New Mexico Wedding Photography Anti-Gay Discrimination Case Now At The Supreme Court

New Mexico Supreme Court

In September we told you the story of a New Mexico photography studio who refused to photograph the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple, claiming that doing so would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

ElanephotographyThe New Mexico Supreme Court originally ruled that Elane Photography was violating the anti-discrimination provisions of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, but Elaine Huguenin and her husband John Huguenin, the couple who owns Elane Photography, have filed a new petition with the argument that the original ruling "will interfere with the expressive activity of photojournalists in general, who engage in the same kind of expression."

Further, the couple claims that not being allowed to turn away a gay couple and having to pose, edit, and present a story through photographs of a homosexual couple that wished to pay for their services would be a form of compelled speech which would be in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.


  1. Tim says

    Oh! Now they’re “photojournalists,” not merely “wedding photographers,” and can cloak themselves in the First Amendment appropriation of “Freedom of the Press.” Yep, they are good, upstanding, lying homophobic Christians who want the legal ability to discriminate.

  2. Mike Ryan says

    Then they should be refused the right to do business, have their business license revoked and any further livelihood derived from their business curtailed. If you are going to do business with the general public then you are going to serve the entire general public. You cannot ‘pick and choose’ based upon your personal religious beliefs. (Somebody slap this couple upside the head.)

  3. Pete N SFO says

    Swap ‘gay’ for any other minority group and the absurdity of their position becomes so obvious it’s laughable.

    They must have some pretty amazing lawyers working on this for it to go this far.

  4. David in the O.C. says

    “will interfere with the expressive activity of photojournalists in general, who engage in the same kind of expression.”

    Actual photojournalists are professionals, and would do the job they were hired to do.

    I also don’t recall the Bible passage that talks about photographers not taking pictures at a commitment ceremony.

  5. Steve says

    Anthony Scalia to the rescue:

    “To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is “compelling” — permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, “to become a law unto himself,” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. at 167 — contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”

  6. scott says

    Ughhh…. I totally agree with the proposition that if you’re going to serve the public, you have to serve the entire public, not just people whom you like. That said, WHY did this couple have to sue them?!

    This has been bad PR from the get-go for our side. And yes, I know if it wasn’t this, it’d be something else, but still, the religious right-wingers have used this as scare-tactic to get straight-people to be worried about what could happen- and it does work! Now, if they had been a bakery, or a grocery store, or even just a community hall unwilling to let out their place to a gay couple- those would be great cases, cuz thats just either creating aproduct and giving it to someone, where they don’t even have to see the wedding, or like a hall rental, where the product/service is already created, and they don’t have to witness the “awful, sinful” ceremony.

    With this case, they do. Just wish they had boycotted them, and let their dumbasses be driven into bankruptcy or changed their minds. Optics are important.

  7. Stephen says

    He is a closeted queen and married because god says he must marry a woman and procreate and all than bull sh**. HE is SO afraid of homosexuality, because he is in fact gay.

  8. Burt says

    I don’t understand something the aggrieved couple who were discriminated against lawyers, or filthy rich? In any event, what does this do, other than prove a point, at likely great expense to themselves?
    Surely there are other wedding photographers in Albuquerque who are just as competent, if not more so, then these clowns. Seems to me that the negative newspaper publicity would be enough (and a heck of a lot cheaper).
    Supposing that the couple were compelled by court ruling to not discriminate based on sexual orientation…would YOU want them at your wedding? I think not..

  9. m says

    doesn’t this fall under the category of personal services? if a particular photographer’s work can be considered unique in that way i don’t think you can force them to agree to accept work from anyone if they don’t want to. so the first amendment defense seems to be overkill. and the other thing is do you really want to force someone to take pictures of your special day if they wont put their best effort behind the work? you can hire the most talented person but you can’t make them care about what they’re doing. i have to wonder if there weren’t equally if not more talented photographers who would have been happy to accept the work. sometimes its just a common sense thing. yeah it might suck to be rejected. but they would have done a bad job anyway. sometimes it just isn’t about dragging everyone to court.

  10. Michael says

    I can’t believe there are some people arguing they shouldn’t have been dragged into court. It’s like telling a black person back in the days, “Hey, why are you so upset you have to sit at the back of the bus? I’m sure the next bus will let you sit wherever you want.”

  11. Mike says

    Love the photograph of Mrs.(Bigoted and Controlling) Church Evangelist and Mr. “I have a little beard so NO one will know.” super GAY FACE. Guess that sometimes you CAN tell a book by its cover! Thanks for the good laugh . . .

  12. Gigi says

    Did they also refuse to shoot weddings of gluttonous or divorced people? What about weddings where there’d be alcohol served?
    Lev 19:27 “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” They must have refused to shoot weddings with grooms with shaved heads, right?

    The anti-discrimination laws in states like New Mexico protect us all. We cannot allow people with “deeply held religious beliefs” to pick & choose who them deem worthy of their time.

  13. voice says

    I still say they should be allowed to say no as a business owner…HOWEVER if they are going to claim religious beliefs as their motivation they should be required by law to state this in every advertising, marketing, and placed in their shop in the windows that they do not cater to gays and lesbians. Then let the market do the rest.

  14. oncemorewithfeeling says

    It’s more than a little strange that there are people who saying that the couple that experienced discrimination were wrong to take action against a business that discriminates. Has the Repulican dumbing-down of the US been so successful that people don’t even understand how fighting discrimination works? That’s scary.

  15. m says


    these photographers are idiots. do you want to trust morons with memories of wedding? because what remedy would you want here? yeah you can make an example of them. will that boost their iq or make them more open minded? probably not. you can also have the best doctor in the world but if for some reason they don’t like you can you expect the best outcome? would you put your life in their hands? what’s more important? getting the best and most talented who are willing and able to help or suing a hack or a jerk because you can?

  16. m says


    sometimes it seems to be a knee jerk reaction to use the courts to solve problems. it might not be the best or only option. it makes sense in the case of prop 8. and for marriage equality. of course. then its about legal rights. hiring an individual for a personal service is more like dating. maybe you hit it off maybe you don’t but if the person you’re after doesn’t agree do you sue them?

  17. jeff says

    I can hear the question of the court now: “Do you make similar judgements of the way your other potential clients live their lives?” Do you beat your fiancé? Do you drink or take drugs? Do you love Jesus? ” If you don’t, then why are you making this kind of judgement of this couple. OH, thats right, it ALL comes down to them being gay. Which is the definition of discrimination.

  18. says

    For those saying, Why would any gay couple want to give these people business? Well, now, because of the attention on this couple for violating NM state law, gay couples and straight couples who prefer to avoid doing business with bigots will know where not to go.

    Unless violators of non-discrimination laws are exposed, people will continue to approach them in good faith expecting respect. Potential consumers have a right to know a public business’s true colors–and whether they violate the law. Otherwise why bother having such laws? (It would be no different if a religious couple were the one discriminated against. The law protects them too.)

    They should have used their first amendment rights to advertise to their preferred clients (i.e. straight Christians) and thereby warn others. They’d have, in a perfectly legal way, saved themselves and their business a old of trouble. They were stupid.

    P.S. Wedding photography is a business. It is not photojournalism, however much they’d now like to pretend it is.

  19. e.c. says

    People, do we have to go over the same points every time? Our community fought hard for anti-discrimination laws so we didn’t t have to “go somewhere else”, because there isn’t always another option. And as is always the case their deeply held beliefs begin and end with discriminating against gays. If you provide a PUBLIC service you need to serve the ENTIRE public.

    Of at least have the good sense to tell them you were overbooked and not just come out and say, hey I’m discriminating against you.

  20. SalvadorDemilo says

    @ M, “what’s more important? getting the best and most talented who are willing and able to help or suing a hack or a jerk because you can?”

    You’re presenting a false dilemma that others here are as well. Maybe you and others don’t realize that suing these photographers doesn’t imply that the couple still wants them to photograph their wedding. They can sue and STILL find someone else to actually photograph their wedding. YAY

  21. I wont grow up says

    Are they stupid for turning away business in this awful economy? Yes. Are they wrong for letting their beliefs effect their livelihood? Probably. But…I have to ask myself, would it be ok for an atheist photographer to refuse to photograph a Christian wedding or the reverse. Would it be ok for a gay photographer to refuse to photograph a straight wedding. It’s a judgement call as to whether they area public accommodation or not. We live in a litigious society and this is an example. The couple in question should have just found another photographer and let the public decide whether their business succeeds or fails. Just a passing thought.

  22. m says


    maybe i set it up the wrong way, i didn’t mean to make it and either / or. or to say that we don’t have the right to go after someone who wronged us. i was trying to say that we have a choice. and i wonder that if a lot of cases go through the will it weaken our cause and end up seeming frivolous to everyone else. my fear is even our ally’s will tire and lose interest. but spreading the word about what a-holes these photographers are might have been less costly and more effective than running it through the courts. i guess my point got lost. yeah its insulting to be turned away but my wedding is more important than some crazy a-hole’s beliefs.

  23. jamal49 says

    @PETE N SFO They do have good lawyers, funded by The Liberty Counsel and other right-wing legal groups who see an opportunity to use the courts to carve out a “religious exemption” precedent for businesses and other institutions who want to legally-discriminate against LGBT customers. They also are using this case and other lawsuits they have instigated to work their way up through the federal court system (mostly center to center-right jurists) to reach the Supreme Court in the hope of overturning states’ civil equality laws.

  24. says

    @IWon’tGrowUp: In the other examples you give, no, it would not be ok in states that have non-discrimination laws.

    If the case goes ahead it will hinge on whether their business is considered a public accommodation like any other business or special “photojournalism” (that’s the only argument they’ve got). So far, the NM Human Rights Commission, which investigated the case, the NM Court of Appeals, and the NM Supreme Court have all said that it’s a business, period. In the official judgments so far, they’ve lost lost lost.

    As for living in a litigious society, who brought this case on? Business owners who ignore state laws. They could have apologized, mended their ways, and moved on–they chose to fight for their right to discriminate. They could have advertised their business clearly or have obeyed state law. It was the bigots’ choice to take this to Court.

  25. crazycorgi says

    I call bullsh*t on their alleged “religious” beliefs and am just going to call them what they are . . . Homophobic bigots. I say that the supreme court should look into just how dedicated their church attendance has been over the years and then find them guilty. It seems that every time any anti-gay business is taken to court they say that refusing business to the gay couple is because homosexuality is against their religious convictions. I’m betting none of them even go to church. They just want to wrap their bigotry in the bible.

  26. sjaeger says

    This is what I added to the muslim attack in Nebraska: Instead of religious exemptions why not add hate crimes with religion underpinnings what would double the hate crime sentencing automatically. Include in this, the ones who refuse service because of religion (the photographers, florists, bakeries) because they can’t get away with it refusing service to Jews or Muslims just gays. Though personally I won’t have anything to do with a racist or religious business. I’d leave but point them out in BBB, YELP, etc so it will hurt them in the best of places, their pocket books.
    For this case also, they should be fined for breaking anti-discrimination law which was previously in place and applies to all businesses. There should be a qualifier which doubles the business fine when religion is involved. They cannot get away with discriminating against race, creed, sexual orientation so if they say it’s against their religion, double the fine. Why not also have a sign posted in the window that they have been fined for these things kind of like a restaurant rating. Since companies are people according to the SCOTUS make them wear a D for discrimination (a la Hester Prynne).

  27. Chris says

    I am probably going to get slammed for this, but as someone who actually works as a photographer/web designer. I have faced the same situation. I relocated to a small town and was asked to do a web page for a local church’s charity, it was a small job, I did it and moved on. Then they approached me for a redesign of their main site, complete with photographs of the church etc.
    I did a little research before quoting a price, and discovered that they were very politically active both anti equality and promoting ex-gay quackery.
    Should I have been forced to do the job? In my case, simply telling them I was gay was enough to get them to withdraw the offer, but if they had still wanted to hire me, by these standards I could have been sued if I refused.

    There is a difference between a baker, who produces the same cake regardless of the couple, and a photographer or designer who is creating something unique to the couple. A photographer is with the couple for anywhere from 5 to 12 hours that day, and I don’t see how forcing anyone to take a job has anything to do with equality, for the most part creative professionals turn down jobs for any number of reasons. Usually they are simply savvy enough to just say they are booked that day,

  28. Nick says

    Well, I’ve got to say it would violate my personal religious beliefs to stop and help someone trapped in a car engulfed in flames if I saw a Christfish or other indications of a hate-cult on said car.

    It works both ways.

  29. says

    The only reason this particular case has gone this far is because it’s backed by professional opponents of LGBT equality. Having no legs with PA laws as ‘photographers’ they changed their business label to ‘photojournalists’ so as to try and claim ‘freedom of the press’. Pretty sure NM SC will see through that in analysis.

    Attempts to include ‘personal’ religious liberty in PA laws is the current attack strategy of those organized in opposition to LGBT equality. As in Hawaii the main target of those in opposition to equality (which Rep Jo Jordan sided with) was to bargain for broadened personal exemptions to public accommodation laws. Same exact argument used by Dan Coats in the Senate against ENDA.

    Testimony from Justice Levinson explaining SCOTUS ruling (@Steve provided) that personal conscience objections were unconstitutional was deliberately disregarded by the leading opponents of Hawaii SB1 (Har, Fale, McDermott, & Ward) as they offered multiple amendments attempting to do just that while at the same time claiming the law as written would be a lawyers delight. Lots of disconnect in that chamber.

    Their total disregard for understanding the damage not only to LGBT but to society at large for allowing ‘personal conscience’ to be a criterion for legal discrimination in the civic sphere was appalling.

  30. northalabma says

    photographing gay couples in no way prevents them from continuing to believe whatever they want, or even stating those beliefs when they want.

    the anti-discrimination law does, however, prevent businesses from picking and choosing which of the public to serve based on those same beliefs.

    if that law wasn’t in place, we’d start seeing “straights only” signs, reminiscent of the “whites only” signs before the passage of the civil rights act. this has already been litigated, and won. we will win this time, too.

  31. alex says

    @Chris: Most people on here seem to think the world is black and white. Your comment illustrates the fact that this is a complex issue. Laws often have unforeseen consequences. If no businesses can say “no”, gay owned/operated businesses could be forced to work for evil entities like the Westboro Baptist Church.

  32. MrRoboto says

    The naivete here is sickening. @Chris, yes if you refused to do the church’s redesign job based on their religious beliefs and anti-gay political activity AFTER providing them with a price for your services and they accepted that price, you could and should have been sued. Discrimination in public accommodations services, and your job is precisely that, is still discrimination. That they decided to decline your services after you revealed your sexuality to them was a lucky break for you.

    @Alex, you don’t think gay owned/operated businesses have had to provide public accommodations for the Westboro Baptist loonies? They travel all over the place. Do you think they sleep in their cars? Do you think they pack their lunches? Do you think they fill their gas tanks at WBC-sanctioned gas stations throughout the country? No, they stay at hotels potentially owned and/or operated by gay people. They eat at restaurants, fill their gas tanks, etc at businesses that gay people either own or work at. It is discriminatory and against the law to provide them with any less public accommodation service that we would provide to any other paying customer.

    Here’s a little hypothetical that I’ve brought up before. Because ENDA protects ALL sexual orientations (it’s not just a gay rights law), I wish that for one day, just to prove the point, EVERY business owned by someone who is LGBT would fire, en masse, every straight employee and cite their orientation. There’d be a helluva lot of straight folks out of work. And it would prove the point that anti-discrimination laws are there to protect EVERYONE, not just those most commonly discriminated against.

  33. says

    @Chris, what you did was both appropriate and legal. You explained where you were coming from and they went elsewhere. Perfectly legitimate.

    Religious business owners could do the same thing but, typically, in cases like this they arrogantly assume they are above the law. (As a side note, you discovered your clients were anti-gay, but the gay clients weren’t necessarily anti-Christian.)

    It’s ok to tell a client what your personal values are and let them find someone more appropriate; that’s different than turning someone away because they belong to a particular group you don’t like. If you refused to work with any person who outed themselves as religious that would be an equivalent situation.

  34. Palmer Scott says

    @Chris & @Alex, Sorry, but if you want a PUBLIC business you serve the ENTIRE public, even people you hate, to the best of your abilities, no exceptions for you, no exceptions for them!

  35. john patrick says

    When they lose this battle, they will go back to the Court with the argument that they are “artists”? Or will they claim that the judges are “activist” judges?

  36. m says

    i’m wondering about the term public business and how that is being defined. i can’t help but think of a public business as listed on a stock exchange where the general public can buy, sell, or hold shares of stock. a private business would be owned by individuals or a group of private investors, the company is not listed on a stock exchange, and the general public can’t buy, sell, or hold shares. larger public business are subject to more scrutiny. smaller, privately held businesses like this one with two owners are usually not held to the same standard. and since the potential customer wasn’t the state of new mexico or the us government where public funds were being used i don’t see how they can be more than fined. you can’t legislate intelligence or decency and you can’t force someone to use their personal talents.

  37. Jim says

    Any lawyer who could seriously compare wedding photography with photojournalism is a clunker. This guy knows he’s got nary a legal leg to stand on. Scalia’s own 1990 majority ruling in Employment Division v Smith cancels the baloney claim of priority of religious belief over law. So now it’s freedom of the press? That’s an absurdity the court will dismiss without a second thought. This is what happens when fundie wackadoodles use the services of lawyers who think like the hacks at Falwell’s Liberty U school of law or Pat Robertson’s Regent U school of law. You need real lawyers who’ve got real law educations if you want to prevail at the Supreme Court. I doubt the court will even take the case since the law is settled and there’s no undecided legal question involved, just sore losers licking their wounds.

  38. woody says

    Well, why did the Supreme Court agree to take this case? They obviously want to rule on it.
    That either means that some justices feel their appeal has merit or that they want to put these challenges to public accommodations laws that are so much part of NOM’s rhetoric and anti gay marriage TV commercials to rest.
    Their lawyers seem to know that they’ll lose if they clearly base their arguments on objections to public accommodations laws, so they’ve chosen to go the free speech/photojournalism route.
    The court has, in the past, interpreted free speech very broadly. There is a lot that they’ve considered “speech.” But were they to agree with this couple’s lawyers that wedding photography is journalism they would be making a mockery of public accommodations laws. That would throw a wrench in a lot of existing state laws. I have to think they would refrain from doing that.

  39. Mary says

    Is it possible that what this couple really fears is that if they were to photograph a gay wedding they’d eventually become pro-equality themselves? Very often seeing something in person makes you realize that the demons you’ve conjured up were all in your mind. Not sure these two should be called “haters.”

    On another note, I am having second thoughts about whether exemptions should be allowed for religious freedom solely because this will make equality palatable to more people in the short run. People can’t use religion as an excuse to avoid obeying every law they disagree with. And plenty of other religions exist besides Judeo-Christian ones, so the possibility for litigation due to religion is endless. At some point Christians will have to accept that those who go into “public accommodations” fields will need to treat gay couples equally. Times change and culture change, and business owners have to adjust. Going into another line of work may be hard for this couple, but that is no less hard than the many things gay people have had to endure for …..well, since forever!

  40. Love It says

    Personally, I would have told them to have a blessed day and took my business somewhere else. I don’t want someone taking photos of my event who doesn’t even respect me.

  41. Bob says

    Just wonder what the outporing would be if I opened a restaurant and put a sign on the door: “Christians not welcome”. Big stink I bet. But I wouldn’t do it. I don’t beleive in discrimination.

  42. says

    @M: The term “public accommodations” has nothing to do with whether a business is listed on the stock exchange; the term generally includes any business or building open to the public. Even if a business is small and privately owned, if it’s open to the public it falls under the term public accommodations and is subject to any applicable laws.

    In the case of the NM photographers, the NM Human Rights Commission, the NM Court of Appeals, and the NM Supreme Court have all ruled that the business is a public accommodation (not some kind of private photojournalism project), so they certainly can be held accountable and have been. Their continuing attempts to ignore the law have all been unsuccessful so far.

  43. Fenrox says

    To the people who think these things are “bad for our community”, what would be really bad for our community would be for random jerks like these two, purposely flouting laws just to isolate us, and getting away with it. What exactly is the option you want? To just allow any bigot to remove the rights of any gay person? We set up consequences we have to enforce them. The world is changing, there are no other options.

  44. says

    You gotta love how people only suddenly become “devout Christians” when they need an excuse to hate gay people.

    Non-Christians? Christians of a different denomination? Would they oppose taking photographs of Sarah Palin’s two illegitimate b@stard grandchildren, since they’re not part of what makes a Traditional Bible-based Family? How about an interfaith marriage? How about a non-religious marriage? How about a marriage between divorcees?

    No no no no no no no.
    All that would be fine. They’re only Christians when they want to hate on the gays.

  45. Dana says

    The court hasn’t taken the case yet. Even if it does, the court will likely rule that the claimant has the right to engage in art, as she chooses, as long as she doesn’t charge for it and if it’s her form of story telling then she doesn’t have to engage in commerce. No one is compelling her speech… they’re regulating commerce.

  46. Michael says

    Why couldn’t black folk eat at any lunch counter or restaurant, if they so choose? Why THIS lunch counter, why THIS school, why THIS bus? Well, it was simple – the larger society was basically and no doubt saying that Black Folk are un-worthy! That they SHOULD be discriminated against, that they should KNOW THEIR PLACE as a third class citizens, having no rights to be respected by anyone! That is the basic non-sugar coated definition of prejudice, racism and discrimination. And that is why there was a very long Civil Rights Struggle, and the struggle continues.

    Why should gay folk stand against discrimination? To do otherwise, would mean surrendering to the idea that gay folk are themselves less than worthy of the rights that everyone else enjoys. It IS really that simple. Such discrimminatory ideas clearly have to be rejected in all of its forms, and there are plenty of forms! To be religious about, the Devil is in the details.

    Some folks want to look for context, or sub-text, or ways to find accommodations, or to not ruffle the feathers. Some folks forget their history, or think that learning from the past is not relevant. The “religious freedom” argument of the photographers has been used before by persons who discrimminated against Black folk. It was ground-less then, as well as now. Do not be fooled, those who want to discrimminate will try to use every trick that they can. Those who believe that they have held the advantage for so long, do not give up so easily.

  47. DemRascals says

    I am tired of having to leave my rights at the door when going to work. How free are we? I think companies should HAVE to provide those rights to us. That means freedom of speech, religion, etc. If I do not believe in something, what freedom is there in forcing me to do something?

  48. brent says

    Do liberals have any idea what can of worms they have opened? About 2 years ago a hair stylist in New Mexico refused service to the governor because she was opposed to gay marriage. Does this ruling mean that the hair stylist could be forced to cut the governors hair? The stylists name was Antonio Darden

  49. says

    What are the updates of this case? Well, there are really people who can be judgemental but everyone has the right to be photographed whether they are lesbians or gays and be it their wedding or whatever. It’s sad to know that they were refused by some people.

  50. contitutionalist says

    It is appalling to me that people think they have a right to another persons services. We live in a country that is supposed to protect us from force or coercion. I cant belive that people think the constitution allows them the right to force somone to do something for them. You do not have the right to never be offended but you do have the right to refuse to do something that offends you. You can not force somone to do somthing they dont want to do. Unfortunately our government is so messed up that they think they are there to force people to do what they dont want to do. I dont care why these photographers didnt want to photograph that wedding. They have every right to decline. What if it was a porn studio asking them to take pornographic photos? Can we still not refuse? Liberty is about freedom of choice, not force. No one has a right to your services, even if the government requires you to have a business license… and gay people should be able to get married just like straight people… without government involvement! If we would just stop requiring marriage licenses then we would eliminate much of this whole problem. I wish people would quit asking for more freedom but then try and take freedom from others.

  51. Chris says

    Interesting reading these comments – has the hint of nazism to me – you accept who we want you to accept and you are not allowed any different opinion or you will be punished. The next thing that you’ll hear from these folks posting will be – put a designating mark on ALL of the christians, jews and muslims who dont agree with homosexuality and then shut their businesses down, remove them from society and put them in confined areas and then finally get rid of them. Shame on ALL of you for your anti free attitudes! You are all helping to usher in the new USA – no freedoms.

  52. says

    Some of the wedding photographer can refuse clients who come. The lesbian couple may offer a fantastic price. However, the photographer can reject for any reason. The client must be able to receive the photographer’s decision with wisely.

  53. Thrawn says

    To be clear, the photographer didn’t refuse service because the clients were lesbian. As she made clear, she would have been happy to provide either or both of them with services that didn’t involve their relationship. She didn’t object to the people – just the event.

    Her wedding photography involves not just taking pictures, but also editing and arranging them to tell a story. And celebrating a same-gender union is a story that runs contrary to her beliefs. She doesn’t hate those involved, but she doesn’t agree with their choices, and doesn’t want to be compelled to promote those choices through her art.

    I think a key point of disagreement is that from the point of view of the lesbian couple, the service they’re asking for is exactly the same as what she would provide to a heterosexual couple. But to the Huguenins, it is not the same service, not at all. So there is conflict.

Leave A Reply