By enacting the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, $5 28-1-1 to - 13 (1969, as amended through 2007), the Legislature has made the policy decision to prohibit public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. Elane Photography, which does not contest its public accommodation status under the NMHRA, offers wedding photography services to the general public and posts its photographs on a password-protected website for its customers. In this case, Elane Photography refused to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. The questions presented are (1) whether Elane Photography violated the NMHRA when it refused to photograph the commitment ceremony, and if so, (2) whether this application of the NMHRA violates either the Free Speech or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or (3) whether this application violates the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA), NMSA 1978, $6 28-22-1 to -5 (2000). First, we conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane, Photography refused to photograph a same sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races. Second, we conclude that the NMHRA does not violate free speech guarantees because the NMHRA does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government- mandated message or to publish the speech of another. The purpose of the NMHRA is TO Focus The Accessibility: InvestigateParagraph Styles (18) In this case, we see no basis for distinguishing between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on someone's conduct of publicly committing to a person of the same sex. Our role is to determine and follow the intent of the Legislature, State v. Hall, 2013-NMSC-001, 19, 294 P.3d 1235, and the NMHRA evinces a clear intent to prevent discrimination as it is broadly defined in Section 28-1- 7(F). New Mexico has a strong state policy of promoting equality for its residents regardless of sexual orientation. See Section 28-1-7 (defining unlawful discriminatory practices); NMSA 1978, $ 29-21-2 (2009) (prohibiting profiling by law enforcement on the basis of sexual orientation); NMSA 1978, $ 31-188-2(D) (2007) (including sexual orientation as a protected status under the Hate Crimes Act); Chatterjee v. King, 2012- NMSC-019, 1 36, 280 P.3d 283 (recognizing that a child can have two legal parents of the same sex); In re Jacinta M., 1988-NMCA-100, 1 11, 107 N M. 769, 764 P.2d 1327 (holding that a children's court could not find a custodian unsuitable solely because of his or her sexual orientation). As a matter of New Mexico law, the NMHRA prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to serve a client based on sexual orientation, and Elane Photography violated the law by refusing to photograph Willock's same-sex commitment ceremony. (19) We are not persuaded by Elane Photography's argument that it does not violate the NMHRA because it will photograph a gay person (for example, in single-person portraits) so long as the photographs do not reflect the client's sexual preferences. The NMHRA prohibits public accommodations from making any distinction in the servicesthey offer to customers on the basis of protected classifications. Section 28-1-7(F). For example, if a restaurant offers a full menu to male customers, it may not refuse to serve entrees to women, even if it will serve them appetizers. The NMHRA does not permit businesses to offer a "limited menu" of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories. Therefore, Elane Photography's willingness to offer some services to Willock does not cure its refusal to provide other services that it offered to the general public. Similarly, it does not help Elane Photography to argue that it would have turned away heterosexual polygamous weddings or heterosexual persons pretending to have a same sex wedding. Those situations are not at issue here, and, if anything, these arguments support a finding that Elane Photography intended to discriminate against Willock based on her same-sex sexual orientation. Therefore, we hold that Elane Photography discriminated against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. (44) Elane Photography also argues that if it is compelled to photograph same-sex weddings, observers will believe that it and its owners approve of same sex marriage. The United States Supreme Court incorporates the question of perceived endorsement into its analysis in cases that involve compulsion to host or accommodate third-party speech. See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U.S. at 577 ("Without deciding on the precise significance of the likelihood of misattribution, it nonetheless becomes clear that in the context of an expressive parade . the parade's overall message is distilled from the individual presentations along the way, and each unit's expression is perceived by spectators as part of the whole."). The Hurley Court observed that admitting GLIB or any other organization into a parade would likely be perceived as a message from the parade organizers "that [GLIB's] message was worthy of presentation and quite possibly of 72 Accessibility: Investigate " FOCUSParagraph Styles penn USIIIesses t vier a minimed menu ofyouus un services IU CUStUInTeIS Un TIE basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories. Therefore, Elane Photography's willingness to offer some services to Willock does not cure its refusal to provide other services that it offered to the general public. Similarly, it does not help Elane Photography to argue that it would have turned away heterosexual polygamous weddings or heterosexual persons pretending to have a same sex wedding. Those situations are not at issue here, and, if anything, these arguments support a finding that Elane Photography intended to discriminate against Willock based on her same-sex sexual orientation. Therefore, we hold that Elane Photography discriminated against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. (44) Elane Photography also argues that if it is compelled to photograph same-sex weddings, observers will believe that it and its owners approve of same-sex marriage. The United States Supreme Court incorporates the question of perceived endorsement into its analysis in cases that involve compulsion to host or accommodate third-party speech. See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U.S. at 577 ("Without deciding on the precise significance of the likelihood of misattribution, it nonetheless becomes clear that in the context of an expressive parade . the parade's overall message is distilled from the individual presentations along the way, and each unit's expression is perceived by spectators as part of the whole."). The Hurley Court observed that admitting GLIB or any other organization into a parade would likely be perceived as a message from the parade organizers "that [GLIB's] message was worthy of presentation and quite possibly of support as well." Id, at 575. Therefore, the Court further observed that the government's forced inclusion of GLIB compromised the parade organizer's "right to autonomy over [its] message." Id. at 576.Second, we conclude that the NMHRA does not violate free speech guarantees because the NMHRA does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government- mandated message or to publish the speech of another. The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by states. Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws. We also hold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Finally, we hold that the NMRFRA is inapplicable in this case because the government is not a party, For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. BACKGROUND (5) The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain defined classes of people. See 6 28-1: 7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add "sexual orientation" as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws, ch. 383, $ 2. "Sexual orientation" is defined in the NMHRA as Focus The Accessibility: Investigate a"heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived." Section 28-1-2(P). In this case, we are concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because of that person's real or perceived homosexuality-that person's propensity to experience feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex. (6) "Public accommodation" is defined in the NMHRA as "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private." Section 28-1-2(H). Thus, a business that elects not to offer its goods or services to the public is not subject to the NMHRA. (7) Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography, LLC, by e mail to inquire about Elane Photography's services and to determine whether it would be available to photograph her commitment ceremony to another woman. Elane Photography's co-owner and lead photographer, Elaine Huguenin, is personally opposed to same sex marriage and will not photograph any image or event that violates her religious beliefs. Huguenin responded to Willock that Elane Photography photographed only "traditional weddings." Willock e-mailed back and asked, "Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same sex couples?" Huguenin responded, "Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same sex weddings," and thanked Willock for her interest. (8) In order to verify Elane Photography's policy, Willock's partner, Misti Collinsworth, e- mailed Elane Photography and inquired about its willingness to photograph a wedding, without mentioning the sexes of the participants. Huguenin sent Collinsworth a list of Accessibility Investigate Focus(8) In order to verify Elane Photography's policy, Willock's partner, Misti Collinsworth, e mailed Elane Photography and inquired about its willingness to photograph a wedding, without mentioning the sexes of the participants. Huguenin sent Collinsworth a list of pricing information and an invitation to meet with her and discuss her services. A few weeks later, Huguenin again e-mailed Collinsworth to follow up. (9) Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. The Commission concluded that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock in violation of Section 28-1-7(F), which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, among other protected classifications, It awarded Willock attomeys' fees, which Willock later waived. No other monetary or injungtive relief was granted, (10) Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court for a trial de novo pursuant to Section 28-1-13(A). See NMSA 1978, 6 39-3-1 (1955) ("All appeals from inferior tribunals to the district courts shall be tried anew in said courts on their merits, as If no trial had been had below, except as otherwise provided by law."). Elang Photography sought a reversal of the award of attorneys' fees, a declaratory judgment that It had not discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, and a ruling that its rights had been violated, among other relief. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment for Willock. Elane 12 Accessibility, Investigate " Focus ng onPhotography again appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2012-NMCA-086, 1 1, 284 P.3d 428. We granted certiorari. (11} Elane Photography argues before this Court that: (1) it did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore it did not violate the NMHRA; or, alternatively, (2) by requiring Elane Photography to accept clients against its will, the NMHRA violates the protection of the First Amendment against compelled speech; (3) the NMHRA violates Elane Photography's First Amendment right to freely exercise its religion; and (4) the NMHRA violates Elane Photography's right under the NMRFRA to freely exercise its religion. For the reasons that follow, we reject Elane Photography's arguments and affirm summary judgment for Willock. DISCUSSION (12) The parties agree on the facts in this case, and the only question for this Court to consider is whether Willock is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, See Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, 16, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582 ("Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."). On appeal, we review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Id. I. ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY REFUSED TO SERVE WILLOCK ON THE BASIS OF HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NMHRA 13 Accessibility Investigate Focus a(13) The NMHRA seeks to promote the equal rights of people within certain specified classes by protecting them against discriminatory treatment. See Juneau v. Intel Corp., 2006-NMSC-002, 1 14, 139 N.M. 12, 127 P.3d 548 ("The NMHRA protects against discriminatory treatment."). To accomplish this goal, the NMHRA makes it unlawful for "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap." Section 28-1-7(F) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's holding that Flane Photography was a public accommodation under Section 28-1-2(H), Elane Photography, 2012-NMCA086, 18, and Elane Photography did not challenge that holding in this appeal. Accordingly, Flane Photography waived its right to challenge that conclusion as a matter of New Mexico law. See Fikes v. Furst, 2003-NMSC-033, 1 8, 134 N.M. 602, 81 P.3d 545 ("[IIt is improper for this Court to consider any questions except those set forth in the petition for certiorari."). We therefore accept the Court of Appeals' conclusion that at the time of its interactions with Willock and Collinsworth, Elane Photography was a public accommodation as defined in Section 28-1-2(H), and as such, was subject to Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA. See Elane Photography. 2012-NMCA-086, 41 14, 18. ToAccessibility Investigate FOCUS(14) Elane Photography argues that it did not violate the NMHRA because it did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it refused service to Willock. Instead, Elane Photography explains that it "did not want to convey through [Huguenin]'s pictures the story of an event celebrating an understanding of marriage that conflicts with [the owners'] beliefs." Elane Photography argues that it would have taken portrait photographs and performed other services for same sex customers, so long as they did not request photographs that involved or endorsed same sex weddings. However, Elane Photograph's owners testified that they would also have refused to take photos of same-sex couples in other contexts, including photos of a couple holding hands or showing affection for each other. Flane Photography also argues in its brief that it would have turned away heterosexual customers if the customers asked for photographs in a context that endorsed same- sex marriage. For example, Elane Photography states that it "would have declined the request even if the ceremony was part of a movie and the actors playing the same sex couple were heterosexual." Therefore, Elane Photography reasons that it did not discriminate "because of . sexual orientation," 5 28-1-7(F), but because it did not wish to endorse Willock's and Collinsworth's wedding. (15) The NMHRA prohibits discrimination in broad terms by forbidding "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, In offering or refusing to offer its services . because of . sexual orientation, " Section 28-1-7(F) (emphasis added). Elane Photography is primarily a wedding photography business. It provides wedding photography services to heterosexual couples, but it refuses to work with homosexual couples under equivalent circumstances. log Accessibility: Investigate Focus n(16) Elane Photography's argument is an attempt to distinguish between an individual's status of being homosexual and his or her conduct in openly committing to a person of the same sex. It was apparently Willock's e-mail request to have Elane Photography photograph Willock's commitment ceremony to another woman that signaled Willock's sexual orientation to Elane Photography, regardless of whether that assessment was real or merely perceived. The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual's sexual orientation on the individual's conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA. (17) The United States Supreme Court has rejected similar attempts to distinguish between a protected status and conduct closely correlated with that status. In Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law v Martinez, --- U.S. ----, , 130 S.Ct. 2971, 2980 (2010), students at Hastings College of the Law formed a chapter of the Christian Legal Society and sought formal recognition from the school. The Christian Legal Society required its members to affirm their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and to refrain from S'unrepentant homosexual conduct." " Id, & id. n. 3. Hastings refused to recognize the organization on the ground that it violated Hastings' nondiscrimination policy, which prohibited exclusion based onreligion or sexual orientation. Id, at ----, 130 S.Ct. at 2980. The Christian Legal Society argued that "it [did not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong. * Id. at -- -, 130 S.Ct. at 2990 (internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating: Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) ("When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination." (emphasis added)): id., at 583, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (0'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) ("While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class."); cf. Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.5. 263, 270, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L. Ed.2d 34 (1993) ("A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."). Id. We agree that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation. Otherwise we would interpret the NMHRA as protecting same-gender couples against discriminatory treatment, but only to the extent that they do not openly display their same-gender sexual orientation. (18) In this case, we see no basis for distinguishing between discrimination based on On Tex Accessibility Investigate Focus