Supreme Court Won’t Hear Gay Wedding Photography Case

The Supreme Court announced
this morning it will not be taking up the case of
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock. The case
revolves around a photographer in New Mexico declining to provide
services to a same-sex couple’s wedding. The photographer’s
decision to refuse the couple caused her small business to run
afoul of the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The photographer did
not support gay marriage and argued that forcing her to accept the
couple as clients violated her First Amendment rights.

By refusing to hear the case, the court leaves intact the ruling
by the New Mexico Supreme Court that Elane Photography had violated
the state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to accommodate
the couple. New Mexico has a broad
definition of “public accommodation,” including just about any
establishment that offers goods and services to the public, not
just places like hotels, restaurants and entertainment venues.

The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the case may inspire
more legislation to apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RFRA) to states, as happened
last week in Mississippi. Since I last took note of the
Mississippi law passing, the governor has signed it. There is some

outrage that the law is creating gay segregation in
Mississippi, an argument that is both insulting and inaccurate.
Again, Mississippi’s law mimics federal law in that it requires the
government to prove it has a “compelling interest” in forcing a
resident to have to violate his or her freedom of religious
expression. It doesn’t legalize discrimination against gays. I
would add that Mississippi also currently doesn’t include sexual
orientation in its anti-discrimination laws, so it’s already legal
to deny jobs and services to gays there. (Also, there was that
little thing about racial segregation being mandatory under the
law.)

Previously, I made the case for some heavy duty revisions of

public accommodation laws, because it’s absurd to attempt to
argue that anybody has a “right” to a wedding cake or a wedding
photographer, regardless of the customer’s sexual orientation.