At least SCOTUS decided not to mess up this

...................................................................................................................................................................
‘Religious’ right to discriminate? Supreme Court won’t hear case
By Joel Connelly, April 7, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court will not review whether a New Mexico photographer had a “religious” right to refuse to photograph the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.

The New Mexico Supreme Court had ruled that the denial violated the public accommodations section of the New Mexico Human Rights Act.  The commitment ceremony took place before a court ruling brought marriage equality to the “Land of Enchantment.”

Washington state has a similar, high-profile case headed into the courts, in which Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued a Richland florist who refused on religious grounds to provide flowers for the wedding of two men.  They were longtime customers of the floral shop.

The high court in Washington, D.C., as is customary, did not explain why it refused to take the New Mexico case.

The case, Elaine Photography v. Willcock, centered on the commitment ceremony that bonded Vanessa Willcock and Misti Collinsworth.

The photo shop owners, Elaine and Jonathan Hugenin, explained that they would “Gladly serve gays and lesbians by, for example, providing them with portrait photography,” but that to photograph the same-sex ceremony would “require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

“Photographers, writers, singers, actors and others who create First Amendment-protected speech must have the right to decide which commissions to take and which to reject,” the libertarian-minded Cato Institute argued in a brief supporting the Hugenins.

But the state human rights commission declared:  “When Elaine Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in the same way as if it has refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

The case has helped inspire legislation in Arizona, Mississippi and other conservative states that would give businesses sweeping rights to discriminate and refuse service on “religious” or ethical grounds.

A similar bill was introduced by a dozen Republican members of the Washington State Senate, but has yet to be voted on in either house of the Legislature.
...................................................................................................................................................................