Written by Don Byrd
The New Mexico Supreme Court today ruled that Elane Photography violated the state’s Human Rights Act by refusing to provide services for a same-sex wedding ceremony, saying that such a refusal is barred by the law “in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.” The company argued that such an interpretation of the law is an unconstitutional infringement on their free exercise and free speech rights under the First Amendment and the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the Court disagreed.
The majority found that the NMHRA is a neutral law and is generally applicable. Therefore, the Court concluded, the right to freely exercise religion does not relieve Elane Photography from its enforcement. Additionally, it found the New Mexico RFRA doesn’t apply here because it applies only when the government is a party to the action. Here, the dispute is between two private parties, the photography company and the same-sex couple who were denied service.
Perhaps the most striking section of the opinion, however, is from concurring Justice Richard Bosson, who tackled head-on the very delicate and difficult religious liberty issues raised by this case and others like it. With obvious respect for the religious views of the plaintiff photographers, the Huguenins, Justice Bosson explains why he finds against them.
Apologies for the lengthy quote, but it’s an interesting one, and worth the read.
There is a lesson here. In a constitutional form of government, personal, religious, and moral beliefs, when acted upon to the detriment of someone else’s rights, have constitutional limits. One is free to believe, think and speak as one’s conscience, or God, dictates. But when actions, even religiously inspired, conflict with other constitutionally protected rights… then there must be some accommodation. The Huguenins[‘]… refusal to do business with the same-sex couple in this case, no matter how religiously inspired, was an affront to the legal rights of that couple, the right granted them under New Mexico law to engage in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination.
But of course, the Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying. They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions. In their view, they seek only the freedom not to endorse someone else’s lifestyle.
…
The New Mexico Legislature has made it clear that to discriminate in business on the basis of sexual orientation is just as intolerable as discrimination directed toward race, color, national origin or religion. The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation—photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony—than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims.All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. 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. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, 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. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.
