There is an interesting case out of Idaho that could be a critical showdown between anti-discrimination laws and freedom of exercise of religion. At the heart of the controversy are two Christian ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who own a Coeur d’Alene wedding chapel. They have been told that they must either perform same-sex weddings or face a $1000 fine. It raises a legitimate claim of the encroachment of state laws into areas of faith — a question that has been previously raised in less direct ways involving bakeries, photographers and other businesses that has refused for religious reasons to service same-sex marriages. We have previously discussed the difficulty in drawing lines under the First Amendment. If this business is protected, then why is not a bakery of religious individuals? Conversely, if this business is not protected, how about all of the religions that accept payments for religious services?
The case centers on the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, which is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.” However, unlike most churches, this is registered as a for-profit business. It is not unique in such a status, but that distinction could prove determinative in the case.
The city has an ordinance passed last year that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of housing, employment and public accommodation. As a for-profit business, the ordinance does not treat the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel any different from a car wash.
Of course, it is different in the character of its work. The controversy however has played out in a variety of different contexts. This is an issue that we previously discussed when Harvard banned men from workout areas to satisfy the demands of Muslim women as well as other accommodations at other universities. Conversely, cities have banned the boy scouts because they exclude gay scout leaders and were thus discriminatory organizations. We have also seen private businesses who have been forced not to discriminate against homosexuals such a bakeries, florists, and photographers. I have previously written on the growing collision of free exercise of religion and anti-discrimination laws. Where does one draw the line where a florist cannot bar a homosexual but a grocery can bar males? The inherent conflicts in these cases leaves us without a single cognizable rule.
That is why this case could be so important. While I have long supported gay rights and same-sex marriage, I am sympathetic with the Knapps. I have great concern over the state telling a religious business to violate the core of its religious values. One possible distinction would be to require a non-for-profit status, but that distinction does not answer all of these questions. Churches and synagogues often receive payment for marriages even though they are non-for-profit. Moreover, most not-for-profit corporations are non-religious. The distinction avoids the key question: do people (and corporations) have a right to follow core religious principles. The recent ruling in Hobby Lobby would seem to support such a claim.
The case in Idaho is the perfect microcosm of the various national issues swirling around same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has long been illegal in Idaho so this issue had not arisen for the couple. However, last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on May 13 allowing same-sex marriages to commence in Idaho on Oct. 15. It was just two days later that the couple received a call asking for a same-sex wedding ceremony. When they declined, they were contacted by the city.
I believe that the couple has a strong argument under the First Amendment as well as Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Regardless of one’s view of the merits, however, this could be a defining moment for constitutional law.
Source: Spokesman
What leaps out at me and stinks is the timing of this complaint. 48 hours? Please. Tell me that isn’t a targeted planned action? Really?
That said, the drive-by chapels and such tend to bore me, so I could are less if they comply with this or that fascist court’s ruling…zup to me, just marry the dudes or ladies and then spit on the ground afterward, take the money and screw the details. I mean, please, come on, what is the big deal here?
In short, why would a same-sex couple go to an obviously dedicated (their incorporation charter as detailed here) to have vows exchanged? How did they even know of the charter’s terms? Specifically what sent them to this place? You know, as I know, that it was a political gesture.
I mean, say hey, if I were looking for a place to marry, I’d not likely pick Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church for the ceremony….as a gay or a straight, what is this all about? BTW…how many lawsuits are pending against the Westboro Baptist Church for refusing gay weddings? I really don’t know…nor do I care. Just saying….
Perfect! Huffington Post links. This post is why many people are here. JT is liberal, supports gay marriage, but supports the Constitution above all else. Idaho is not far from Utah. I think JT needs to take on these folks as a client. I read and comment on a blog run by Father Fox, a Catholic priest in Ohio. He did a post about this as well. There is a grass roots movement by clergy of all faith on this. The First and Second Amendments are under constant attack by liberals, They will not prevail.
Ad this to what the idiot in Houston is trying to do. Govt. pre-approved sermons.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/17/houston-to-pastors-forget-your-sermons-now-want-your-speeches/
Ed, It’s the intolerance of the tolerant. You better get used to it or else!
I can’t begin to pretend to have an informed legal opinion. I just find it fascinating that one of the arguments in favor of gay marriage was that it wasn’t right that those opposed to it were able to impose their beliefs and thereby restrict the freedom of others.
And now after the fact we see those in favor of gay marriage forcing their beliefs and limiting the freedom of others.
On a personal note, the last place I would want to get married is somewhere that I had to pay people who I knew were forced by law to perform the ceremony and despised/hated/was intolerant of our life. I don’t get it.
If I own a hotel and my “religious” beliefs are that black people carry the mark of Cain and should be shunned, can I refuse to let them stay in my hotel?
I am pretty sure there was a Supreme Court case about this very matter.
If your religious beliefs prevent you from working fully in our “non religious” economy, become a church.
The Hitching Post does a religious wedding and gives religious advice to the couple at the wedding. Regardless of their business status, I think they qualify for an exemption.
SWM, ha, you beat me!
http://www.elvischapel.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/elvis-themed-vegas-gay-weddings_n_6014550.html
This Elvis Chapel has said they won’t marry same sex people either. Doesn’t look like any church I’ve ever been in.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/elvis-themed-vegas-gay-weddings_n_6014550.html“Putting aside the religious beliefs of business owners or employees, however, Vegas wedding chapels are for-profit businesses and not religious institutions.
“Any Las Vegas wedding chapel that operates as a business is covered under Nevada’s public accommodations law and is not allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking a wedding ceremony, or any other couple for that matter,” Tod Story, executive director for the ACLU of Nevada, told The Huffington Post. “Currently, the way the law is written, it’s a misdemeanor crime. Any couple refused service has to file a complaint with the state. … [Vegas Wed] has turned away couples. I don’t know if [those couples] even knew there was a law that protected them.” “
It all hinges on whether that is a church or a business that offers services to the public. It looks like a business to me.
They can resolve the issue by hiring staff able to perform the duties if they find it personally difficult.
Makes me wonder how the 5 minute drive thru wedding business would handle this. Wedding cost $25 smackaroos. And the $1000 fine. That’s $925 in revenue loss.
*Exempt*
Richard, that’s the law. Please read that pesky 14th amendment. It’s something about “equal treatment” or something.
This is not a church. This is a for profit corporation. It doesn’t matter if they are religious. They will need to become a church in order to be able to legally refuse to marry same sex people. I’ve never heard of a church (which is tax exempt) compelled to do anything which went against its religious tenets. If the religious baker and photographer can’t claim their faith as a means to discriminate, why should these people? I think it’s going to end up after the cout battles, an all or nothing doctrine. All bigoted business owners everywhere can discriminate against anyone they please, or none can, OR they can all apply for tax emmett status become ordained ministers and become churches who bake bread, or take photos, or sell shoes, thusly destroying the true meaning and redefining the meaning of a CHURCH.
I don’t believe the profit making status of their business eliminates their first amendment right to refuse to perform a religious rite which is against their religion. Unlike many of the commenters so far, I believe laws permitting and providing benefits for marriage must be applied equally to same sex couples. However, it is not illegal to profit from performing a religious ceremony, and that profit should not affect their right to refuse to take an active role in a ceremony to which they have religious objections.
http://hitchingpostweddings.com/ This is not a church but a business.
I think the issue is going to revolve about the fact that they are performing the civil function, since they are registered as a corporation, religious or otherwise, and not specifically as a religion. Religions are not in the business of selling weddings.
Call it what it is: fascism, state enforcement of the ‘proper’ views.
All of us who opposed gay marriage predicted this would occur, and we were assured otherwise or called liars, paranoid and haters.
Yet it has happened, just as we said it would.
The voters in California turned out twice to stop same sex marriages. But judges overturned the voter’s wishes. And now this. It’s ridiculous.