Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock
2013 NMSC 040
N.M.2013Background
- Elane Photography (commercial, public-accommodation wedding photographer) refused to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremony; owner cited religious objections.
- Willock filed a discrimination complaint under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) after initial Commission finding; Elane appealed to district court; cross-motions for summary judgment resulted in judgment for Willock, affirmed by Court of Appeals; certiorari granted.
- NMHRA (amended 2003) bars public accommodations from refusing services because of sexual orientation.
- Elane conceded public-accommodation status on appeal and argued it did not discriminate, or alternatively that application of NMHRA violated Free Speech, Free Exercise, and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico held (1) Elane violated NMHRA by refusing service based on sexual orientation, (2) enforcement did not violate Free Speech or Free Exercise, and (3) NMRFRA did not apply because no government agency restricted religion in the adjudicatory posture of this private dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Willock (Plaintiff) Argument | Elane Photography (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did Elane violate the NMHRA by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony? | Refusal was discrimination because decision was based on Willock’s sexual orientation. | Photographs would have been refused only when they "endorse" same-sex marriage; claim is refusal to convey message, not status-based discrimination. | Held: Violation. Refusal to photograph the ceremony was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; conduct closely tied to status is protected. |
| 2. Does applying the NMHRA here violate Free Speech (compelled speech/hosting third‑party message)? | Not applicable (plaintiff’s position is enforcement is permissible). | Compelled to create expressive work endorsing a message contrary to owners’ beliefs; law forces them to speak or host speech they oppose. | Held: No Free Speech violation. NMHRA regulates access to commercial services, not content or compelled government message; analogized to Rumsfeld/PruneYard; observers unlikely to attribute client message to photographer. |
| 3. Does applying the NMHRA violate Free Exercise of religion? | N/A (plaintiff seeks enforcement). | Enforcement burdens religious practice of owners; law is not neutral/generally applicable and should trigger strict scrutiny (hybrid claim). | Held: No Free Exercise violation. NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability (exemptions are secularly neutral); hybrid-rights claim inadequately briefed. |
| 4. Does the NMRFRA provide a defense/relief to Elane here? | N/A (Willock seeks relief under NMHRA). | NMRFRA protects religious exercise against government restrictions; Commission action restricted religion. | Held: NMRFRA inapplicable. Statute applies to restrictions by government agencies where government is a party; here the Commission’s administrative decision gave way to de novo district-court trial and the dispute is between private parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christian Legal Soc’y v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010) (status‑vs‑conduct distinction rejected where conduct is closely correlated with protected status)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (law requiring neutral access for recruiters did not constitute compelled speech)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (government cannot compel an individual to display or affirm an ideological message)
- Hurley v. Irish‑Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (public‑accommodation law cannot be applied to expressive parade organizers where forced inclusion alters expressive content)
- PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (observers unlikely to attribute third‑party speech to private shopping‑center owner; limited compelled‑hosting concerns)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate Free Exercise absent other constitutional protections)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religiously motivated conduct or underinclusive statutes trigger strict scrutiny)
- Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (public‑accommodation nondiscrimination requirements are constitutionally permissible)
- Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984) (antidiscrimination laws apply to expressive/professional firms; First Amendment does not bar enforcement)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (state laws imposing invidious discrimination on marriage unconstitutional)