Wedding Photography And The Law: Gay Marriage Edition

The question of whether or not a photographer can be sued for refusing to work a gay wedding has been the subject of much debate in recent years, with some arguing that it violates their freedom of speech and religion, and others arguing that refusing service to the LGBT community is a form of discrimination. In 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photography studio could be held liable under the state's anti-discrimination laws for refusing to provide service to a same-sex couple. This decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case. As a result, photographers and other wedding vendors can be sued and face legal consequences, such as fines or jail time, for refusing to work with same-sex couples. However, there are still differing opinions on this issue, with some states having laws that protect religious freedom and allow service providers to refuse participation in events that violate their religious beliefs.

Religious freedom vs anti-discrimination laws

The question of whether a photographer can be sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding is a contentious issue that pits religious freedom against anti-discrimination laws. On the one hand, religious freedom is a fundamental right that allows individuals to live and work according to their beliefs. On the other hand, anti-discrimination laws aim to protect individuals from unfair treatment based on characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In the case of Elane Photography v. Willock, a New Mexico photographer, Elane Photography, was sued for refusing to work at a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006. The photographer argued that shooting the ceremony would violate their Christian beliefs. However, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the photographer, stating that businesses offering services for profit cannot choose whom to serve. This decision was upheld by the US Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case.

This case highlights the complex interplay between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. While the photographer's religious beliefs were considered, the court ultimately sided with the anti-discrimination laws, ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services regardless of sexual orientation.

Some people argue that artists, including photographers, should have the freedom to choose whom to serve without being compelled by the government to express ideas and messages that conflict with their beliefs. In contrast, others believe that once a business offers services to the public, it must adhere to anti-discrimination laws and cannot selectively deny services based on protected characteristics such as sexual orientation.

The debate surrounding religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws extends beyond photography and has implications for various professions, including bakers, florists, and printers. It raises questions about the boundaries of religious freedom and the role of the government in protecting individuals from discrimination. While some argue for exemptions based on religious beliefs, others emphasize the need for equal treatment and non-discrimination in public accommodations.

Ultimately, the tension between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws persists, and it is a delicate balance that varies across states and countries. While some states have enacted religious freedom laws that allow service providers to refuse participation in events that violate their religious beliefs, anti-discrimination laws aim to protect individuals from unfair treatment. Navigating this complex landscape requires a careful consideration of individual rights, religious freedom, and the need for an inclusive society.

Freedom of speech

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression, which extends beyond words to encompass various forms of communication, including photography. Wedding photographers, like other artists, use their creative skills and artistic judgment to capture and convey the emotions and messages of the wedding day. As such, compelling a photographer to work against their conscience and express ideas that violate their religious beliefs can be seen as a serious infringement on their freedom of speech.

On the other hand, anti-discrimination laws are designed to protect individuals from being denied access to goods and services based on characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. In the context of wedding photography, refusing to serve a same-sex couple could be seen as discriminatory and a violation of their rights to equal treatment under the law. The New Mexico Supreme Court, in the Elane Photography case, ruled that refusing to photograph a same-sex couple was no different from refusing to photograph an interracial couple, emphasizing the state's compelling interest in ensuring equal access regardless of sexual orientation.

The tension between freedom of speech and anti-discrimination laws presents a challenging situation. While photographers should have the freedom to express their artistic vision and decline work that conflicts with their beliefs, anti-discrimination laws aim to prevent individuals from being denied services based on protected characteristics. The question then becomes: whose rights take precedence? Is it the photographer's right to freedom of speech and religious expression, or the couple's right to equal treatment and access to services?

Ultimately, the courts will have to balance these competing interests and decide on a case-by-case basis. While there may be no easy answer, it is essential to recognize the importance of both freedom of speech and anti-discrimination laws in a free and just society.

First Amendment rights

The First Amendment guarantees more than the freedom to speak. It also protects the freedom not to speak—a right that was denied to Elaine Huguenin, a photographer who, along with her husband, refused to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the Huguenins could be held liable under the state's anti-discrimination laws for refusing to provide service to a same-sex couple. The court's five justices were unanimous in their ruling, upholding a 2012 decision by the State Court of Appeals.

The Huguenins' lawyer, Jordan W. Lorence, argued that "America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs and not to be compelled by the government to express ideas and messages they decline to support." However, the court disagreed, stating that refusing to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony “is no different than refusing to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

This case presents a collision of First Amendment rights and anti-discrimination values. On one hand, the Huguenins argued that photography is a means of artistic expression and, as such, they should be free to decide whom to photograph. On the other hand, anti-discrimination laws protect people from being refused service based on characteristics such as race, religion, colour, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

The interpretation of anti-discrimination laws varies across states and countries. For example, in New Mexico, the Human Rights Act offers equal protection to people regardless of sexual orientation. In contrast, states like Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and South Dakota explicitly permit pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives, which can be considered a form of discrimination against women.

The debate around First Amendment rights and anti-discrimination laws is complex and ongoing. While some argue that businesses should have the freedom to refuse service to anyone, others contend that once a business opens its doors to the public, it cannot selectively choose whom to serve. The impact of these differing interpretations extends beyond wedding photographers and has implications for various industries, including baking, printing, and floristry.

Public accommodation laws

In the case of Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a wedding photographer could be held liable under the state's anti-discrimination laws for refusing to provide service to a same-sex couple. The court's decision was unanimous, with one of the justices, Richard C. Bosson, writing: "At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives, all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others."

The case has sparked debate about the balance between anti-discrimination laws and freedom of religion. Some argue that businesses should have the right to refuse service if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. Others contend that once a business opens its doors to the public, it must adhere to anti-discrimination laws and cannot selectively deny service to customers based on protected characteristics.

The interpretation of public accommodation laws varies across US states, and there is ongoing legal debate about the extent to which these laws apply to businesses, including photographers, who may object to providing services for same-sex weddings on religious grounds.

Photographers' artistic expression

The First Amendment guarantees not only freedom of speech but also the freedom not to speak, which includes the right to decline work that conflicts with one's beliefs. Wedding photography, as a form of artistic expression, falls under this protection, according to some legal experts. They argue that photographers should have the right to refuse work that contradicts their religious or moral convictions without fear of legal repercussions. This perspective recognises the unique and creative nature of photography as an art form, where the photographer's personal style and vision are integral to the final product.

However, others argue that wedding photography, when offered as a commercial service, becomes subject to anti-discrimination laws. In the context of a business transaction, the artistic expression of the photographer takes a back seat to the equal rights of customers to access publicly available goods and services, regardless of their sexual orientation. This view holds that once a photographer offers their services to the public, they are bound by the same rules as any other business and cannot discriminate against potential clients based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

The debate surrounding photographers' artistic expression in the context of gay weddings highlights a complex interplay between freedom of expression and anti-discrimination legislation. While some emphasise the importance of protecting artistic freedom, others prioritise ensuring equal access to services for all, regardless of their identity. Ultimately, the legal system in different states and countries will determine the boundaries of these freedoms and protections, with ongoing court cases shaping the landscape of this contentious issue.

Frequently asked questions