It will be interesting. She does appear to "get artistic" but it looks like she also does the traditional photos. Her problem is going to be that it is the business that is denying service, not her personally, so her First Amendment rights don't really come into play.
Since she is a sole proprietor, distinguishing her from her business is pretty hard to do. A person doesn't give up their First Amendment rights by purchasing a business license.
It further hurts her that she lists "wedding photography" as a service offered.
And what she was asked to photograph in this case wasn't a wedding. IIRC, her state doesn't allow same-sex couples to marry. In any case, the stories say it was a commitment ceremony, not a wedding, that she refused to photograph.
Isn't it ironic that a state commission could penalize her for making a distinction in her business that the state makes in its laws?
The state of New Mexico is allowed to discriminate against gays, but a freelance photographer in New Mexico is not?
In many ways it is the same as the First Amendment right to evangelize (regardless of the religion) can be denied by employers.
There is one big difference. An employee can decide not to work for a particular employer if the employee doesn't like the employer's workplace rules.
It will be interesting to see how the various courts (as I assume any result will be appealed) rule.
The commission's decision has already been appealed to the courts. I would guess that the defendant will appeal until she wins - all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary, but I doubt the commission will take the appeals that far. If a state court decides against the commission (which I think is likely) the case will probably end there.
Upvote
0