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
Mike Appleton
davidm:
My purpose was not to “marginalize” your theological leanings, but to point out that your views coincide with those of a particular branch of Christianity that emphasizes Old Testament authoritarianism, a rigid hierarchical structure in family relationships, a deep distrust of religious pluralism and an evangelical doctrinal stance that regards separation of church and state as unbiblical There are many other Christian voices in the religious marketplace, many of which believe that our approach to questions of human sexuality should be characterized by humility and love. There is not, in my view, a single “Christian” understanding of anything.
========================================
I might add that our cultural amygdala has produced two circuitry dynamics that are playing out here.
The nurturing parent is the first and the second is the strict father:
(Security: Familyland, Fatherland, or Homeland?). David is expressing his strict father cultural amgydala circuitry.
The nation has animated the nurturing parent model for decades, but the evolution from left to right will extinguish that and authoritarianism will soon rule the day as the strict father side of the movie.
Dust Bunny Queen
@ Dredd
I did not know that he was an American citizen. Not that it really makes any difference in the long run.
=========================
That is why I commented to you.
It does make a difference when you are flat out wrong but accuse someone else of being unaware when it is you who are Pogo.
You are wrong on that point too.
David, You can just declare a contract null and void and walk away? Are saying that other party to the contract can’t disagree and go to court to get you comply or pay a penalty? Sounds like you’re into desertion but the other party may want a formal divorce and a settlement.
bettykath wrote: “You can just declare a contract null and void and walk away? Are saying that other party to the contract can’t disagree and go to court to get you comply or pay a penalty? Sounds like you’re into desertion but the other party may want a formal divorce and a settlement.”
What I am saying is that when a contract between me and another party is not working out, usually because they are violating one of the terms of the agreement, I can just call them up and say, “hey, this agreement we have is not working out anymore. Here’s the problem. … So from now on, this agreement is null and void. Agreed?” He says yes, you are right, and we both part as friends. I do not have to go to court to get out of the contract with him.
With marriage, not so. Even if my wife and I both agree that neither of us want to be married anymore, and even if we agree about how to split up property and how much I am going to support her and the children, we have to go to court to get out of the marriage. That is because marriage is more than just a contract.
davidm:
My purpose was not to “marginalize” your theological leanings, but to point out that your views coincide with those of a particular branch of Christianity that emphasizes Old Testament authoritarianism, a rigid hierarchical structure in family relationships, a deep distrust of religious pluralism and an evangelical doctrinal stance that regards separation of church and state as unbiblical There are many other Christian voices in the religious marketplace, many of which believe that our approach to questions of human sexuality should be characterized by humility and love. There is not, in my view, a single “Christian” understanding of anything.
Mike Appleton wrote: “… your views coincide with those of a particular branch of Christianity that emphasizes Old Testament authoritarianism, a rigid hierarchical structure in family relationships, a deep distrust of religious pluralism and an evangelical doctrinal stance that regards separation of church and state as unbiblical.”
But your characterization does not represent my views at all. I do not embrace authoritarianism, nor do I have any stance that regards separation of church and state as unbiblical. Many times have I expressed my support of the separation of church and state as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and as implied by James Madison and the signers of our Bill of Rights.
Mike Appleton wrote: “There is not, in my view, a single “Christian” understanding of anything.”
I completely agree, and never have I ever attempted to represent Christianity in this forum. I reject Christianity. While I might share some views that are represented by various religions within Christianity, that does not mean that I am trying to push one of those religions upon anyone.
david – is it just me or is the Bill of Rights a series of amendments added to the Constitution after acceptance by the requisite number of states? I did not know the Bill of Rights had signers, in which case there would be 12, not 10.
Paul Schulte wrote: “I did not know the Bill of Rights had signers, in which case there would be 12, not 10.”
I was thinking of the States that ratified it. Not sure about your comment about 12. There were actually 12 Amendments. Are you talking about that? Two of them didn’t get ratified.
The term “gay marriage” stigmatizes gay people…
We don’t say Chinese marriage or mix marriage or what have you. It is simply called marriage and the gay community seeks to be “treated” equally. Further stigmatizing marriage erodes the institution, itself.
The Knapps are a victim of their own making…
Letter from the city attorney to the Knapps…
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/KnappCityAttorneyLetter.pdf
Max-1 wrote: “The Knapps are a victim of their own making…”
Interesting letter. Apparently the Knapps took action to protect themselves from the city ordinance. I wonder if they told this Georgia lawyer before they did that. Now the Knapps will probably be in trouble with the IRS.
@ Dredd
I did not know that he was an American citizen. Not that it really makes any difference in the long run.
“Why thou globe of sinful continents, what a life dost thou lead!” – Shakespeare (Henry IV, part 2)
I KNEW there was someone missing last night in the hue and cry for denial of benefits to same-sex couples….David!
I’ve said my piece. Now I can sit back and read the diatribes about how gays should remain 2nd class.
Ah, reminds me of being a Jew again! Perhaps I’ll go to temple Friday night.
No, folks, some of this is not in the Constitution, but I do remember the Declaration of Independence stating “all men are created equal”. I suppose that, along with white, land-owning men, Jefferson also meant straight ones.
Those who oppose this are welcome to, but please stop wrapping yourselves up in the Constitution and claim you’re for rights. I’m amazed your computers don’t catch fire.
maxcat06 wrote: “Now I can sit back and read the diatribes about how gays should remain 2nd class.”
I think gays should have the same rights as everyone else. And they do.
What Mike Appleton said.
Nick Spinelli
…
“Those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it.”
==================================
You should say that again.
Dust Bunny Queen
Burn them with Obola.
It has killed an Amurkan.
@ Dredd
Actually. Not yet.
That we know of.
================================
The man in Dallas that died of Ebola was a U.S. citizen.
If one gets Ebola does that make them not American because the disease is from Africa (Obola: Art Thou Dying Properly?)?
Nick Spinelli,
Many well-meaning critics confuse “homosexuality vs. hedonism”. Marriage is the polar opposite of hedonism. Marriage is hopefully a lifelong endeavor that promotes stability.
Many Judeo-Christian scholars interpret the Bible in the very same way and Jesus himself never mentioned one word condemned homosexuals.
Marriage didn’t bring down any nation or empire.
Ross wrote: ” Marriage is the polar opposite of hedonism.”
Not really. Hedonists have always married.
Ross wrote: “Jesus himself never mentioned one word condemned homosexuals.”
Argument from silence is not very persuasive. Jesus did mention full support for the Torah and that heaven and earth would pass away before one mark in the Torah would be done away with.
bettykath – I agree with you. I think what the Catholic Church does about annulments is criminal. In theory, it makes the children of the first marriage illegitimate. Although, nobody bothers about that today.
I just had the scene from The Bird Cage flash through my mind. The one w/ the Greek soup bowls. What a great flick. I think Robin Williams best performance. He was always best when kept in control by the director. I never knew why he and Nathan Lane did not collaborate in more productions.
Nick – Nathan Lane works with people he likes, like Matthew Broderick.
No one seems to want to discuss homosexuality and it’s complicity w/ the declines in the Greek and Roman cultures.
davidm2575: “. . . he is talking about canon law, not civil law.”
Cannon law: “When you got the cannon, you get to make the law.” And, you’re right, that ain’t civil. But it is how things were done in the Old West for years.
Jesus may return and fight ISIS. The Pope says combatting ISIS is righteous.
If Jesus suddenly came back to earth today, would he approve or disapprove of modern Christianity?
nearly 52,000 responses. 9% say approve, 87% say disapprove.
The web site is interactive and you can see the results based on state, city, party, ethnicity, income, education, marital status. The results are fairly consistent across all.
http://www.isidewith.com/poll/292819043
Squeek, In that regard I highly recommend the flick, Real Women Have Curves. It covers the body image issues a beautiful young Mexican woman has here in the US. But, it is also about how all immigrant families must adjust to our entire culture when they arrive. The setting is LA where the skinny, female, gay culture dominates, making it even TOUGHER for this intelligent, young woman.
Davidm2575:
If the business were a “sole-proprietorship” (not a corporation) where the owners aren’t insulated from liability from the business it would be a simpler to discriminate. Once the business becomes a “corporation” it is considered a separate person. By law there are two separate persons (the owner and the business). If the business gets sued, the owners personal assets are protected since it is the “corporate person”, not the “natural person” (human owner). This is called a corporate veil which protects business owners.
If a church or religious institution chooses NOT to take the IRS tax deduction (subsidized by taxpayers) and pay higher taxes as a result, they have more rights to discriminate. If a religious school teaches handicapped children and receive federal grants (taxpayer funds) it could be subjectto more restrictions.
@NickS
Worse, straight men are beginning to find American women unattractive. Even the young straight men are starting to fantasize about foreign born real women. Truthfully, I can’t say I blame them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter