- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 15,246
- Reaction score
- 51,976
- Points
- 391
The US Supreme Court today declined to hear the appeal of the New Mexico woman who refused to photograph the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple. The case has been the linchpin of the anti-gay movement to allow businesses to turn away gay customers and was the starting point of numerous campaigns to legalize such discrimination by state law.
Chris Johnson reports at the Washington Blade:
In orders published Monday morning, the court listed the case, Elane Photography v. Willock, without comment among as the cases it won’t consider. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Elane Photography, which was found to have violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo for the same-sex wedding ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth in 2006. (The wedding was only ceremonial because the incident took place before the state legalized same-sex marriage. Elane Photography filed lawsuit in state court, alleging that its refusal to photograph a same-sex wedding is protected on religious grounds. However, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the claims, saying the businesses service can be regulated because it’s a public accommodation. Following that decision, Elane Photography asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the lawsuit based on First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution.
And the Alliance Defending Freedom loses AGAIN. Today's refusal may mean the end of all the similar "wedding cake" cases. Stand by for the sadz!
UPDATE: The ACLU celebrates.
"No court has ever held that businesses have a First Amendment right to discriminate, and it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has denied this attempt to overturn settled law," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "Selling commercial wedding photography services, like selling a wedding cake or a flower arrangement, does not mean that a business owner endorses a customer's marriage. The business is simply providing a commercial service. Everybody has the right to express their views on whatever subject they wish, and that includes business owners. But every business has to play by the same rules to protect customers from discrimination in the marketplace."
Chris Johnson reports at the Washington Blade:
In orders published Monday morning, the court listed the case, Elane Photography v. Willock, without comment among as the cases it won’t consider. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Elane Photography, which was found to have violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo for the same-sex wedding ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth in 2006. (The wedding was only ceremonial because the incident took place before the state legalized same-sex marriage. Elane Photography filed lawsuit in state court, alleging that its refusal to photograph a same-sex wedding is protected on religious grounds. However, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the claims, saying the businesses service can be regulated because it’s a public accommodation. Following that decision, Elane Photography asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the lawsuit based on First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution.
And the Alliance Defending Freedom loses AGAIN. Today's refusal may mean the end of all the similar "wedding cake" cases. Stand by for the sadz!
UPDATE: The ACLU celebrates.
"No court has ever held that businesses have a First Amendment right to discriminate, and it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has denied this attempt to overturn settled law," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "Selling commercial wedding photography services, like selling a wedding cake or a flower arrangement, does not mean that a business owner endorses a customer's marriage. The business is simply providing a commercial service. Everybody has the right to express their views on whatever subject they wish, and that includes business owners. But every business has to play by the same rules to protect customers from discrimination in the marketplace."
