I would like to just say that the commission DID find in favor of Willock. The company DID violate New Mexico law.

As for the “close and personal” friend. I have read the transcript of emails between both parties. Nowhere did Elane offer to help the couple find a more suitable photographer. As a Christian, doesn’t it go against your faith to be a liar? I’m pretty sure it does.

Previously posted were comparisons to other services including emergency room physicians. As John just posted, these are unequal comparisons. As a trauma surgery PA, I can assure you that I have treated more LGBT people than most of you have every met. But remember as mallory said, it is not the people Christians are against, its the choices. Very different and distinct things.

Therefore, I have no trouble treating them as I would treat anyone else, with kindness, compassion, and empathy. If they asked me what I thought of their actions (which some do surprisingly), I take the time to speak with them as long as they wish to listen.

On the other hand though, I would not photograph one of their weddings. These are not the same because there is a difference between past and present. With my trauma patients, they are not actively engaging in outward activities of their lifestyle choice. If they were to ask me to provide them a condom to have safe sex in the hospital, for may reasons I would decline, one of which being my beliefs. There would be no active role for me in their lifestyle choices. On, the other hand wedding photography is, I feel, a much more intimate field, which requires the photographer be an active part in the process. I feel sorry for anyone who had a wedding photographer who didn’t feel intimately involved with the couple, as this is a large reason for her success: She takes every picture as she would want in her wedding. The lawn service in Texas and e-harmony were mentioned. Put those to the past/present test. Lawn service is silly to not service LGBT people. It is providing no direct support of choices. E-harmony is though. Support the people, dislike the choices. (I do not wish to get into a debate on nature vs nurture here either.)

And to the responses that said: “she should have said no thanks, and left it at that”. For one, she never planned on having this conversation. Had she planned on it, your could call her a homophobe. Hindsight is 20/20 my friends. Second, have you ever felt so strongly about your convictions that you would regret not speaking what your know to be truth? Honesty, as they say, is always the best policy; to use an old adage. Would her not stating why have made this all go away? Maybe.

Remember it’s a few isolated cases in America that get laws made. (example: terri schiavo, roe vs wade) How many times do you think those cases occurred prior and after those laws were passed? And yet those people chose to move on and find greener pastures. That alone makes me wonder if they weren’t looking for a fight. But that is merely speculation.

This indeed is a gray area. The need for laws on this matter is a sad case in my humble opinion. But, unfortunately, we don’t all treat each other with respect and decency that every human deserves. I agree that this has been taken too far by the accuser, as many have posted. But, I am grateful that some resolution will come of this one way or another. I have a feeling (unsubstantiated) that is will continue on to higher powers than New Mexico.

All this was to shed some more detailed light on a confusing matter. None of what I have said should be taken and written on stone, but should serve as enlightenment into the minds of one side that seem to have poor representation on this forum. For obviously reasons, they themselves will not engage in these debates.

This complaint is not against an individual, but against a COMPANY.

According to the article the complaint was filed against both the photographer AND her company.

The fact is that the photographer would not provide pricing or availability information due to the fact that the couple is gay. That violates the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.

Actually, it is unclear if what she did is a violation of NM law, that is what the commission is looking into.

2. Once the photographer identified herself as a COMPANY, civil rights are out the window. She CHOSE to do business in New Mexico, therefore she should have educated herself on New Mexico laws before intentially violating that state’s law. New Mexico DOES have a law that protects homosexuals from discrimation. If a company CHOOSES to conduct business in New Mexico then they must abide by New Mexico laws.

3. The photographer could have said, “No thanks” . Even, “I’m washing my hair” would have been an adequate response. The fact is that the photographer would not provide pricing or availability information due to the fact that the couple is gay. That violates the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.

4. Free speech isn’t a viable defense because THE COMPANY wouldn’t be required to upload the photos to the COMPANY website, or display them anywhere. All she would really have to do is provide pricing and availability information to Willock. It’s doubtful that upon meeting Elaine that the lesbian couple would WANT to hire her as a photographer. It’s a matter of discriminatory exclusion, which is ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO