I'm listening to NaturalReader's British virtual voice named "Audrey" read the New Mexico Supreme Court's recent decision in Elane Photography v. Willock, applying the state's Human Rights Act against a wedding photography business that refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Until this morning, I had been somewhat conflicted in my response to this case. I am sympathetic to Elane Photography's arguments that applying the anti-discrimination law to require a photographer to create a positive portrayal of an event she does not view positively violates the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. I also believe that the offended woman that originally filed a complaint under the law was acting like a two year old whose mother refused to buy candy at the supermarket. Why would you want to pay someone who didn't approve of your wedding to take photographs, when there are plenty of people who would provide the service willingly?
I am also supportive of generally applicable anti-discrimination laws, and believe that granting religious exemptions to generally applicable laws often threatens to nullify those laws. The current gaggle of lawsuits against the minimum coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act proves that point: if anyone can feel free to ignore any law you don't agree with, the purpose of the law is frustrated. Drawing the line with respect to religious exemptions is a difficult task for courts, but the line must be drawn somewhere between "no exceptions under any circumstances" and "if you don't agree, fine - never mind." I'm looking forward to the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the conflicting cases on the ACA's contracteptive coverage mandate, because how the Supreme Court draws that line will resolve many of these issues for the generation to come.
Even though I'm sympathetic to both the photographer's right to control the creative process and the State's desire to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, I've finally arrived at the conclusion that the Gospel compels me to take a side. Taking into consideration the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, I find there is no such thing as a Christian option to discriminate in public accommodations. Rather, following Jesus requires us to submit to compelled service without complaint, and to voluntarily exceed what is required of us.
Reconsidered in light of the Sermon on the Mount, I see the photographer's refusal to serve Willock as comparable to the Pharisee's prayer thanking God that he wasn't like that tax collector over there. It's not standing on faith - it's standing on selfishness in the name of faith. So the State of New Mexico has a law that compels businesses offering goods and services to the public (public accommodations) to refrain from discrimination on any number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation. Good for New Mexico. What would Jesus say to a wedding photographer who was forced by the law to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony?
"Did somebody appoint you judge when I wasn't looking? Pull up your big girl pants and get to work! They're paying you - not compelling you to serve them for free. Go make some money...and be sure to give them more than they expect. Love your enemies...do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you. You prayed for me to prosper your business - don't turn up your nose at my answer. You want to complain about it? Where were you when I made the world?"
