Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NM Photographer’s Appeal

An appeal from a New Mexico photographer sued for refusing to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” will not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Elane Photography appealed to the court after a lower court ruling left Elaine Huguenin with hefty fines for refusing to compromise her religious beliefs.

Recent polling has shown as many as 85% of Americans believe photographers should be free to decline photographing a same-sex wedding.

From Alliance Defending Freedom:

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to hear Elane Photography v. Willock, the case of a photographer who was told by the New Mexico Supreme Court that she must, as “the price of citizenship,” use her creative talents to communicate a message with which she disagrees or suffer punishment.

“Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system.”

Click here to read more.

FRC: Understanding Windsor

Still don’t understand all the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 United States v. Windsor decision? You aren’t alone.

Fortunately, Family Research Council has put together a brief report outlining the Windsor ruling–which struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The report points out:

“Dissenting justices criticized the majority for its attack upon the motives behind the law. Chief Justice Roberts said that the facts are ‘hardly enough to support a conclusion that the ‘principal purpose’ of the 342 Representatives and 85 Senators who voted for it, and the President [Bill Clinton] who signed it, was a bare desire to harm’ … Justice Scalia likewise … explained that to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.”

The report also addresses looming questions for state and federal agencies in the wake of the ruling.

You can read the entire report here.

“Marriage on Trial”

Family Research Council has published a concise fact sheet illustrating the constitutionality of state marriage laws regarding same-sex marriage.

The paper highlights the fact that “no provision of the Constitution makes any reference to marriage,” and examines common arguments, including the argument that laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman “discriminate.”

The paper concludes that state laws defining marriage are constitutional and the issue of marriage “should be decided through the democratic process.”

Click here to read the fact sheet, “Marriage on Trial.”