# Should Christians Be Forced to Photograph Gay Weddings? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847 "2012-06-11T19:50:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/621 "2012-06-16T15:12:37Z")
What’s the distinction between a photographer and a dress store? > [@Iggy](#): > > The question for Johnny Roberts and the Supremes is if Elane Photography has a 1st Amendment right not to be compelled to provide their services if their photography is expressive speech. It’s not clear that that’s the argument she’s made. Anyway, that’s only part of the question. See above. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/622 "2012-06-16T16:02:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What’s the distinction between a photographer and a dress store? > > It’s not clear that that’s the argument she’s made. Anyway, that’s only part of the question. See above. Is the dress store engaging in expressive conduct which is protected as free speech under the First Amendment? Perhaps a dress designer (Vera Wang et al) could argue that there is some particular artistic expression involved in their work? The argument would be that being hired to design a dress is different from selling a dress off a rack. Right? Wrong? It’s up to the courts to decide. Of course it was not First Amendment grounds that SCOTUS relied upon in upholding the Civil Rights Act. They leaned on the Commerce Clause to uphold the authority of Congress to implement the law. The litigants made arguments based upon Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment grounds, but not First. The test cases revolved around [restaurants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung) and [hotels](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/623 "2012-06-16T16:12:14Z")
> [@OldnCrinkly](#): > > I don’t think every, or even many, gay people want to get married as a political statement. That being said, taking a photographer to court to demand their artistic (expressive) services be provided is a political statement. Similarly, refusing to shoot the ceremony is a political statement. Expecting that existing law be enforced is not a political statement. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/624 "2012-06-16T16:57:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Expecting that existing law be enforced is not a political statement. Only inasmuch as accepting illegal discrimination and doing nothing would _also_ have been a political statement for this couple who simply wanted their celebration photographed. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/625 "2012-06-16T16:59:32Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If you want to be picky about what you paint, don’t set yourself up as a business open to the general public. > > For example, I work with concept artists a lot. Each deal is unique. Terms are spelled out in advance, with a statement of the scope of work described in a contract. > > Artists like that don’t have a storefront. They don’t have a sign up in the window saying “Pictures painted! $300!”. You can’t just walk in off the street and buy a standard art package off a list. They’re not a public accommodation. And so, they can pick and choose what they work on for any damn reason they want. (Although, in general, since most of them are professionals, they’ll make a good faith effort to deliver on whatever it is the client wants.) > > Or there’s this guy I know who’s a food photographer. He had a studio in his house and shoots pictures for magazines. He doesn’t advertise to the general public. He just works with a list of clients that he’s built up over the years. No one can force him to come over to their big gay wedding and take pictures. He’s not operating a public accommodation. > > However, if you set yourself up as a service that \*anyone \*can avail themselves of (even if you’re doing something artistic), then you can’t turn around and refuse work from someone who’s a member of a protected class. Well put. This is the part that some folks in this thread just don’t seem to be able to grasp; the distinction between a business that serves the public and a business that does not serve the public, but rather caters to a specific restricted group (eg church congregation) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/626 "2012-06-16T17:07:21Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Of course it was not First Amendment grounds that SCOTUS relied upon in upholding the Civil Rights Act. They leaned on the Commerce Clause to uphold the authority of Congress to implement the law. The litigants made arguments based upon Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment grounds, but not First. The test cases revolved around [restaurants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung) and [hotels](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States). That’s not the point. There is no federal statute at issue here. The question is whether the _state law_ is valid as applied to the photographers. The underlying case was decided under the provisions of the New Mexico constitution. > [@](#): > > Perhaps a dress designer (Vera Wang et al) could argue that there is some particular artistic expression involved in their work? The argument would be that being hired to design a dress is different from selling a dress off a rack. Right? Wrong? It’s up to the courts to decide. In a sense, yes, but this whole artistic expression issue is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/627 "2012-06-16T18:27:51Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Only inasmuch as accepting illegal discrimination and doing nothing would _also_ have been a political statement for this couple who simply wanted their celebration photographed. Well, I hope NM takes a page from its own playbook, since they’ve been rejecting same-sex marriages for the last 5 years (since it’s been at play in NM politics). Or the last 150. Whatever. The OP asked of Christians should be forced to photograph ‘gay weddings’. It wasn’t even a wedding. The state of NM is asking Elane Photography to do what it refuses to do itself, and that, to me, aids in the ‘compelled speech’ argument. That’s why I said the commitment ceremony was in itself political (to the photographer). If there is a government interest in making Elane Photography cater to everyone, then perhaps they should start handing out marriage licenses to same sex couples. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/628 "2012-06-16T18:32:44Z")
New Mexico isn’t forcing anyone to do what it won’t. It isn’t requiring qualified officiants to _perform_ gay weddings. Moreover, the state is itself required to provide accommodation to citizens without regard for sexual orientation, just as it is requiring this business to do. I agree that as a point of logic it makes little sense to deny marriage rights to gay people while granting them protected status in other areas, and more than likely one of its courts will soon apply the relevant provision to fix that. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/629 "2012-06-16T18:35:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not the point. There is no federal statute at issue here. Feel free to read the [NM Constitution](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_II,_New_Mexico_Constitution), then. > [@](#): > > Supreme Law of the Land > > The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. > [@](#): > > Freedom of Speech and Press; Libel > > Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. But to say that New Mexico can circumvent the U.S. Constitution is just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/630 "2012-06-16T18:38:42Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > If there is a government interest in making Elane Photography cater to everyone, then perhaps they should start handing out marriage licenses to same sex couples. Huh? Of course they should. What bearing does that have on enforcing their existing anti-discrimination law? You remain consistent in arguing that New Mexico shouldn’t enforce their anti-discrimination law, and now you’re saying that you hold that position because they don’t yet have marriage equality. So, until a state has marriage equality, they are wrong to provide any protection against discrimination towards LGBT people? Your “argument” (and that term is a very generous one) has descended into flat-out incoherency. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/631 "2012-06-16T18:40:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > New Mexico isn’t forcing anyone to do what it won’t. It isn’t requiring qualified officiants to _perform_ gay weddings. Moreover, the state is itself required to provide accommodation to citizens without regard for sexual orientation, just as it is requiring this business to do. > > I agree that as a point of logic it makes little sense to deny marriage rights to gay people while granting them protected status in other areas, and more than likely one of its courts will soon apply the relevant provision to fix that. But Elane Photography was asked to film a commitment ceremony. One not recognized by the state. And even if it were, you’re still compelling her to speak, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. And businesses do enjoy First Amendment rights, as do photographers. What will happen with the courts as this proceeds remains to be seen, but it’s not inconceivable that it won’t end up before SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/632 "2012-06-16T18:43:28Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Huh? Of course they should. What bearing does that have on enforcing their existing anti-discrimination law? You remain consistent in arguing that New Mexico shouldn’t enforce their anti-discrimination law, and now you’re saying that you hold that position because they don’t yet have marriage equality. So, until a state has marriage equality, they are wrong to provide any protection against discrimination towards LGBT people? > > Your “argument” (and that term is a very generous one) has descended into flat-out incoherency. I’m sorry if you’re failing the comprehension test, **mister nyx**. It would appear this isn’t your thing. The irony aids to my irritation, but again, you seem to be missing the very valid point that _the state of New Mexico has quite possibly violated Elane Photography’s First Amendment rights_. You can’t act an anti-discrimination law that violates the other liberties of citizens without a vested governmental interest. What’s the governmental interest here? Compelling Elane Photography to speak for something that doesn’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/633 "2012-06-16T18:47:05Z")
> [@](#): > > But Elane Photography was asked to film a commitment ceremony. > > One not recognized by the state. > > And even if it were, you’re still compelling her to speak, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. And businesses do enjoy First Amendment rights, as do photographers. What will happen with the courts as this proceeds remains to be seen, but it’s not inconceivable that it won’t end up before SCOTUS. So what? The state doesn’t recognize any commitment ceremony. If you lived in New Mexico and had a commitment ceremony, there would be no formal recognition of _that_, either (I’m assuming you are heterosexual). I agree, as I said above, that this _could_ be deemed “compelled speech”. I don’t agree that it is, for reasons I’ve also outlined in detail above. > [@](#): > > Feel free to read the NM Constitution, then. I did, thanks. I’m fairly certain you have misunderstood both my and Iggy’s posts in the discussion you are quoting from, but out of curiosity, what federal statute do you think New Mexico should be applying that it isn’t? ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/634 "2012-06-16T18:48:17Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > you seem to be missing the very valid point that _the state of New Mexico has quite possibly violated Elane Photography’s First Amendment rights_. Since no one’s come up with a particularly compelling argument for that – and it seems to me it would have come up in the court decision had the photographers’ lawyers thought it to be a plausible argument given that the several states are bound by the U.S. Constitution – I am perfectly happy to ignore your personal, private interpretation of the Constitution. To paraphrase myself from another thread, you’re basically saying, “If only the Constitution said what I wanted it to say, this would be totally unconstitutional!” ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/635 "2012-06-16T18:56:55Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > But Elane Photography was asked to film a commitment ceremony. > > One not recognized by the state. > > And even if it were, you’re still compelling her to speak, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. And businesses do enjoy First Amendment rights, as do photographers. What will happen with the courts as this proceeds remains to be seen, but it’s not inconceivable that it won’t end up before SCOTUS. One more try… Elane Photography was asked to take photographs of an event. They are in the business of taking photographs of events. They advertise this service to the public. “Hey public, we will take pictures of your events for a fee!” This means they are a public accommodation. From here it follows that they are not allowed to deny their public services to someone in a protected class. They denied their services to someone because they were in a protected class. They are therefore in violation of the law. The First Amendment is not applicable here, no matter how much you keep saying it is. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/636 "2012-06-16T19:17:03Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > From here it follows that they are not allowed to deny their public services to someone in a protected class. First - she’s a photography business. Second, Civil Rights law does not say that _every black person must always be served_ or _every female must always be served_. It says you can’t deny them on the account of their sex/race/etc. There’s a fine line there. > [@](#): > > (1) > it is not a “public accommodation,” and (2) it did not make any distinction based on sexual orientation in refusing its services to Willock > > > [@](#): > > While that’s not the most compelling argument (though it was made by Elane Photography)\* the fact that photography has been regarded as speech _is_. Not surprising, it’s also an [argument](http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf) of Elane Photography’s lawyers. They may be Christian and they may vote differently than us, but they aren’t morons. You can object to the morality of the laws or injustice, but that’s not the point here. Whether a higher court will reject a lower court’s opinion is yet to be seen. You can say, “I’m right and you’re wrong, NEENER NEENER!” but the issue is not clear. > [@](#): > > The First Amendment is not applicable here, no matter how much you keep saying it is. That’s your opinion. I disagree. I’m not going to revisit this another 100 times, however. If you’d like to have the last word, go for it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/637 "2012-06-16T19:18:02Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Since no one’s come up with a particularly compelling argument for that – and it seems to me it would have come up in the court decision had the photographers’ lawyers thought it to be a plausible argument given that the several states are bound by the U.S. Constitution – I am perfectly happy to ignore your personal, private interpretation of the Constitution. The defendants’ lawyers _did_ argue it, and it _was_ discussed in [the decision](http://www.volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf): [QUOTE=New Mexico Human Rights Commission] Elane Photography additionally argued that it was exempt from the application of Section 28- l -7(F) ofthe NMHRA to it, because the provisions of First Amendment of the United States Constitution relating to the right to free exercise of religion and speech, a s well as similar provisions of [NM law], took precedence over the NMHRA in this instance. Elane Photography asserted that, in refusing to provide photographic services to Ms. Willock… [it] was acting in a way which was consistent with her religious beliefs and was exercising her right to free exercise of religion and expression under the First Amendment ofthe United States Constitution… and, thus, Elane Photography was exempt from the [NMHRA]. [/QUOTE] \ > [@](#): > > The United States Supreme Court has considered the provisions ofstate antidiscrimination laws similar to the provisions ofNMHRA and concluded that: “Provisions like these are well within the States usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 2346 (1995). The Court has explained that “acts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent.” Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3255 (1984). > [@](#): > > In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise of religion, the United States Supreme Court determined that its “cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 2226 (1993). Cf. Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.1277, 1294 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Neutral rules of general applicability ordinarily do not raise free exercise concerns even if they incidentally burden a particular religious practice or belief.”). The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that “the right to free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’” Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). > [@](#): > > To the extent that Elane Photography’s arguments in this proceeding sought to raise questions as to the constitutionality ofthe NMHRA or questions as to an automatic preemption of the NMHRA by the United States Constitution, the New Mexico Constitution or the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act, those questions are not before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for determination in this proceeding and, accordingly, are not addressed here. By way of explanation, this was an administrative proceeding, not a judicial one (administrative tribunals are part of the executive, not the judiciary). Administrative courts generally do not have jurisdiction to consider constitutional questions, where state or federal. In other words, this court doesn’t have the authority to strike down laws on constitutional grounds, so it doesn’t need to consider them, other than for purposes of the record. Their decisions are reviewed on appeal by state appellate courts (or, less commonly, state trial courts). Constitutional issues raised in the underlying proceeding are considered there, if appropriate. The court did address the SCOTUS holdings I discussed before, that this law is of general applicability and justified by a compelling state interest. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/638 "2012-06-16T19:19:11Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > But Elane Photography was asked to film a commitment ceremony. > > One not recognized by the state. And New Mexico should recognize same-sex marriage. So should every state. That’s not relevant to the issue, though. The issue is that the business is discriminating against gays and lesbians. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > First - she’s a photography business. Second, Civil Rights law does not say that _every black person must always be served_ or _every female must always be served_. It says you can’t deny them on the account of their sex/race/etc. There’s a fine line there. A line Elane Photography stepped across when they confirmed “we do not photograph same-sex weddings.” That’s a denial based on the identity of the participants rather than, say, other business commitments or a lack of available photographers. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/639 "2012-06-16T19:28:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The defendants’ lawyers _did_ argue it, and it _was_ discussed in [the decision](http://www.volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf): > > \ > > By way of explanation, this was an administrative proceeding, not a judicial one (administrative tribunals are part of the executive, not the judiciary). Administrative courts generally do not have jurisdiction to consider constitutional questions, where state or federal. In other words, this court doesn’t have the authority to strike down laws on constitutional grounds, so it doesn’t need to consider them, other than for purposes of the record. > > Their decisions are reviewed on appeal by state appellate courts (or, less commonly, state trial courts). Constitutional issues raised in the underlying proceeding are considered there, if appropriate. > > The court did address the SCOTUS holdings I discussed before, that this law is of general applicability and justified by a compelling state interest. Interesting, thanks for the info. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/640 "2012-06-16T19:30:02Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > A line Elane Photography stepped across when they confirmed “we do not photograph same-sex weddings.” That’s a denial based on the identity of the participants rather than, say, other business commitments or a lack of available photographers. Same sex weddings don’t exist in New Mexico. Of course they don’t photograph them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=33)