An August 22 post on the Wall
Street Journal’s Law Blog reported on the outcome of a closely watched case
involving a lesbian couple who sued a New Mexico photographer named Elaine
Huguenin for refusing to photograph their commitment ceremony on
the grounds that such an act would violate her religious beliefs. The Alliance
Defending Freedom, which defended Elaine and her husband Jonathan, put out
a press release in which one of their attorneys stated, “Americans are now on notice that the price of
doing business is their freedom. We are considering our next steps, including
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to right this wrong.”
My interest in
this case stems not only from the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in the cases
of United States v.
Windsor and Hollingsworth v.
Perry but also because like Mr. and Mrs. Huguenin, I profess to be a
Christian and in fact I attended the same college as they did. Elaine was in my
graduating class and her husband John was one year ahead of me. I did not keep
in touch with them after graduation but heard about them occasionally through
mutual friends.
At first glance,
the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the lower court’s ruling
against the Huguenin’s seems to be a clear infringement upon their right to practice
their religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The
Huguenin’s interpret their faith as compelling them to disavow same-sex
relationships and as such does Elaine not have the right to tell the government
to buzz off and mind their own business? Elaine’s decision to refuse services
to the couple might even find grounding in the Apostle Peter’s words in Acts
5:29 when he tells the religious authorities that, “We must obey God rather
than man.”
And then there’s
the issue of artistic freedom. Few would doubt that Elaine is a gifted
photographer and part of the reason she is excellent at her craft is because of
the creative freedom she enjoys. I don’t know any artist who would want the
government telling them that they have to paint with a particular type of paint
or only take photographs of certain landscapes. Art is a form of free speech
guaranteed by the Constitution and that is why to this day someone can paint an
offensive caricature of the President or some other elected official and not be
dragged off to jail.
But Elaine is not
just a Christian and she is not just an artist. She is the owner of a business
that operates within the State of New Mexico in the United States of America.
Elaine’s business is therefore subject to the laws governing how businesses and
other organizations operate in that state, and in this case, the New Mexico
Human Rights act. The New Mexico Supreme Court said in its opinion:
“When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,"
Not too long ago church-going owners of stores, movie theaters, and restaurants could refuse service to people of different races. Much of these business owners’ refusal was based on their interpretation of Scripture and the beliefs held by their local congregations.
Some people might argue that being gay is not the same
as being Black or Latino or Asian. And, to some degree, they are absolutely
right. However, the price we pay for living in this republic is that a white
person cannot refuse to serve a black person in his restaurant, a Catholic
cannot refuse to rent a Jew a motel room, and a Polish woman cannot refuse to
cut the hair of a German man. And for most of us, this is a small and hopefully agreeable price to pay.
Yes, Elaine is an artist and as such should have the
ability to enjoy artistic freedom. One could also compellingly argue that a chef
is an artist as well and thus should be able to refuse service to particular
individuals as Elaine and her husband sought to do. And, of course, the answer
in both cases is simple. If you want to take pictures, go ahead and do so. If you
want to create delicious dishes, have at it. But if you want to do any of these
things while offering a public accommodation engaged in interstate commerce,
you cannot refuse service to individuals based upon their race, color, gender,
religion, national origin, and increasingly more common- their sexual
orientation.
I get that this is a tricky situation. No one wants to be called a racist or bigot, especially when they are certainly not one of those things. I, too, wrestle with my faith and my obligation to follow the law every time I write a check to the
IRS and realize that part of the money I am sending to the government is
allowing them to conduct drone strikes overseas that I find not only
reprehensible but contrary to the teachings of Jesus, whom I worship and adore.
And so, ultimately, Elaine and I find myself in
similar situations, searching the Scriptures for some aspect of wisdom or
insight that might provide guidance in our respective instances and hoping that our beliefs will fall on the right side of God's unfolding story. To what extent
do we render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s? How deep must we love others as
Christ has loved us? Are we choosing to obey God rather than man or are we allowing
our particular conception of God to justify the unjust treatment of others?
I do not pretend to know all of the answers to these
things and that’s why I’ll keep paying my taxes, always try to err on the side
of love, and start each day by praying for a world that is more just and kind
and gracious.
Lord, in your mercy.
