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
Can’t remember when I’ve read so much homophobic claptrap. Actually, it was on this blog but I don’t remember which thread.
I have always found Green Bay to be very offensive. They are the ones who should change their name not the Redskins. Just sayn’
max, I just held my nose and clicked onto your link. What that minister did was horseshit and I reject it. There is an epilogue to this post that I saw on CNN. This chapel has filed papers to make it a nonprofit church and the city said that makes it exempt from the ordinance. Idaho has reasonable people. I pity these poor ministers if they were in Massachusetts! They would have been cuffed and perp walked for the local news.
Nick – Should they become a non-profit church, then they are exempt. Are churches in Massachusetts required to perform same-sex weddings? As to the link I posted, it is as wrong and as wrong-headed. Secular is secular, religious is religious. Americans are Americans. Should a church not want to marry a couple, that’s fine, but to have a religious person interrupt a city hall ceremony would be like me deciding that I didn’t want Catholics to marry.
BettyKath – I totally agree.
bettykath
Dredd, Thanks for Gallagher. Funny man
=========================
At your service.
Annie
Paul … a patient with an infectious disease get red bagged. …
==================================
There are a lot of red baggers on this blog now..
Paul Schulte, you have had a comment deleted containing an offense term for homosexual relations.
Sqeeky Fromm, I have also deleted an earlier comment for an offensive statement along the same lines.
However, Nick, I am heartily sick of the gay bashing on this site. I have many gay friends, and some of the comments are reprehensible.
Dredd, Thanks for Gallagher. Funny man
When taking care of a patients a nurse engages in Universal Precautions until there is a reason to use a stricter protocol. No assumptions are made based on sexual preference. NONE. Do you think we ask people “are you gay?” before taking care of them?
maxcat, You’re one of the adults and reasonable progressives here. What is your take on this post? Do you think these ministers should be forced to perform a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs?
Nick – I just posted a link, and I believe it covers the same topic, but in reverse. No, ministers shouldn’t have to. For profit businesses should. Professor Turley’s article really has me of two minds. If it is a business, if they don’t want to perform the ceremony, they need to hire someone who will, or if not, they need to register as a religious organization.
Some of you will bemoan the site I where I found this, but don’t unless you can refute the content. Here’s your 1st amendment…
I suppose you’ll say that the pastor was exercising his rights, but remember, these were CITY HALL marriages. Sure, just religious freedom.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/pastor-dad-of-anti-lgbt-benham-twins-disrupts-same-sex-weddings-at-nc-city-hall/
Paul,
I don’t recall if it was successful.
Maxcat,
No not amusing at all, but quite revealing.
@Annie
You said, “Paul why would you assume healthy gay people have an infectious disease? Linens in hospitals that come from a patient with an infectious disease get red bagged. There is no ASSUMPTION of an infectious disease in anyone of any sexual orientation without symptoms.”
Uh, 1 in 5 gay men is HIV positive. IIRC, they are not allowed as a group to donate blood. Police departments, fire departments, and hospitals have protocols in place to keep from become infected, primarily from HIV. Is all that imaginary???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Where are you getting your facts from, Squeeky? 1 in 5? Interesting that no gay man I know, and I know about 10 to 12, are HIV positive.
True enough Paul. That is how the team n Green Bay got their name.
SWM, I have said many times you are the real deal. You do not flop or call for JT to delete. Either did Blouise. But don’t pretend there aren’t those children in your ranks who do it daily.
” [Thou] poisonous bunch-back’d toad!” – Shakespeare (Richard III)
nick, And I am not contacting anyone to complain. I never have and doubt I ever will.
Burn them with Obola.
It has killed an Amurkan.
“Be put in a cauldron of lead and usurer’s grease, amongst a whole million of cutpurses, and there boil like a gammon of bacon that will never be enough.” – Shakespeare (The Two Noble Kinsmen)
Shakespeare, I hated what you wrote when I was forced to read your stuff back in high school fifty years ago. I couldn’t understand what you were trying to say. I still don’t understand it, and I still don’t like your plays, no matter how many times I hear people quote you. Lots of people seem to really appreciate your words, and I’m glad they do, as they seem to enjoy it. But I prefer plain modern American English where people get to express how they think or feel about an idea or concept using ordinary language. Right up to the point where everyone started talking in letters and acronyms, that is. Then I’m WTF? LOL! I’m sure the Shakespeare lovers would say I’m just not intellectual enough, but my reply is simply: “Oh, well!”
Dredd, thanks for reminding me of my teen-aged years when my adult attitudes where just starting to form. We all have different triggers that lead to a rational understanding of life. William had his views in his day, we have our own now. They all point in a very similar direction, but often on different levels, don’t they?