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
Everyone is conflating two separate things here. The guy is not required to perform any religious ceremony. But he is required by law and by the terms of his business license to perform a civil oath ceremony, and sign a legal document. Why does everyone try to make this complicated?
Laws should apply equally to businesses and non-profits and churches. Whenever the law is created with exceptions for this business or that business, or this individual versus that individual, we have problems like this.
One interesting thing is that many churches are deciding not to incorporate under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, citing too much government entanglement with religion. Furthermore, they believe the members and leaders have a right to political speech, which they lose if they claim they are a 501(c)(3) church.
Reading some of the comments on this thread, that is interesting because if they don’t come under the IRS code as a church, many here consider them bigoted and unjust, whereas if they were a church, the same behavior would be acceptable?
And yet let’s watch how many people keep screaming the same tired mantra that homosexual marriage doesn’t hurt others in society one bit. Situations like this one and the bakers and photographers, etc. are just the tip of the iceberg to what is yet to come on the homosexual rights front.
David,
If some of the churches you mentioned are not incorporating as 501(c)(3) organizations is there another way they can have the tax exemptions and not be burdened with the free speech issues that they complain of? How does this work?
Darren, they do not take any tax exemptions. When people donate to them, they make it clear on the receipt that their donation is not tax deductible.
@ JIm
That would be a great solution. But that would never happen because the government might be giving up the ability to reach into our pockets if we alter the tax code. It would also put a whole lot of financial planners, insurance agents, insurance companies and lawyers out of business. It is all about the MONEY.
Inheritance rules are very complicated. Depending on if it is the spouse inheriting or not. Cost basis step up on the assets or not. Tax sheltered assets or not. Qualified or not qualified. Tax deferred assets and cost basis depending on the status of the beneficiary, spouse vs anyone else.
When Barbers, who also allegedly claim to be Christians, start refusing to give round haircuts, because they too are an alleged abomination, then I will believe this has something to do with religion.
When alleged Christians stop spitting in God’s face when it comes to God’s Commandment to not bear false witness, i.e. lying about global warming, or lying about trickle-down economics etc., then I will believe this has something to do with religion.
DBQ, Can’t the same result be done by removing marriage from the tax code and as for inheritance etc. can that be handled by wills and beneficiaries? I know what am I thinking, less govt. in our lives.
Businesses don’t have a religion
This is true, but the people who own and operate the business…..especially a closely held business…..do have religion. Are they required to abandon or compromise their religious principles because they have gone into business?
What if it is a Muslim owned restaurant, can they be forced to serve bacon sandwiches and beer! Or….forced to stop serving bacon because Muslims are being discriminated against. (There is already an example of this that was posted on this blog)
I know, those last examples are rather facetious, but you get the idea, I hope, that at what point can the owners of a business be forced to violate their own religious or personally held principles. Perhaps people with religious principles should be prevented from owning and operating businesses that put them in conflict with their principles? How would that play out?
We have a business and it doesn’t matter to us what religion or sexual persuasion our client’s are, so this whole mental exercise doesn’t pertain to us.. What matters is that they pay us. If they don’t we repossess the pump, tanks and equipment….. and they are out of water. People can get quite religious about having water. 🙂
Perhaps the wedding chapel people should have operated as a non-profit, but I don’t think that that structure would shield them legally either. If the wedding chapel people were only performing the ceremonies and not registering the marriage for the state, would that make a difference? In that case, refusing to perform a religious ceremony doesn’t stop a couple from getting married. They just don’t get the ceremony. No soup for YOU!
Maybe everyone needs to start their own churches? Chaos.
Part of the problem here is caused by the fact that in the U.S., religious and civil marriage ceremonies can be combined
Yes. This is the problem. There are legitimate reasons for the government to have a record of your formal union. Inheritance laws, which can vary from State to State, social security benefits to a surviving spouse, pension plan benefits to spouses, health insurance discounts for spouses, tax filing status, debt collection and allocation, community property etc.
So if people are married in a civil action and registered, they have completed the legal aspects of all this.
THEN……they can have a religious or any other kind of ceremony to celebrate their union. AND the religious organizations can decline to perform a ceremony if they feel compromised.
This seems like a no-brainer solution to me.
Businesses don’t have a religion.
Ed
I can’t begin to pretend to have an informed legal opinion. I just find it fascinating that one of the arguments in favor of gay marriage was that it wasn’t right that those opposed to it were able to impose their beliefs and thereby restrict the freedom of others.
And now after the fact we see those in favor of gay marriage forcing their beliefs and limiting the freedom of others.
On a personal note, the last place I would want to get married is somewhere that I had to pay people who I knew were forced by law to perform the ceremony and despised/hated/was intolerant of our life. I don’t get it.
***************************************************************************************
I’ve always supported the right to same sex marriage and have been incensed at the fortunes in tax dollars our politicians have been wasting fighting against same sex marriage. However, I have to agree with Ed on this one.
The photographers in the prior case and the ministers in this case actually would have to participate in the wedding. Forcing them to participate violates their right to religious freedom. When restaurants or hotels are forced to serve someone they don’t like, they are not forced to participate in any overt act that goes against their principles.
The two situations are completely different. I believe that the photographers and the ministers were targeted just to make a point.
Marco, the issue is not resolved by reference to the 14th Amendment, as that ignores the protections established by the 1st Amendment. Here, two ordained Pentecostal ministers who include a religious component in the wedding ceremonies they perform will not perform same-sex ceremonies. The issue is how the competing protected interests are balanced. I don’t believe that the right to freedom of religion should depend on whether or not you actually operate a church. Part of the problem here is caused by the fact that in the U.S., religious and civil marriage ceremonies can be combined. If the religious ceremony was left to the religious, and the ceremony establishing the legal status and rights was left to the state, the answer would be easier for me.
How long are we Americans going to allow our government to subvert our Constitution? If government feels that a minister is preaching the overthrow of our government or is encouraging subversive activities of his congregation then governmment officials should sit in on church services. Our government’s ever increasing involvement in our civil liberties must stop.
@ Oxa
I agree completely. Marriage, if it needs to be recorded for government purposes, should be a simple registry and small fee at the County Clerk’s office and….. wham bam boodle…..you are married.
If the couple wants a religious ceremony or any other kind of celebration to solemnize their union then they can go to the venue of their choice. Church, Synagogue, Buddhist Temple, stand an pledge your union to Gaia…..whatever. That venue is not obligated to perform a ceremony if it is in conflict with their religious views. The people can make a “generous” donation to the church.
Keep the government out of the religious side of it.
Nick Spinelli – “Jim, I commented about that assault on free speech yesterday. The haters of the Constitution will not prevail. But, we lovers of the Constitution will not prevail.”
Yes, I was shocked (sarcasm) that the weekend writers didn’t have an article about Houston’s attack on religion. Their silence says a lot.
This problem is really easy to solve.
Make same sex civil unions legal. Stay out of religious marriage.
There are many religious organizations, including Christian, who perform same sex marriage. If you want a religious ceremony, join one of those congregations. Otherwise, get married at the court house. There you go. Overcame your first hurdle as a couple.
Because if government is going to get involved in religion, then they’re going to have to make the Catholic church allow women to become priests and monks (gender discrimination, and Muslim women to become imams.)
I would think this business would be GLAAD gay marriage was legalized: More customers!
This is different than a standard church being made by statute to perform a ceremony that is against its principles. I have to agree whenever any business opens for the general public to patronize it then falls under the purview of anti-discrimination laws.
But this could be another issue that could involve the Hobby Lobby decision in that this proprietorship is obviously owned closely.
Particularly nasty SS guards would make Jews deny Judaism or they were beaten or shot on the spot.
This is why churches should not be in the business of performing legal actions for the state. Governments should perform civil unions (for couples of any sex); churches should perform marriages. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Monte, Great comment. Thanks.
The First Amendment right to freedom of speech includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking. This “right to refrain from speaking is a component of the broader concept of individual freedom of mind. It guarantees that the government cannot force its citizens to utter what is not in their minds, or express messages that “‘reason tells them should not be said.”
To perform a ceremony requires the person to actually “Speak.” Any law that would require a person to “Speak” against their will is itself unconstitutional
Jim, I commented about that assault on free speech yesterday. The haters of the Constitution will not prevail. But, we lovers of the Constitution will not prevail.