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.
2 comments:
I left this comment before. I'm not sure why it's not posting.
First of all, you should check your facts The only illegal activities in this case are those acted out by the owners of Elane Photography. Gay Marriage in not "Illegal" in New Mexico. In face, we're one of only a handful of states that do not have a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the books.
The simple facts of this case is that the law in New Mexico lists sexual orientation as a protected class. A business cannot refuse services to a person based on sexual orientation. Elane Photography did exactly that. They chose to do business in New Mexico and they chose to discriminate. Furthermore, when offered the opportunity to mediate they ran to Alliance Defense Fund. The women mentioned in this complain were not seeking damages. Only to educate a business owner that it is ILLEGAL to discriminate.
This complaint has to do with a business not an individual. The business was fined around $6000 for attorney's fees only. The complainant did not ask for any damages. If Willock is as deceitful and scheming as you seem to think she is, don't you think she would be asking for damages of some sort? I have read every public document on this case and it appears that she was within her rights to file the claim. Due to her profession, she knew exactly what to do when faced with discrimination. Can you really penalize her for knowing what to do? The only party at fault here is the owner of Elane Photography. If she had been as Christian as she claims to be, she would have chosen to ignore the request or send the pricing information requested and when the women tried to book her, say that she was already booked. She under no circumstances should have made the comment that she wouldn't provide information because she doesn't agree with gay marriage. That is bold faced discrimination. There is no arguement here. The law is clear. They define accommodation and they define discrimination. If this were any other protected class that was turned away for a service, people would be completely appalled. Why aren't we now? What's next? Separate water fountains? Special schools for children of gay families? Sound familiar?
Dear Ann:
Hello again and thank you again for your response. I am unaware if you know where your comment is posted; therefore, of the three (3) sites that I actively write for: The Thinker, American Age, and Education, Immigration, and Pop Culture your comment can be found at American Age where, a comment worded almost identical to yours was published, albeit under a different name.
Okay let's agree to make this a civil debate that is abundant in factual data...and most of all, for fun. I sense an animosity in your writing which I can't discern if it is passion or animus.
Just for the record and I think I've written this innumerable times, Elane Photography, or Elaine Huguenin, or any other representative of the company never told Ms. Willock or Ms. Collinsworth anything about services for anything that remotely resembled "sexual orientation." Now...take a deep breath and if you'd like I'll send you actual transcripts of the Court's proceedings. I am simply asking that you don't blow-up at me for factual information.
The actual verbatim wording of the request is this: (Sep 21, 2006) Ms. Willock’s Inquiry: "We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information." Thanks.
Same day response (September 21, 2006) Elaine Huguenin: "Hello Vanessa, as a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios." -Elaine-
As for me this is as plain and simple as it gets; you can see what Ms. Huguenin stated in her response. I've always been bothered by Ms. Willock's statement, "If you are open to helping us" which clearly indicates to me that (1) perhaps Willock had faced difficulty in finding a photographer, or (2) some other reason that would make one 'unopened' to service such as the law.
A full sixty two days (62) passes when Ms. Willock again pursues Elaine Huguenin with this rather jaded statement, Ms. Willock: "…I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?"….Vanessa
This is clearly a 'bait and switch' question that lacks any moral or ethical fortitude. Elaine Huguenin's original response was quite sufficient; moreover, it answered every question Willock wanted to know – and very diplomatically at that, don't you agree? However, clearly the most important part of this response question is in the declaration: "...are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?" Okay Ann there is the declaration – Elaine did not say any such thing – this is Willock's declaration.
This unfortunate saga gets way, way better: Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s Follow-on Response: Same day – November 28, 2006: "Hello Vanessa, yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!"….Elaine
Again Elaine Huguenin simply agrees or acknowledges what Ms. Willock's previous declaration stated. She is professional, very courteous, thankful, and truthful, so what is Willock's problem? (See Title VII USC of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and EEOC.gov.)
From this point the posturing done by Collinsworth or Misty Pascottini is simply unconscionable. And just to clear up any question about motive or otherwise: Collinsworth never says a word about commitment ceremony, or same-sex marriage whatsoever. This omission was negligent on the part of the NMHRC.
From our perspective we believe that this issue never had gone to a tribunal with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. We believe this was a very vindictive matter on the part of Willock/Collinsworth. Insofar as this action is a matter for the Courts, we believe that it should be heard there.
Cheers,
jon-paul schilling
Post a Comment