The state Human Rights Commission's ruling this week that an Albuquerque photographer is guilty of discrimination for refusing to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony" because of her religious beliefs is causing a national stir in the conservative blogosphere.

The commission ruled Wednesday that Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against Vanessa Willock when company co-owner Elaine Huguenin said in an e-mail that she photographed only "traditional marriages" and declined to photograph the 2007 ceremony.

This, the commission ruled, amounted to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission determined that Huguenin, who operates the company with her husband, should pay $6,637 for Willock's attorney's fees and costs. Willock didn't seek other damages.

"I am pleased with the finding of the commission and appreciate the time and efforts of all the staff at the Human Rights Division in bringing this case to this conclusion," Willock said in a statement released by her lawyer. "I feel that it is an important decision in defining the responsibilities of business when they offer their services to the public in this state."

Her lawyer, Julie Sakura of Santa Fe, said: "The Human Rights Commission decision was an appropriate application of existing New Mexico law to the facts of this case."

Huguenin's attorney said Friday his client will appeal the case to state District Court in Albuquerque.

She is represented by Jordan Lorence, chief counsel for a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., called the Alliance Defense Fund. The group — whose Web site identifies it as a "legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation" — was founded in the 1990s by leaders of 35 churches concerned about issues such as gay rights and abortion.

Lorence said Friday that the commission should have considered his argument that forcing Huguenin to photograph events she considers sacrilegious violates her First Amendment rights.

The commission's decision and final order said constitutional questions are not within its purview.

The commission ruled the photography business is a public accommodation under the definition of the state Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

The case has received barely any attention on gay news sites or liberal blogs. But it has caused an uproar on conservative blogs.

"I don't doubt that the lesbian couple was offended that Christian photographers did not want to photograph their wedding," New Mexico blogger Mario Burgos, a conservative Republican, wrote in a Friday post. "Nor do I doubt that Christian photographers are offended by the action of the courts. I can empathize with both parties.

"But what I don't understand is the government's involvement here. Tolerance is to live and let live. Tolerance is not to force one party to embrace, adopt or participate in the actions of the other party. Tolerance cannot be forced. In fact, the opposite is true. When the government attempts to force tolerance, the result is to breed intolerance and contempt. It is actions like this case that divide rather than unite."

Conservative blogger Ken McCracken wrote: "Canada isn't the only nanny state hosting an Orwellian 'human rights' Star Chamber. It seems we now have at least one here in the U.S. as well."

A blog called Fort Hard Knox said, "The Huguenins have the right to refuse to photograph any number of things they regard as moral issues, whether it's a photo shoot at Planned Parenthood, a poster for the Ku Klux Klan, or a keepsake album for participants in a baby seal hunt. The Constitution may offend the politically correct crowd, but it is quite clear that Americans should not be forced to promote a private message that violates their conscience."

A Web site called Stop the ACLU, in a post titled "Homosexual Hysteria in New Mexico," said, "Much like those 'No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service' signs you see in many retailers' shop window, the Christian couple simply refuse to do business with openly immoral people, and the Constitution as well as precedent backs them up."

(Sakura said Friday that she's been a cooperative attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, "but this case is not an ACLU case.")

On the left side of the blogosphere, one of the few mentions of the case was by an Albuquerque contributor to the Daily Kos identified as "JaciCee," who, referring to Alliance Defense Fund officials, wrote Friday, "I guess they are hearing some major truth today; their client openly discriminated against a gay American and committed her discrimination to writing. ... This finding is a breath of fresh air, and I am glad it came from my home state. The commission was listening when the case was presented to them."

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com.

ON THE WEB

Mario Burgos: www.marioburgos.com/2008/04/very-slippery-legal-slope.html

Hard Fort Knox: forthardknox.com/2008/04/10/do-photographers-have-constitutional-rights-no-says-new-mexico

Stop the ACLU: www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/11/homosexual-hysteria-in-new-mexico

Ken McCracken: kenmccracken.blogspot.com/2008/02/it-cant-happen-here.html

Daily Kos: www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/11/13533/4624/473/493799