Values. On matters of faith, morality, and doctrine, that is the Church’s prerogative, not the civil state. Caesar is not in place of God nor may play God.
    First Century Christians said “We must obey God rather than men.” The authorities of the time tried to silence the church and compel it to disobey Heaven and deny its God and Savior. For those who say that’s not what the judge was doing-in fact he was telling a couple, who were harming no one, to deny Divine truth about proper human relationships. State officials have no authority in this area.
    I hope in spite of this ruling they stand with the Word of God and do what is right in Heaven’s eyes, regardless of the consequences. It’s just a matter of time before saying there is one True God, Jesus Christ is Lord and no other, the Bible is the Word of God, and Moral Truths within its pages will be considered un-PC, offensive, and “hate speech.” The first Christians sure had backbone-they had to-their faith was illegal, unrecognized, and “politically incorrect.” And of course, they paid for it with their freedom and their lives. All but one of the original Apostles met martyrs deaths. But they stand forever in God’s “Faith Hall of Fame.”

  • rogerinflorida

    Anti discrimination laws are inherently tyrannical. If I cannot discriminate then in what sense am I a free man? I, and everybody else should be free to choose who we serve, who we associate with, who we do business with. Laws forcing us to do otherwise are collectivist, putting the “general good” over individual rights. This ruling shows just how far gone we are into a socialized swamp.

  • pupsncats

    Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose to. No judge and no court has the authority to demand a business owner compromise their principles and values, particularly when people have many other options. Even if there was only one photographer on the planet, that photographer still would have the right to refuse to compromise his/her principles. Lesbians and homosexuals think they have separate laws that give them special rights and privileges. They need to learn they do not. The Huguenins need to tell the judge and the lesbians to straight to you know where.

    • lofty_goals

      … except for protected classes. A business cannot refuse someone *because* of their protected class/status. EX1: A restaurant cannot refuse to serve someone because they happen to be white or black, male or female, family status, and many states also protect gay/straight. EX2: You cannot fire someone just because they’re white or black, male or female, family status, and many states also protect gay/straight. GUYS… this is like high-school civics and government common sense. You don’t need a law degree. LOL…

  • Blahblahblah Noah

    Justice Bosson…can violate the exhaust pipe of my toilet. Yet another example of the “Gay Agenda”…if you don’t get what you want…”hurt them legally, financially, physically”

    Now there’s equal rights for you. Welcome to Neutered America. Where white middle class persons of faith no longer have any rights.

  • Eris Guy

    It isn’t a amusing how libertarian values (“homosexual wedding”) so easily elide into fascism (“you are compelled to photograph it”).

    • Night Operator

      Libertarian values? What are you talking about? The concern to recognize homosexual weddings as genuine and legitimate is left wing and not lbertarian. I assume you got confused because the lefties are often miscalled “liberals.” But a real libertarian would say those on both sides should follow what they believe in and see to it themselves, on their own responsibility.

  • Regular Right Guy

    Matt Damon decided take Regular Right Guy and several other conservative bloggers to the woodshed … Guess who played Dumb and Dumber? —Regular
    Right Guy … Full Caf Americano

  • anon

    Next thing you know NAMBLA will prosecute if you don’t agree to video or take photos of men diddling boys….or some Arab will prosecute if you refuse to show a woman buried up to her head in sand while Neanderthals hurl stones to her death.
    Or some father hires you to take pics for posterity of him doing his daughter. Or imams will force you to take pics of them checking out a woman’s hymen with black burka pulled up for all the bass tards to pique their curiosity as to what’s there.
    Or perhaps some Turk will force you to come with him to one of the famed Turkish sex slave hovels. Here you would be obliged to take photos of men acting as savages as they beat young girls, drug her and do the group rape routine…and if she gets pregnant than you are forced to take photos of them beating the baby right out of her system and putting her back on a mattress the same day to service another 20 of Allah’s faithful servants. And of course, all over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, Africa and America many sicko dads would want you to put on a video of them honor killing their wives, daughters, sisters and any other woman they wish to destroy so that she can’t reveal to the world his monstrous sins.

  • Fed up

    This is absurd!!! Since when can the government MAKE someone do a job they do not want to do??!! This country is being taken over by a communistic, islamist agenda that starts at the top. People better be waking up before it’s too late!

    • lofty_goals

      So, if you’re shopping at a store and they see you wearing a cross, approach you, ask if you’re a Christian, and when you reply yes, they kick you out and declare they refuse to allow Christians in the shop or sell anything to Christians… that would be okay?

      • Alessandra

        It’s exactly what happened to a Republican politician in the South, asked to leave a restaurant owned by a liberal. And there’s nothing he can do legally.

        Except for a few types of services, no one should be able to force others to work for them.

        • lofty_goals

          Being in a political party or taking a political position is not a protected class. And your example is of THAT, not of being discriminated against based on religion. Yet again, people wanting to discriminate are talking around the actual issue at hand…

          • Alessandra

            And your rational to discriminating against people who have political positions you dislike is what exactly?

            That’s my argument against the two stupid lesbians in this case. They have a shoddy political agenda for sexuality and marriage, everyone is entitled to discriminate against them because of their agenda.

            I didn’t know you agreed with me.

          • AustinBamBam

            Actually, it’s you who is stupid for not understanding our anti-discrimination laws in America. Our courts understand, which is why these bigoted anti-gay Christians always lose.

  • Samiksha Srivastava

    Some beautiful photos in this album. You are very talented. My absolute favourite is the stunning beach sunset silhouette. breathtaking stuff. You have to get the best source where you can get the ultimate love photography for you that would make you feel the best after getting the right one. …

  • lofty_goals

    I’m praying for you to see God’s love and truth and to repent your bigoted and judgmental ways.

  • maria

    Track that judge’s mistakes, I bet you will find many and invest until he is out of the law business, he is like Hitler

  • Hugh Vincelette

    These comments are clinically indicative of sociopathic attitudes , beyond any doubt. I am fully qualified to make such a definitive statement. In the days of my youth we heard the same statements about “uppity n*****s.). Attempts to revise US history is also rapidly failing, as with the false claims that America is a Christian nation.From the Library of Congress: The Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock fame, did indeed flee Britain, seeking the freedom to practice their faith unhindered.And, they found that freedom in Holland. But Holland also had an aberration that they were not about to tolerate.It is called ‘ freedom of religion ‘ Convinced they were in possession of the only truth there ever was; they headed for the New World; to the chagrin of the First Nations people. It is regrettable that so many submitting comments were denied access to factual learning & knowledge.

    • nomoretraitors

      “I am fully qualified to make such a definitive statement”
      Where did you get your doctorate in psychology? Through an online diploma mill?

      “Attempts to revise US history is also rapidly failing, as with the false claims that America is a Christian”
      I guess you got your Phd in history from the same place. The founders were very much of a Judeo-Christian perspective. It’s in the Declaration of Independence as well as on numerous monuments in Washington DC. It’s only through the left-wing secular indoctrination over the past half century in our schools that has white-washed our rich Christian heritage.

  • nomoretraitors

    Let’s give NM back to the Mexicans

  • Alessandra

    I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. The compelled speech is just the type of compelled behavior (working for people who are destroying society because of their political agenda). It’s no different than being asked to take photographs of a Neo-Nazi event or a porn shoot and refusing.

    There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root. This is just one more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a fraud and must be scrapped. Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.

    Thus, everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. The right to total discrimination against others pushing p0rnography onto you is a fundamental human right. The right to total discrimination against prostitution, sexualization of kids, S&M, etc., is a fundamental human right.
    And so it is with people pushing a noxious and ignorant homosexuality agenda that normalizes homosexuality instead of trying to resolve it. Everyone who has such problems (LGBTs) is responsible for investigating their underlying psychological problems that produce their dysfunctional sexual psychologies.