In The New Mexico Supreme Court Elane Photography Llc V: Fill & Download for Free

See, the problems with getting all exercised about something found on a partisan blog are:You never get the full story.You rarely get the true story.You almost always get a biased presentation, the purpose of which is, of course, to get you all exercised. Surprise!Let's go back to the original opinion and see what the court actually said as opposed to what anti-gay blog sites may be writing, The opinion is at:Elane Photography LLC v. Vanessa WillockFrom this we learn:Elane photography declined to photograph the commitment ceremony, later clarified as a wedding of a lesbian couple "Huguenin (told) Willock that Elane Photography photographed only “traditional weddings.” Willock emailed back and asked, “Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?” Huguenin responded, “Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings,” and thanked Willock for her interest."Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. The Commission concluded that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock in violation of Section 28-1-7(F), which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, among other protected classifications. It awarded Willock attorneys’ fees, which Willock later waived. No other monetary or injunctive relief was granted."Note that at this point, Elane Photography was not required to photograph the wedding, nor pay Willock's attorney fees."Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court for a trial de novo pursuant to Section 28-1-13(A). See NMSA 1978, § 39-3-1 (1955) (“All appeals from inferior tribunals to the district courts shall be tried anew in said courts on their merits, as if no trial had been had below, except as otherwise provided by law.”). Elane Photography sought a reversal of the award of attorneys’ fees, a declaratory judgment that it had not discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, and a ruling that its rights had been violated, among other relief. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment for Willock. Elane Photography again appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2012-NMCA-086, ¶ 1, 284P.3d 428."Note that these and the subsequent appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court were possible because legal representation was provided to Elane Photography LLC by the Alliance Defense Fund, since renamed Alliance Defending Freedom, which calls itself "a unique legal ministry that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith." This may have been a mixed blessing, as Mani Cavalieri points out in his answer to this question, their "legal arguments in court were, frankly, childish and naive."The conclusion of the New Mexico Supreme Court in the majority decision was this: "Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation. Enforcing the NMHRA against Elane Photography does not violate the Free Speech or the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment or the NMRFRA. For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in Willock’s favor.As to Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment, the court in its majority decision, lists several pages of arguments and precedents. The following is noteworthy:"Elane Photography has misunderstood this issue. It believes that because it is a photography business, it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work. If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane Photography’s choice of whom to photograph or not. The difference in the present case is that the photographs that are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA are photographs that Elane Photography produces for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation. This determination has no relation to the artistic merit of photographs produced by Elane Photography. If Annie Leibovitz or Peter Lindbergh worked as public accommodations in New Mexico, they would be subject to the provisions of the NMHRA. Unlike the defendants in Hurley or the other cases in which the United States Supreme Court has found compelled-speech violations, Elane Photography sells its expressive services to the public. It may be that Elane Photography expresses its clients’ messages in its photographs, but only because it is hired to do so. The NMHRA requires that Elane Photography perform the same services for a same-sex couple as it would for an opposite-sex couple; the fact that these services require photography stems from the nature of Elane Photography’s chosen line of business."One further point: The question details quote Justice Richard Bosson, who wrote a minority, but concurring decision. They are not quoting the majority decision as I have done above.