Gay Rights Trump 1st Amendment

Yesterday on this blog there was a post entitled Do Photographers Have Constitutional Rights? No, Says New Mexico. The subject was, of course, the New Mexico case where a Christian wedding photographer declined to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony and ended up being ordered by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission to pay more than $7000 in legal fees to the offended couple. 

I was working on writing a post on this subject but was running into problems finding more information.  It seems that outside Christian circles, this story has hardly been reported at all.  The MSM doesn’t appear to believe this story is newsworthy.  Indeed, doing a Google news search for "Elane Photography," "Elaine Huguenin," and "Christian photographer" only turn up three results.  The blogosphere is, however, a different story.  There is no shortage of opinions on the subject

As mentioned in the previous post, Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of  Elane Photography, was charged before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission with discrimination against a lesbian couple for refusing to photograph their commitment ceremony.  Of note in the few pieces I’ve found on this is the fact that Mrs. Huguenin specified in an email to the potential clients why she would not photograph the ceremony.

New Mexico has an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation as one of the categories of individuals that cannot be discriminated against.  The point has been made that had Mrs. Huguenin simply declined the request without giving a reason, she and her company would have been fine.  But because she specified that she was not willing to photograph the ceremony because it was a gay ceremony, she is guilty of discrimination.

In searching for more information on this I ran across a blog called The Pink Flamingo with a post entitled Who is Right and Wrong?  The post was somewhat difficult to follow but I gathered that, a) the author claims to be a Christian, b) the author says he disagrees with the New Mexico law and c) the author deplores Elaine Huguenin because he believes she has violated Christian principles by refusing to photograph the gay ceremony.

The author says:

If I am a Christian, practicing the love of Christ, how do I turn my back on someone who is gay or lesbian and tell them I do not allow them to patronize my business.  If I am a Christian, don’t I try to show the love of Christ?  The love of Christ is – love, kindness, etc. Look at the Fruits of the Spirit:  love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, kindness, self-control.  Is anything on that list that would compel or allow me to refuse to allow a gay or lesbian to patronize my business?

I posted the following comment on that blog:

I have to say that I think your assessment is incorrect. You say she refused to serve a prospective customer because that customer was gay. I submit there is no support for that assertion.

Had the lesbian couple been asking her to photograph something unrelated to homosexuality and she had refused you might have a case. But the fact is, she was refusing to partake in an explicitly gay activity, not merely refusing to serve a gay person. There is a HUGE difference.

As a Christian I would not hesitate to serve a homosexual in the course of business. They are people and I want their business. But if the act of serving them involves anything that actually promotes the homosexual agenda, I will refuse and I firmly believe that is a reasonable Christian response.

The author responded on this blog in the post, Do Photographers Have Constitutional Rights? No, Says New Mexico.  While the response was certainly measured and respectful and in no way confrontational, it also missed the point entirely.  Here is part of that response.

As a Christian, I find Elaine Huguenin’s actions deplorable because as someone who claims to be a Christian and living by the teachings of Christ, she is failing to practice love, kindness, patience, etc. I go back to the story of Zacchias. Christ went to visit with him, and not the ultra religious people. Zacchias was a tax collector (who was far more hated in Roman society than homosexuals are in “Christian” communities today). Christ chose to associate with him other than the “religious leaders” of his country.

The author again missed the point and returned to some mistaken notion of Christian love.  I responded again on his blog:

I think you’ve missed the point. You are ascribing things to Jesus that I think he would find appalling. Yes, he would certainly love the homosexual. But I do not believe for a minute that he would participate in any way in a homosexual union. There is not a single example in scripture of Jesus doing something that actually promoted sinful behavior. And that is precisely what you have advocated.

You say that Huguenin’s actions are deplorable. Were Jesus actions deplorable when he refused to play the games of the Pharisees? Of course not. You act as if Jesus was an anything goes kind of guy and nothing could be farther from the truth! Yes, he loved sinners but he NEVER assisted in sinful behavior and that is what you seem to imply Mrs. Huguenin’s should have done.

Your argument seems to be that Huguenins would be fine if she had simply kept her reason to herself. That was never Jesus’ way. Now if Huguenins was mean spirited in the way she treated the lesbian woman there would be a problem. But nothing in the news accounts indicates that is the case. As far as I can tell she simply stated her reasons. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Jesus certainly was not shy about pointing our sin and Christians shouldn’t be either.

Once again the author responded here.  He said, in part:

The bottom line is Elaine Huguenin broke the law and the person she discriminated against was smart enough to catch her. I don’t like discrimination. A person has the right to refuse service, but not to discriminate against anyone. That’s the law. If Huguenin doesn’t like it, she can move to another state. I also think you will find that most states have laws exactly like this.

There are several fundamental misconceptions in all this.  First, that state laws trump the U.S. Constitution.  The 1st Amendment’s free exercise clause clearly gives Christians the right to practice their faith in any way they see fit.  That would certainly include not participating in activities that Christianity finds repugnant.  It also protects one from being forced to express anything they disagree with.  Being forced to create photographs, an artistic endeavor, would clearly violate the free speech clause.

Second, that religious belief and practice are always subordinate to law.  So I assume that the author would have no problem if the state passed a law requiring all Christian churches to accept gays and lesbians as members of their churches in complete contradiction to scripture.  If they refuse they will be fined.  Not only does that overstep state authority but Christians would be compelled by their faith to refuse to comply with the law.  Does that author have a problem with the fact that the three Hebrews in Daniel refused to worship the golden statue Nebuchadrezzar ordered everyone to worship?  Should those fellows have simply moved if they didn’t like that law?

Third, the author at least implies that all services are equal.  As I pointed out in one response, refusing to serve a gay or lesbian under any circumstances simply because they are gay or lesbian is not equivalent to refusing to participate in an explicitly homosexual ceremony.  They are not the same though the author refuses to acknowledge that fact

Forth, the author labors under the false assumption that Christian love requires us to accept and even participate in any and all aberrant behavior in the name of love.  Nowhere does the Bible teach such a concept!  Many times Jesus confronted the Pharisees because of their unrepentant sinfulness.  When sinners were brought to him or came to him in repentance he accepted them.  When they were unrepentant he was generally rather harsh.  Who would call his clearing the money changers in the Temple a gentle, loving act?  Clearly the author does not understand Christian love or Jesus himself.

Fifth, the author’s notion that discrimination is always bad.  Certainly the word has a largely negative connotation these days because of its association with racism but the fact is, discrimination is often a good thing and indeed, no one could make a single decision in life without it.  Clearly any time anyone makes a moral decision they are practicing discrimination.  When that moral decision involves another person they are discriminating against that person.  I submit that doing so is not a de facto bad thing.

In the end I think Elaine Huguenins did the right thing.  I don’t know what tone she took and it is certainly possible that she acting in an unkind manner.  While that would hardly be Christian, it is still protected by the 1st Amendment, both as freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  I admire Huguenins’ courage.  She took a stand when many, if not most, Christian would not.  She has the courage of her convictions.

Too many people think being a Christian means being some kind of weenie.  I defy anyone to describe Christ as a weenie and neither should we be.