284 P.3d 428
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Elane Photography, a for-profit photography business in NM, refused to photograph Willock's same-sex commitment ceremony based on its religious beliefs about marriage.
- NMHRC process found Elane a public accommodation and held it discriminated against Willock for sexual orientation, ordering fees; Willock did not seek monetary damages.
- District court granted Willock summary judgment, upheld NMHRC findings, and rejected Elane's constitutional and NMRFRA defenses.
- Elane argued it is not a public accommodation, and that its policy protects First Amendment rights and religious freedom.
- NMHRA uses broad language defining public accommodations and prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation; NMHRC’s enforcement and district court ruling were sustained.
- Court affirmed that Elane's refusal violated NMHRA and that NMHRA is a neutral, generally applicable regulation of commercial conduct not violating First Amendment or NM Constitution under current standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Elane a public accommodation under NMHRA? | Elane argues it is not a public accommodation due to traditional-public-accommodation limits. | Willock contends NMHRA’s broad definition covers Elane’s public business. | Elane is a public accommodation; NMHRA applies. |
| Did Elane discriminate based on sexual orientation? | Elane claims no discrimination; policy affects conduct, not orientation. | Willock was refused due to policy against same-sex ceremonies. | Willock proven discriminated on sexual orientation. |
| Does NMHRA violate First Amendment rights (speech/expressive conduct)? | Elane claims NMHRA burdens expressive conduct and speech. | Discrimination regulation is neutral toward speech; not compelled expression. | NMHRA regulation of conduct is neutral and not violative of First Amendment. |
| Does NMHRA violate Free Exercise/General applicability under NM Constitution? | Elane asserts strict scrutiny due to free exercise; NMHRA not generally applicable. | NMHRA is neutral and generally applicable; burden is incidental. | NMHRA is generally applicable; no free exercise violation. |
| Is NMRFRA applicable to private-party dispute? | Elane argues NMRFRA applies to private disputes. | NMRFRA applies only against government agencies or when government action restricts religion. | NMRFRA inapplicable to private-party dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of Univ. of N. M. v. N.M. Human Rights Comm’n, 95 N.M. 576, 624 P.2d 518 (1981) (limits and scope of public accommodations under NMHRA; narrowly construed)
- Ocana v. Am. Furniture Co., 2004-NMSC-018, 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d 58 (NM Supreme Court (2004)) (assists interpretation of NMHRA broader language)
- State v. Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. Supreme Court (1993)) (strict scrutiny for nonneutral or not generally applicable laws)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (U.S. Supreme Court (1990)) (general-applicability rule for free exercise)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. Supreme Court (1993)) (clarifies neutrality/general applicability tests)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (U.S. Supreme Court (2006)) (conduct vs. speech; government regulation of conduct not speech)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (U.S. Supreme Court (1995)) (parade as expressive conduct; compelled inclusion analysis)
- Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (U.S. Supreme Court (1984)) (discrimination in professional services context; no shield for discriminatory acts)
- Friedman v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bernalillo County, 781 F.2d 792 (10th Cir. 1985) (treatment of First Amendment with state and local actions)