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 this is the truth about what docs say about homosexual men giving blood:
Experts urge lifting ban on blood donations by gay men
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/experts-urge-lifting-ban-on-blood-donations-by-gay-men/
BTW I had hepatitis as a consequence of mononucleosis when I was 13. I have a lifetime ban on giving blood, including, by the way, for myself.
(And David most believe that homosexuality is not a “choice” as you still seem to believe. In that it is the same as race or other factors over which one has no biological choice
Ross – “Today, so called conservatives that claim to support small government oppose things like equal marriage rights or freedom from religion in schools, etc. There is no longer any respect for someone else’s individual freedoms.”
I’m confused by this statement. Are you suggesting that the govt. forcing people to perform ceremonies that go against their religion is smaller govt? I want the govt. out of marriage starting with the tax code (smaller govt.). If they did this, this whole issue would go away.
davidm2575 – “Why should any person be forced to participate in any way with something they believe is an abomination? You might as well craft a law forcing Jews and Muslims to serve pig blood for people to drink in their restaurants.”
David, Olly and I have made this same argument and all you hear is crickets or deflection from the people here who want to force their other to do things against their religion.
Maybe the bigger issue is that many Americans embrace a “Nanny-State” model of government (on issues they agree with) while claiming to support individual freedom.
Today, so called conservatives that claim to support small government oppose things like equal marriage rights or freedom from religion in schools, etc. There is no longer any respect for someone else’s individual freedoms.
James Madison’s model of government was designed to protect Americans from others: their neighbors, oligarchs and the government – not to protect us from ourselves (ex: prohibition) or to defer our own personal freedom choices to government bureaucrats.
Well meaning government bureaucrats are perfectly happy to provide that nanny-state to protect us from ourselves (since it increases their own authority over American citizens).
Trooper York on 1, October 21, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Auto correct is a bitch.
=========================================
pete
is the four word rule no longer in effect?
===============================
or only when you point them out?
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS of AMERICA!".
Reblogged this on saboteur365.
is the four word rule no longer in effect?
Ladies! Guys! Let’s discuss the thoughts, feelings, and ideas we have about the topic this blog post presents, or at least your views and beliefs on what others have to say about it expressed in a somewhat objective way. Reading a long string of heated pot-shots being taken back and forth over a period of nine hours certainly doesn’t expand anyone’s thinking and isn’t much fun for the rest of us, either.
Tyger, that would certainly be welcomed.
@maxcat06
You don’t have to apologize to me for anything. I don’t take this stuff personally. It’s just a good spirited argument IMHO. Plus, I always figure if I am making somebody mad, then I am making them think. (Modesty is not my strong suit! 🙂 )
I am glad your friends are doing well, and hope they continue. I know a few gays myself, but I would not feel comfortable sharing their stories. FWIW, you might want to read the stuff at this link. It is from a doctor who was one of the first to treat AIDS. He is pretty adamant that gay men have to stop behaving the way they behave. I do not think he is a homophobe.
http://www.gmhc.org/news-and-events/press-releases/gaining-on-equality-losing-on-health-by-larry-mass-md-gmhc-co-founder
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Maxcat06
Actually, women who have sex only with women tend to be relatively safe. However, about 85% of women who have sex with women, also have sex with men. This has bad results:
http://www.avert.org/lesbians-bisexual-women-sex.htm#footnote1_1a4jsru
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
How did I know that you’d know about lesbians as well??
I have two tales for you, not that they will make the slightest bit of difference, because they deal with actual people, not nebulous articles or statistics.
I have an acquaintance, one I knew in Houston. He and I still exchange Holiday cards (sorry, it’s not the war on Christmas – he’s Christian, I’m nominally Jewish). So what, right? Well, in the 80s, back when President Reagan pretended that AIDS didn’t exist, until Rock Hudson died of it, this friend, yes a gay man, was told to basically “get his house in order”. He quit his job, cashed in his life insurance, confessed to his priest (yes, he was, and still is, a devout Catholic), and traveled around the world. What happened next? He lived longer than expected, then the AIDS cocktail came out. 20 years later, he’s still alive, working, going to church, and thanking HIS God every day. Modern medicine can control this disease you are in such terror over.
Second story. A friend, also my hairdresser. Female. A lesbian. She and her partner had a son through IVF 5 years ago. If childhood is a precursor of future behavior, he’s going to be a totally heterosexual ladykiller, in the nicest sense of the word. LOVES girls. His moms are worried right now because he is slower than his classmates on one developmental category. Typical parents.
Actually, I have a third tale. It’s about a group of people who were considered disease ridden, inferior, not worthy of much, certainly not worthy of participating in society. They were my people, the Jews. This was true in just about every century, up until, and including the current one. Don’t lecture me. Don’t assume to know me, nor presume to understand how it feels to be persecuted, looked down upon, considered diseased. I know about it from the moral, religious, cultural and terror standpoint. I’ve calmed down, and I apologize for the way I posted to you, but not about the substance – don’t presume to tell me what MY preconceptions are. You evidently live a charmed life. Good for you.
maxcat06, on Oct 21 @ 8:59 pm you said: “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.”
I thought at first how strange that I would know more HIV positive men than you do.
Then after she references the CDC with the proper documentation, you start with “blah, blah, blah…” and just mocking her for taking your question seriously. You said you didn’t care about that statistic.
On Oct 22 @ 12:24 am, you post: “I have an acquaintance, one I knew in Houston. He and I still exchange Holiday cards…” and it turns out in your story that this guy you know and exchange Holiday cards with is HIV positive.
So why did you say that no gay man you know is HIV positive? Are you shooting straight with us or not?
David – Thanks, as always, for trying to trip me up, as you do others. I mentioned that the man in Houston was an acquaintance with whom I exchange cards once a year. In another post, I mentioned gay friends. Friends, to me, are those I see often, meet for dinner, have over, go to their houses, speak to often, confide in, etc.
Should you find some other sentence to nitpick, please feel free to let me know. I could go back to a thread of perhaps a month or two ago where you actually told me that you considered yourself a “progressive”. I could lift
paragraph after paragraph from your posts, both before and since disputing that statement, but I don’t want to bring out a flea comb.
maxcat06 wrote: “Friends, to me, are those I see often, meet for dinner, have over, go to their houses, speak to often, confide in, etc.”
Thanks for that clarification. You are a standup guy. I can respect that. I don’t know if I don’t ask.
See, anyone can post articles that prove their points. These, however, don’t, I believe, disenfranchise anyone, nor trample on their rights.
@bettykath
You said, “It isn’t your facts that are the problem, it’s what you do with them that is.”
Yes, it’s the transmission of those facts to people who don’t want to hear them. 🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, It isn’t your facts that are the problem, it’s what you do with them that is.
You know what, bettykath? I’m going to start posting annoying links here. This is the first one….
http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Wyoming-prepares-to-legalize-same-sex-marriage-5836221.php
I don’t care if only ONE couple gets married. It’s also for the female same-sex couples that, despite Squeeky’s statistics, don’t carry diseases. It’s also simply the fact that they are United States citizens and fall under the same tax code as heterosexual couples, diseased or not.
Here’s one about Obama, from former Reagan advisor, Bruce Bartlett…
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/
White-on-white violence in the U.S. (notice that the police didn’t kill anyone)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/10/20/we-need-to-talk-about-pumpkin-related-violence-in-this-country/?TID+SM_FB
@Maxcat06
It’s not puerile. It’s extremely relevant. If only 5-6% (IIRC) of gays in Belgium get married, how come??? The social stigma is supposedly less over there. Sooo, why do so few of these people in love tie the knot??? Mebbe because they are way to busy screwing around like a pack of rabbits, which promiscuity leads to all the bad things in the CDC excerpt above.
And, if 94% or so of them don’t find their mates worth making a commitment to, then why are the rest of us sooo worried about it??? At the very least we ought to be discussing these issues, along with the fact that over half the gays that do get married, have “San Francisco” special snowflake marriages where they don’t even have to be monogamous. So what is the big fuss over??? It looks to me the people who are really against gay marriage are the gays themselves, who by and large don’t bother to do it.
I think rather than you being irritated at my puerility, you are irritated because you are learning new facts, and they don’t fit into your preconceptions.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Blah…blah….blah….”I’m scared of gays:….blah…blah….”they don’t get married”, blah….blah…..THEY’RE NOT LIKE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I learned one thing from you, Squeeky, and it was a statistic which, as I already said, bothers me not in the least. Did you know that marriage overall is at an all time low? Must be that screwing like rabbits. Don’t like gays, Squeeky? Fine. After all, it IS a free country, but don’t use your disease statistics and the fact that you hate gays and porn and whatever else to claim that it isn’t at all that you find it easy to discriminate because of that. As I wrote earlier, I’ve heard the same crap about African-Americans here in Georgia.
BTW, your “snowflake” article, at least the one you last posted, was from about 10 years ago, but even if it weren’t, what does it matter to you? As far as I know, no one is forcing you to marry a gay man. Don’t you presume to lecture me about MY preconceptions. I’ve been around a lot longer than you, seen, apparently, a LOT more than you have, and don’t need a narrow-minded fear monger to lecture me.
JT, should you choose to delete this post, delete away. I have had enough of total bigots lecturing me about what this nation should be about, and what it should allow or not allow, either through fear or religion, or both.
I’m learning new facts….ha! From a total provincial.
@MaxCat06
Actually, if same sex marriage ever is the law in the U.S., the effects will be minimal. Not enough gays gets married to make a difference. Personally, I can’t wait for the Gay Divorce TV Show. That ought to be a hoot.
The biggest problem will be the around the edge stuff like the article here, where the gays try to force people to celebrate their screwed up lifestyles. Or the schools,where they will try to have sodomy put right there front and center in sex ed class. Or, the public bathroom stuff where some idiot tranny wants to go tinkle in the other sex’s bathroom.
I read an article once about gay marriage in Belgium, and the pathetically low rates of it. I haven’t been able to find the article since then, but maybe somebody here can.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – I’m not replying to any more of your puerile posts on this subject. It just gives you the opportunity to rant about “screwed up lifestyles and sex ed classes and public bathrooms”. The rate of gay marriage in Belgium isn’t germane to the issue; the fact that it isn’t condemned is. You have a real problem with this issue, but it’s your problem, not mine. Why I should give you more of a chance to reply and to repeat your BS is beyond me.
The People’s Court is in Burbank.
Burn them with Obola.
It has killed an Amurkan.
@ Dredd
Actually. Not yet.
That we know of.
Pardon, the Hague is the world court. The European Court is in Brussels, I believe.