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
Nick, bigotries such as anti-fat, anti-religion, anti-white male, anti-heterosexual, anti-conservative, and anti-freedom of thought…
Those bigotries are acceptable and even applauded by the left.
Special snowflake victim tribes must never ever live I the adult world, however.
nick, Not saying speech should be banned but this blog has a civility rule, and I think the derogatory remarks about gay people violate that. Again, I have seen far less offensive remarks deleted.. Also, it is an attack on gay people that may post on or read this blog. Obviously, I have no say.
“Show your sheep-biting face, and be hanged an hour!” – Shakespeare (Measure for Measure)
The Birther Think Tank “Sometimes You Think Better When You’re Tanked”
“Thou whoreson impudent embossed rascal!” – Shakespeare (Henry IV, part I)
“I shall live to knock thy brains out.” – Shakespeare (The Two Noble Kinsmen)
@NickS
A poem??? Every time I go to Charle’s website, I end up reading all his work. It is like picking at a scab. I don’t want to do it, but I just can’t stop. Plus, for some reason I am unable to think of decent rhymes after reading his work. Maybe it is his rhyme schemes which tend to be very special??? Sooo, here is one of his uplifting poems, because I am also busy watching The Flash.
http://charlestanz.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/tarps/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
SWM, You appear CLUELESS about what the First Amendment means. There is no right to not be offended. What if I talk about fat people being disgusting and having rolls of fat covering their sexual organs. Do we ban that here because a fat person reading here might be offended? Of course not. Fat people aren’t anointed by your ilk. Gay people are anointed w/ special protection. It’s SO FREAKIN’ OBVIOUS to anyone who is a free thinker and UNDERSTANDS the Constitution.
The Birther Think Tank “Sometimes You Think Better When You’re Tanked”
“You do unbend your noble strength, to think So brainsickly of things.” – Shakespeare (Macbeth)
And we DO have openly gay commenters who have posted on this thread.
“[Thou] rump-fed ronyon!” – Shakespeare (Macbeth)
Squeeky, I think you want us to validate your innermost internal biases. Clearer?
“I would NEVER call for your thoughts on those issues to be banned here. Progressives jump up and want to censor your words. Despicable.” nick Postings are deleted here for far less uncivil comments every day. Think about a gay person reading these remarks.
Squeeky –
Regardless of what I might or might not call them, I don’t claim they do not have rights commensurate with any American citizen.
@Annie
Huh??? Internal validation comes from me, not this group. I assure you I do not require external validation of anything.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter.
“Would the fountain of your mind were clear again, that I might water an ass at it.” – Shakespeare (Troilus and Cressida)
@Maxcat06
They are people, they are Americans, they are not going away, and they have rights. That you dislike them has no bearing on anything.
Uh, does this apply to the racists in Georgia, too??? Because I am betting you will say bad things about them just like I will say bad things about gay males.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
DBQ,
It’s difficult to keep this “shiny object” group on point and even more difficult to get them back on point; especially @ cocktail hour(s). Thank you for the response.
Squeeky, Any challenge to the progressive agenda often turns a thread into Turley Middle School. Not always, there are a few here w/ whom you can have an intelligent discussions. None are here tonight. Don’t let them suck you into their childish banter. Write a poem. That seems to channel your thoughts. You’re better than those who try and ban your thoughts. As long as your remember that, it will all be fine.
Thank you, Nick. That will end our discussion, I believe. I don’t want you to have to lower your standards, after all.
Squeeky, you seem to desperately need to be internally validated regarding your attitude toward gays. I don’t think you’re going to find that validation here, except from just a couple of people.
Streaky.
“[I] breathe defiance to [thine] ears.” – Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet)