{"id":585,"date":"2013-08-22T21:06:00","date_gmt":"2013-08-22T21:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=585"},"modified":"2023-12-21T17:16:53","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T17:16:53","slug":"photography-business-cannot-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2013\/08\/22\/photography-business-cannot-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples\/","title":{"rendered":"Photography business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has held that\u00a0the state public accommodations law applies to a photography business that offers its services to the public. Because that law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the business could not lawfully refuse to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony because of the owner’s religious beliefs.\u00a0Elane Photography v Willock<\/a>, \u2014 P.3d \u2014 (N.M. 2013).\u00a0The state public accommodations law does not violate the owner’s free speech rights since professions involving creativity or expression are not exempt from those laws. The court explained that “Elane Photography\u00a0believes that because it is a photography business,\u00a0it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that\u00a0because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though\u00a0those services include artistic and creative work. Nor did the owner’s religious beliefs offer a reason to engage in discriminatory conduct. “Under established law, the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes),\u201d the court explained, citing Emp\u2019t Div., Dep\u2019t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990) .<\/p>\n\n\n

Antidiscrimination Law<\/a>, <\/span>Consumer Protection<\/a>, <\/span>Religious Freedom<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has held that\u00a0the state public accommodations law applies to a photography business that offers its services to the public. Because that law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the business could not lawfully refuse to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony because of the owner’s religious beliefs.\u00a0Elane Photography v Willock, \u2014 P.3d \u2014 (N.M. 2013).\u00a0The state public accommodations law does not violate the owner’s free speech rights since professions involving creativity or expression are not exempt from those laws. The court explained that “Elane Photography\u00a0believes that because it is a photography business,\u00a0it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that\u00a0because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though\u00a0those services include artistic and creative work. Nor did the owner’s religious beliefs offer a reason to engage in discriminatory conduct. “Under established law, the right of …<\/p>\n

Photography business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[39,9,54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antidiscrimination-law","category-consumer-protection","category-religious-freedom"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}