296 P.3d 491 (2012)
Elane Photography, LLC operated as a commercial photography business in New Mexico that offered wedding photography services to the general public and posted customer photographs on a password-protected website.1
Its co-owner and lead photographer Elaine Huguenin held personal religious objections to same-sex marriage and declined to photograph any image or event that conflicted with those beliefs.2
Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography by email to inquire about availability to photograph her commitment ceremony to another woman.3 Huguenin replied that the company photographed only traditional weddings.4 When Willock asked for clarification, Huguenin confirmed that Elane Photography did not photograph same-sex weddings.5
To test the policy, Willock's partner Misti Collinsworth separately emailed the company requesting pricing information for a wedding without disclosing the participants' sexes; Huguenin provided the pricing list and later followed up.6 Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.7 The Commission determined that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation and awarded attorneys' fees, which Willock later waived.8
No other monetary or injunctive relief was granted.9 Elane Photography appealed the Commission's decision to the Second Judicial District Court for a trial de novo.10 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Willock.11 Elane Photography appealed that ruling, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.12 The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted certiorari.13
Whether Elane Photography violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act when it refused to photograph Vanessa Willock's same-sex commitment ceremony?14
The New Mexico Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction in offering or refusing to offer its services to any person because of sexual orientation.15 A commercial photography business that offers its services to the general public is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples.16 Discrimination based on conduct closely correlated with sexual orientation, such as participating in a same-sex commitment ceremony, is prohibited under the Act.17
Yes. Elane Photography operated as a commercial photography business that offered wedding photography services to the general public and posted customer photographs on a password-protected website.18 Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography by email to inquire about photographing her commitment ceremony to another woman.19 Elaine Huguenin responded that the company photographed only traditional weddings and confirmed that it did not photograph same-sex weddings.20 When Willock's partner separately inquired without disclosing the participants' sexes, Huguenin provided pricing information and followed up.21
The Act prohibits making any distinction in the services offered because of sexual orientation.22 Elane Photography's refusal to provide services to Willock based on her sexual orientation violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in the same manner as refusing service based on race.23 The company's willingness to offer some services to same-sex customers did not cure its refusal to provide the full range of services offered to the general public.24
Elane Photography violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph Willock's same-sex commitment ceremony.25
Whether applying the New Mexico Human Rights Act to require Elane Photography to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?26
The First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling individuals to speak the government's message or to host or accommodate another speaker's message. The New Mexico Human Rights Act does not compel speech because it does not require a business to recite or display any specific message and only mandates that public accommodations provide services without regard to protected classifications.27 Businesses remain free to express their own views through disclaimers while complying with the Act.28
No. The New Mexico Human Rights Act requires Elane Photography to provide the same photography services to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples.29 It does not dictate the content of the photographs or require endorsement of any message.30 Elane Photography produces photographs for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation.31 It can post disclaimers on its website or in its studio stating its opposition to same-sex marriage while complying with the law.32 Reasonable observers understand that wedding photographers are hired by paying customers and do not necessarily share their clients' views.33
The Act regulates the act of discriminating in the provision of publicly available services rather than the content of expression.34 Unlike cases involving government-mandated pledges or forced inclusion in parades, the Act does not commandeer Elane Photography's means of reaching its audience or alter the expressive content of its work.35 Elane Photography retains its First Amendment rights to express its religious and political beliefs.36
Applying the New Mexico Human Rights Act to Elane Photography does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.37
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Bosson specially concurred to emphasize that while the Huguenins' religious convictions deserve respect, actions even when religiously inspired must accommodate the contrasting rights of others in the commercial marketplace.38 Drawing on Barnette, Loving, and Heart of Atlanta Motel, Bosson observed that personal religious beliefs have constitutional limits when they conflict with others' rights to engage in the marketplace free from discrimination.39 The concurrence concluded that the Huguenins must channel their conduct to leave space for Americans who believe differently, describing this compromise as the price of citizenship in a multicultural society.40
Whether applying the New Mexico Human Rights Act to Elane Photography violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?41
The Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability.42 A law is neutral if its object is not to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation and is generally applicable if it does not impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief. The New Mexico Human Rights Act qualifies as such a law because its exemptions for single-family homes and small multi-family dwellings apply equally to religious and secular conduct and do not target religiously motivated discrimination.43
No. The New Mexico Human Rights Act is a neutral law of general applicability that prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation without regard to the motivation for the discrimination.44 The Act's exemptions for single-family homes and small multi-family dwellings apply equally to religious and secular conduct and do not evince hostility toward religion.45 Elane Photography's religiously motivated refusal to serve same-sex couples therefore does not exempt it from compliance with the Act.46
Assuming Elane Photography possesses free exercise rights as a limited liability company, those rights are not offended by enforcement of the Act. The hybrid-rights claim was inadequately briefed and therefore not considered.47
Applying the New Mexico Human Rights Act to Elane Photography does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.48
Whether the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to a dispute between private parties in which no government agency is a party?49
The New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides that a government agency shall not restrict a person's free exercise of religion unless the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny.50 The Act authorizes relief only against a government agency and applies only when a government agency restricts free exercise.51 It does not apply to suits between private parties because the statute is violated only if a government agency restricts free exercise and the only authorized relief is against government agencies.52
No. The New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that a person whose free exercise has been restricted may assert a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain relief against a government agency.53 The dispute originated with a complaint to the Human Rights Commission but proceeded to the district court for a trial de novo, where the Commission is not a party and its order has no legal effect. The government's adjudication of a dispute between private parties does not constitute a restriction of free exercise rights by a government agency under the Act.54
The New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to a dispute between private parties in which no government agency is a party.55