BUT, HONORABLE JUSTICES, WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

NEW MEXICO'S SUPREMES

AMENDMENT I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In an end of August decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Elane Photography, a photography shop owned by a Christian couple (husband and wife), had violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the "commitment ceremony" of a same-sex couple.  The husband-wife team owning the shop was reluctant to provide their services for a lesbian ceremony, owing to their religious convictions.

And, in Gresham, Oregon, another Christian-owned business, a bakery, has closed after enduring gay rights activists carrying out a campaign of threats and intimidation, after the bakery refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding ceremony.

An earlier decision by the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights attracted much attention when it ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group, had violated the civil rights of Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, when it refused the request of the two women to have a lesbian wedding at the Methodist church camp.

These developments are pointing toward some serious questions pertaining to the First Amendment and religious liberty that will, undoubtedly, have to be resolved at the level of our highest court.

Let's look at some hypothetical situations.One wonders, for example, about Muslims who might want to rent synagogue facilities for a wedding, or about Jews looking to utilize properties associated with mosques for the same purpose.  Then, what about a company engaged principally in the business of providing pork products demanding that an Orthodox Jewish photographer participate in a photo-shoot for the marketing of ham?  As for birth control, what is to be done if a sincerely convinced Roman Catholic is not keen about his public relations firm undertaking a contract for the promotion of prophylactics.

The Elane Photography case has raised some points that will resonate through similar cases. Certainly, these points are unlikely to disappear, as Willock v. Elane Photography wends its way through the appeals process.

Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA law faculty pointed out in his amicus brief  that the photographer, Elane Huguenin, in effect was being forced into a situation of "compelled speech,"  which would cause her discomfort in the expressions that are her works of photography.  However, in its ruling, the New Mexico court was of the opinion that individuals of faith must compromise their behavior as "the price of citizenship."  In other words, the court decreed that the photographer's conduct resulting from her faith was a violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act. Thus, people of faith - at least in this instance - are expected to separate conduct from faith.  Furthermore, the photographer was not allowed an exception under New Mexico's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Sounds like the old reverse double-standard, doesn't it?

One might ask whatever happened to plain old "live and let live?"  Ms. Willock, one of the lesbians who brought suit, could just as easily have found a photographer who was comfortable with a lesbian commitment ceremony.  Instead, she determined upon a course of action that, come Hell or high water, would make her point. After decades of moving toward acceptance for same-sex relationships, why is it that those who once fought for recognition of the legitimacy of their relationships, now wish to force others to violate their beliefs?

There was once a time when individuals of differing persuasions would not bother each other when it was obvious that their convictions were far apart.  But that time is no more.  We must all have our rights now, and those rights must be acknowledged by all, regardless of faith, regardless of conviction. And, so, full speed ahead, damn those torpedoes, and it's all or nothing for political correctness!

Columnist George Will made an extremely strong point when he noted that we have moved into a strange era of bizarre regulation, to the extent that regulation is now affecting personal liberties that were once thought to be enshrined and protected in the Constitution. How ironic that those who once were pleading for respect for their beliefs and lifestyles are more recently becoming tyrannical in their lack of tolerance of those whose religious beliefs they refuse to honor or respect.  How terribly tangled our politically correct world has become!






.