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
Squeeky –
I suppose I didn’t know it because it doesn’t terrify me quite as much. Besides, when I have house guests, of any sex and of any sexual persuasion, I do wash the sheets after their visit. To date, and at age 63 and having lived through the worst of the AIDS crisis in the 80s with several friends, I remain remarkably healthy. Should you like, I will provide my physician’s name and phone number. One of my dearest friends is a gay man. Since I have known him, which is about 25 years, he has had 2 partners. He is now about 8 years into his 2nd committed relationship.
Nick – your description of Shields, however, is totally accurate!
I’m glad I’m not there. I had a buddy call me w/ tix but didn’t feel like making the 8 hour drive. He only had tix for tonight. I would have driven if I could have gone to both games.
@Maxcat06
Sorry it took so long, but having wifi problems. Here is where you can find the statistics, the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
Here is an excerpt:
What this boils down to, when you have a gay male couple stay over, there is a 1/5 + 1/5 = 2/5 or 40% chance that there is the HIV virus in the couple.
But, what I am interested most in, is why are you not already aware of this??? My GUESS is, most people do not talk about it for fear of being called homophobic. Sooo, the info doesn’t get around the way it should.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“[Thou] leathern-jerkin, crystal-button, knot-pated, agatering, puke-stocking, caddis-garter, smooth-tongue, Spanish pouch!” – Shakespeare (Henry IV, part I)
Dredd,
I’m curious; why all the Shakespearian quotations?
James Shields is a dogass! His agent is eating Rolaids because Shields is a free agent next year. This postseason, combined w/ his prior 10 plus ERA in prior postseason performances, costs him a few million $’s.
Nick Spinelli
max, I have said here, I do not agree w/ Squeeky on gay sex, porn or drugs. But, I would not prevent her from speaking her mind because it might offend someone. As you see, we can say offensive things about some people w/ impunity, but not others. There are protected classes. That is wrong.
============================
What you are saying is that it is not bad to protect classes, it is wrong not to protect enough of them.
Yep.
Until all are protected none are protected.
Protect away.
nick, I don’t think what you are saying is accurate. I got deleted once for saying something about “white privilege” to another poster.
max, I have said here, I do not agree w/ Squeeky on gay sex, porn or drugs. But, I would not prevent her from speaking her mind because it might offend someone. As you see, we can say offensive things about some people w/ impunity, but not others. There are protected classes. That is wrong.
Nick – While I don’t really believe in protected classes when it comes to speech, I do rank self-censorship highly. Perhaps I haven’t always practiced it, but some of the crap posted by people, not necessarily here (although at times) but on the web in general, often comes down to people talking smack, and then, when called on it, stating, “Hey, that’s my first amendment right!” Actually, the 1st Amendment protects one from the government, not from the criticism of others. Free speech is free, true, but can have consequences as well.
Besides, I’m annoyed that the Giants are winning….
Nick – I agree with you. I’m not sure what else I need to say. I think I was just reeling from the, yes, gay bashing going on here. I have too many good friends who come to mind. I have black friends who would feel the exact opposite of your black friends. That doesn’t make either side “right”.
I think it would be better to provide comments on the basis of the merits of issues rather than scatological references.
I like science.
No Shakyspear for a while.
Git r done knickers.
Nick Spinelli
Enormously fat people can’t properly wipe their butt.
…
===================================
Oh, it is science hour at the red butt salon.
Nick – Bashing is one thing. The conversation here was quickly veering towards people not being allowed to marry or, from the comments of some, allowed to live because of their predilections, due to “health issues”.
As to mayo sandwich eating, I don’t need to bash them, as they are in a hell of their own making.
max, I said what that minister to disrupt that civil ceremony was wrong and horseshit. What else do I need to say?
max, I have black friends who read this site and won’t comment because it is so PC. They hate the way JT prevents and real honest discussion of race. I have gay friends but they don’t read this site. If they read what anyone said here they would just give it back. JT has that paternalistic, liberal attitude, protecting women, blacks, gays and other protected classes. Been in DC too long.
JT is great, having lots of experience, at incrementally presenting a legal precept, maxim, or growing dynamic tracking to become permanent law, such as the one in this thread … “where does religion begin and secularism stop” and of course vice versa.
I would not win competing against him on a world of issues.
We shouldn’t be judgmental. We should be happy to lay down in a thread even if the previous posters had claptrap.
max, Is it ok if we bash Christian hillbillies? Of course it is, they are not a protected class. How about fat, honky, Christian hillbillies who have sex w/ their cousins and eat mayo sandwiches.