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
The Knapps are finding out the hard way that the proverbial lunch counter is to be open to all or the shop closes… Equality 101.
Max-1 wrote: “The Knapps are finding out the hard way that the proverbial lunch counter is to be open to all or the shop closes… Equality 101.”
I do not see this at all like closing the lunch counter to blacks. It is more like a bartender refusing to serve alcohol to an alcoholic. Or maybe like a store refusing to sell certain glue or butane without proper identification because a teenager might be trying to buy it to abuse it rather than using it for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of marriage is the joining of a man and woman to complete them in a complementary union. It legitimizes sexual relations for that purpose and for the purpose of reproduction. Same sex marriage abuses these purposes by attempting to legitimize perverse and immoral sexual activity that is far more dangerous than a teenager sniffing glue.
US Religious Fundamentalism sold abroad has caused this…
Gay community under attack in Liberia over Ebola outbreak
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-foundation-ebola-liberia-gay-idUKKCN0IC1GV20141023?irpc=932
Religious fundamentalism… in action.
Gigi De La Paz
Opining for white ONLY lunch counters… ah, those were the days, NO?
I mean, the blacks can just go somewhere else, YES?
Where’s MY religious freedom to be free FROM religiously based hate and discrimination?
Max-1 wrote: “Where’s MY religious freedom to be free FROM religiously based hate and discrimination?”
That’s easy. Do not join religion and do not bother them. When homosexuals use the force of government to foist immoral and dangerous practices upon society, they should not be surprised to find some in society defending themselves and using words to persuade others of the evil intentions of the homosexual activists doing this.
What is sad here is that at this point in time, the Knapps are being forced to become religious, to create their own church, in order to find some protection from the law because the true force of the law hides behind religious exceptions. That is wrong. The law should apply equally to all individuals regardless of religious affiliation. Civil law should apply the same to the religiously inclined as to the non-religious. Otherwise, the law is not neutral toward religion. It is picking a side. It is polarizing our country and separating the religious from the non-religious. There is no true separation of church and state when the law makes exceptions for religious organizations. It is a law showing favoritism toward a religious establishment, something our Constitution prohibits.
Who did Jesus say we should discriminate against?
Religious fundamentalism a muck!
Max-1 wrote: “Who did Jesus say we should discriminate against?”
Jesus taught his disciples to discriminate against those who would not receive them or hear their words.
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Mat 10:14-15)
davidm
Totally disagree, as you well know. The cases keep piling up infringing upon the fundamental rights of our citizens. The worse effect is the destruction of marriage.
= = =
Fundamental rights you say?
Like housing or employment?
davidm,
Would it be correct then to say that you’re saying withholding rights from people is a good thing… IF THEY’RE GAY?
Honey, as a gay man in my 50’s I’ve lived through the age of DISCRIMINATION based on FEAR and misunderstanding by a fundamentally corrupt religious movement to keep the discrimination alive, even TODAY! Why epitomize my statement?
You’ve never had to hide from a landlord, your sexuality in fear of eviction, have you? You’ve never had to hide your sexuality from an employer in fear of being fired, have you? So, to say that religious people’s right (TO DISCRIMINATE) is being infringed is a bad thing is baseless. PERIOD!
Max-1 wrote: “Would it be correct then to say that you’re saying withholding rights from people is a good thing… IF THEY’RE GAY?”
No, that would not be correct. Being gay is legal, and gay people should be afforded the same protections of the law as anyone else. However, gay people should NOT be afforded special protections, because then the law is not based upon equality. The law would not be applied equally to everyone. The civil laws of a pluralistic society should not show favoritism toward gay people anymore than it should show favoritism toward Jews, Christians, or Muslims.
As for having to hide your sexual proclivities, that is just part of living in a plural society. I’ve been spit upon by homosexuals, and beat up by them too. One sucker punched me with a baseball bat from behind and knocked me out. You don’t hear me whining about it and asking for the law to do something about it. I once had a banner I was holding on campus stolen from me. The police caught the culprit. When I asked the police to record it as a hate crime, the campus police said no. The only hate crimes they allowed to be reported was if somebody had stolen a gay person’s sign. Then that could be reported as a hate crime. Again, I don’t whine about it and demand the laws change. I live with this kind of discrimination every day. Yet that does not stop me from teaching people of the inequity of such laws. I believe in the power of persuasion rather than using the force of government.
Jim, I saw that video on another blog. Women are being raped and beheaded in the Middle East and this is what elitist US feminists are doing. Depraved.
David, I guess it is progress and they get to sell a few T-shirts along the way while exploiting these little girls.
Business, churches, or any other public gathering place should have a right to serve those whom they wish to serve–and the customer has the right to go to another place to do their business. I remember a time, not too long ago, when businesses had the right to refuse service to anyone they deemed unfit to do business with. Remember the signs, “We have the right to refuse business to anyone.” And then of course there was the one, “No shirts, no shoes, no service.” Did the ACLU take away those business rights also?
David, Another proud moment for feminism.
http://www.eonline.com/news/590557/watch-these-adorable-little-girls-drop-f-bombs-and-truth-bombs-to-promote-feminism
Parents of the year.
Jim22 – that video… that is so messed up!
When is society going to discuss what equality means? Women are the fairer sex. Why do feminists want to destroy that?
Actually, now that I think of it, with all the wars going on these days, cannon law is how things are being handled in modern times as well.
DBQ, Both my wife and I knew a great Jesuit who taught @ Rockhurst College in KC. He was a jail and prison chaplain. The padre was happy to marry us. My bride was raised Methodist, but it really didn’t matter to the priest or her. But, we got married in Loose Park, which has a famous rose garden. The bishop wouldn’t allow him to do a wedding outside the church. Prick! I got a judge I knew well. He was also a Baptist preacher. It was 102 degrees! My suit look like James Brown’s after sweating through it.
There’s a very good book I recommend, Boys in the Boat. It’s about the U. of Washington and Cal row teams back in the 30’s. The great Gregory Peck rowed for Cal.
Many people decided to become attorneys wanting to be Atticus Finch. Too bad you can search long and hard and never find one even close. I always tried to work Harper Lee’s great novel into the curriculum in my history class. And after reading and discussing, watch the great flick. I cry every time.
QUESTION
Why is it when people discuss marriage and tie it to procreation, these same people refuse to outlaw divorce and/or elder and non fertile couples from marrying?
Notice that their disconnect in their “social” reasoning doesn’t pass muster when equally applied to individuals of heterosexual persuasion who are incapable of said “procreation” regardless of religious ideology.
@ Darren
I presume things have changed radically since MY parents were married, way back in the dark ages. My mother was Catholic and father Quaker (raised that way but really mostly agnostic). In order to get married IN the actual physical church they had to go to some sort of classes. My father had to take instructions and swear somehow that the children would be raised in the Catholic faith. THEN they could get married in the church….but not at the main altar. The ceremony was at a side apse or altar.
It didn’t matter to my father, but it was important to my mother.
I doubt that it is that strict today…..that was a veeeeeery long time ago.
on 1, October 22, 2014 at 6:44 pm
Paul C. Schulte
Mike – cite it, please.
—–
Says the man who claimed the teachers ‘ union had established a charter school in Arizona– but refused to provide proof of such.
Elaine – could be the charter school folded. They sometimes do.
davidm:
I also grew up in a culture in which men are expected to be the breadwinners. I don’t have a problem with that, but men and women ought to be free to establish their own parameters and divisions of responsibility. My point is that deadbeats are not victims of anything other than their own choices.
Mike Appleton wrote: “… but men and women ought to be free to establish their own parameters and divisions of responsibility. My point is that deadbeats are not victims of anything other than their own choices.”
Yes, I agree with this. Do you agree also that we influence one another in society? Do you agree that children often develop a self awareness based upon what they are taught in school and the movies they watch and the opinions of their friends?
There are movies and there are movies. In my estimation, one of the finest examples of manhood can be found in Gregory Peck’s character in “To Kill A Mockingbird.”
Thank you Mike Appleton. I appreciate your valuable information. I think you’ve made the best statements here and back it up with rationality and logic.