Sign In

Photography

Student’s name Professor’s name Course Title Date Response This case exemplifies the extent to which discrimination has extended its roots in the American society. The decision by Elaine Photography to limit their services to a particular group of people based on sexual orientation is a discriminatory act. Sexual orientation beliefs on other people forcefully. The marketplace should particularly be free of all manner of discriminations spurred by traditions or beliefs to allow everyone the right to express himself or herself freely. Works Cited Elane Photography LLC v. Willock 309 P. 3d 53 – NM: Supreme Court 2013Works Cited
[…]
I need a one page response to the post below:

I was on the fence about whether a business entity should be forced to perform services like this until I read this opinion. I can say that I am in agreement with the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision, and more importantly I agree with the reasoning behind their decision. Sexual orientation is a protected class under the NMHRA. The court effectively referenced both US Supreme Court and New Mexico Court cases in their decision.

It appears that Elane Photography’s lawyers were claiming Elane Photography did not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that if the court forced Elane Photography to accept same sex weddings as clients it was a violation of the first amendment in regards to speech, compelled speech and religious freedom. They brought up cases that the court shows in their decision where they misinterpreted or missed the mark on relevance with the cases.

The court uses the analogy that Elane Photography being willing to take pictures of homosexuals, just not of their weddings nor pictures of same sex couples is like them offering a limited menu based on sexual orientation and therefore discrimination. This analogy opened my eyes to how related this issue is to the civil rights movement from the 1960’s. Before the same restaurants would have African-American’s eat out back, offer shorted menus, or not allowed in the establishment at all. The court references Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States a few times throughout the opinion.

From Paragraph 39: “If a commercial photography business wishes to offer its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, it will be subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA. If a commercial photography business believes that the NMHRA stifles its creativity, it can remain in business, but it can cease to offer its services to the public at large.”

These two sentences sum up the choice any entity has if they offer their goods or services to the public in New Mexico (and other states that have similar acts). If a company offers goods or services to the public the full menu must be offered to protected classes, including those with same sex sexual orientation.

The court goes into long detail showing that requiring Elane photography to accept same sex weddings isn’t a violation of the first amendment. It is not forced speech, it is not a violation of their freedom of religion. The conclusion really drives it home with a well thought out

From Justice Bosson, paragraph 86: “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 — in Loving the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination — then there must be some accommodation”

From Justice Bosson paragraph 92: “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.”

I could not agree more.

References

Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 309 P. 3d 53 – NM: Supreme Court 2013

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order Instantly!

%d bloggers like this: