Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock
2012 NMCA 086
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Elane Photography refused to photograph Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremony due to a policy against conveying messages that redefine marriage.
- Owners Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin operate Elane Photography as a public, advertising photography business.
- NMHRC found Elane Photography a public accommodation and discriminating on sexual orientation; awarded Willock attorney fees and costs.
- District court granted Willock summary judgment; denied Elane’s constitutional and NMRFRA defenses.
- NMHRA prohibits discrimination in public accommodations; NMHRA’s broad scope and application were central to the ruling.
- Court held Elane Photography violated NMHRA and rejected First Amendment, free exercise, and NMRFRA challenges against that application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Elane a public accommodation under NMHRA? | Willock argues yes; broad NMHRA language covers services to the public. | Elane contends it is not a public accommodation under narrow historic categorization. | Yes; Elane is a public accommodation. |
| Did Elane discriminate against Willock based on sexual orientation? | Elane’s categorical refusal to photograph same-sex ceremonies shows discriminatory motivation. | Policy applies to all same contexts; it does not target Willock as a class member. | Yes; discrimination based on sexual orientation. |
| Does NMHRA apply without violating First Amendment rights to speech/expression? | NMHRA compels discriminatory conduct, infringing expressive rights. | NMHRA regulates conduct, not speech; neutral and generally applicable. | NMHRA does not violate First Amendment rights. |
| Do NMHRA and related RFRA provisions survive free exercise challenges given neutrality/general applicability? | Religious beliefs should shield owners from complying with neutral laws of general applicability. | NMHRA is generally applicable and neutral; even if religious beliefs are burdened, regulation stands. | NMHRA generally applicable; NMRFRA inapplicable to private-party dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Inst. Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (U.S. 2006) (expressive conduct vs. regulation of conduct; speech not required to be altered by regulation)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1995) (parade as expression; compelled inclusion would force dissemination of message)
- Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1993) (hybrid-free exercise concerns; general applicability scrutiny)
- National v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 318 A.2d 33 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974) (public accommodation breadth; public invitation to the public)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1984) (expansive public accommodations concept; public access to commerce)
- State v. Smith, Brienza & Co. (hypothetical for reporting), 506 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1993) (Bray v. Alexandria Health Clinic cited for discriminating conduct context)
- Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1993) (demonstrates discrimination in conduct with political message)