“This ruling is more in the spirit of Nero Caesar than in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson,” said Russell D. Moore. “This is damaging not only to the conscience rights of Christians, but to all citizens.”
Moore, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, was responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on a case involving Elane Photography and its owners Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin. According to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Elaine received an email in 2006 asking her to photograph a “commitment ceremony” between Vanessa Willock and her same-sex partner. Willock asked if Elaine would be “open to helping us celebrate our day . . . .” Elaine politely declined to use her artistic talents to express a celebratory message at odds with her deep convictions. (Elaine had previously declined requests from others for things such as nude maternity photos.)
Willock, a licensed attorney who has served in various paid “diversity” positions, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. After a one-day administrative trial in 2008, the commission ruled against the Huguenins and ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees. The case made its way through the state court system, with the New Mexico Supreme Court ultimately affirming the commission’s coercive decision. In an ominous concurring opinion, one justice wrote that the Huguenins “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”
ADF attorneys representing the Huguenins are presenting only one claim to the U.S. Supreme Court—that the punishment of Elane Photography violates the constitutionally protected freedom “not to speak,” known as the compelled speech doctrine.
The government must not be empowered to either censor peaceful speech or force citizens into speaking against their will. The question presented to the Supreme Court reads as follows: “Whether applying a state public-accommodations statute to require a photographer to create expressive images and picture-books conveying messages that conflict with her religious beliefs violates the First Amendment’s ban on compelled speech.”
The commitment ceremony of the two women was filled with expression: the liturgy, the sermon and prayers, the music, the vows, etc. Photography communicates stories and messages through its images. Wedding photography is part of the celebration of the ceremony. Vanessa Willock affirms this, having asked Elaine Huguenin to “celebrate” the event. Wedding photographers have to use the best lighting, choose the right angles, and pose the couple—including instructing them on how to kiss, where to caress, etc.—all for the purpose of communicating through art something of beauty about the momentous event.
Elaine politely declined because she cannot use her artistic expression to celebrate events and communicate ideas about marriage with which she disagrees.
While the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected the Huguenins’ religious free exercise and free speech arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in response to the couple’s free speech claim. Moore, the Southern Baptist Convention’s lead religious freedom advocate, expressed disappointment that the justices did not accept a case that asks “whether the state can pretend to be a god over the conscience.”
“No one is seeking to outlaw photographers from working at same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies,” said Moore. “At issue is whether these persons will be forced by the coercive power of the state to participate in something they believe to be sinful.”
ADF attorneys point out that the central concern in the case—government punishment of Americans for declining to create or promote messages with which they disagree—is alive in other ADF cases moving forward around the country.
“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.”
