Last week, the New Mexico State Supreme Court ruled in favor of a lesbian couple who claimed they were discriminated against by a Christian photographer, Elaine Huguenin, who refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony in 2006.
The New Mexico’s Human Rights Act forbids businesses from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Most legal observers believe that the court accurately enforced that law.
However, the Colorado-based Christian conservative group Focus on the Family is upset about the ruling.
Focus on the Family President Jim Daly recently wrote on the organization's website:
Popular VideoThis judge looked an inmate square in the eyes and did something that left the entire courtroom in tears:
By ruling that the couple in this case was guilty of 'sexual orientation discrimination,' the New Mexico Supreme Court is asking Christians to violate their deepest-held convictions. New Mexico doesn’t even have same-sex marriage, so the court ruled that this young couple [Joe and Elaine Huguenin] should have recognized and [been] forced to participate in something the state’s own laws don’t even recognize.
However, the Christian photographer was never asked to "participate" in a gay wedding as Daly claims.
In fact, the lesbian couple never claimed they were taking part in a same-sex marriage. The event was a "commitment ceremony," which New Mexico doesn't forbid.
Also, the photographer admitted to the lesbian couple that she would not do their ceremony because they were lesbians, which is "sexual orientation discrimination."
Daly did not mention how divorced people are not allowed to remarry in the Bible except under specific circumstances, otherwise it is deemed "adultery" in scripture. However, divorced couples who are getting remarried are not being turned down by Christian-owned businesses as are gay couples.
Focus on the Family's legal arm Citizen Link (video below) falsely claimed that the New Mexico State Supreme Court ruled that gay rights trumped First Amendment rights, which is not what the court ruled.