Lee v. Weisman and compulsion to photograph a religious ceremony

[Jean Dudley]

All good questions, certainly;  However, my question is how a wedding  
photographer is considered "public accomodation".  Food, housing,  
retail, banking, dispensing pharmaceuticals, all of these are  
undoubtedly "public accomodation".  They are necessary to participate  
in society, and for basic human needs.  Why is photographing a  
commitment ceremony or wedding considered necessary?

Disclosure:  I am a lesbian and a landscape photographer.
Jean.


On Apr 15, 2008, at Tue, Apr 15,  6:55 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

> 	Last week, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that
> Elane Photography (a husband-and-wife photography business for  
> which the
> primary photographer is the wife, Elaine Huguenin) violate New Mexico
> public accommodation discrimination law by refusing to photograph a
> same-sex commitment ceremony.  The Commission ordered the Huguenins to
> pay $6600 in costs and attorney fees.  (For more, see
> http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1207764182.shtml .)
>
> 	People have discussed elsewhere the compelled speech dimension
> of the case, and in January we discussed on the list the New Mexico  
> RFRA
> issues.  But let me ask a different question:  I've just learned that
> the ceremony that Huguenin would have had to photograph was likely a
> religious ceremony -- it was conducted by a minister, so I take it  
> that
> it likely had some religious dimension, even if only a modest one --
> though the record is silent on whether it would have been performed  
> in a
> church.  Would imposing such a requirement on someone constitute
> impermissible coercion to participate in religious activity under Lee?
> (I realize that this argument would not apply to a requirement to
> photograph the secular reception.)
>
> 	Of course, having to photograph a religious ceremony doesn't
> involve having to say a prayer or perform any ritual.  But likewise
> having to stand silent (even if that was coerced) during a prayer also
> doesn't involve having to say a prayer or perform any ritual (unless
> silent standing is seen as a ritual during a prayer can be seen as a
> ritual, but then why wouldn't silent standing during a religious  
> wedding
> be seen the same way?).  I tend to think that Scalia was right in his
> Lee dissent to say that no religious activity was actually coerced  
> there
> -- but given the majority's contrary conclusion, how would we resolve
> the question related to a requirement that one attend and photograph a
> religious wedding?
>
> 	Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.