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
progress has been made…
We’ve moved from immoral behavior to stupid.
Max-1 wrote: “progress has been made… We’ve moved from immoral behavior to stupid.”
LOL. That’s progress, eh? I’ll try to remember that.
davidm
Nothing stupid about allowing two adults to marry, but there is something stupid about two people of the same sex marrying.
= = =
CLUE 101:
If you don’t like it, don’t do it yourself.
davidm,
The same argument as Loving v Virginia.
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/equality-and-the-constitution/loving-v-virginia-4/
Max-1, in Loving there was a federally protected class of race in the Constitution that the Justices had to deal with. It was obvious that the laws were based upon that protected classification. There is no such protected class for homosexuals. Race and Homosexuality are completely different. Race is entirely genetic. Homosexuality involves cognitive factors. Race is entirely according to nature. Homosexuality is contrary to biological nature. Neither evolutionary theories nor creationist theories predict it to be biologically healthy, good, and normal. In short, the similarity to the Loving argument is entirely superficial.
OK davidm, Annie answered for you. Thanks Annie.
So, let us wander into territory where no child has gone before…
… Infertile couples.
Should they be allowed to get married?
They don’t have grand children because they can’t have children.
Should they abstain from sex and focus on the puppy, instead?
David has been asked about this on this thread by me, Annie, you, others as well as on other threads when he has gone into his sex is for procreation marriage is for procreation but I do not recall his ever bothering to reply, or if he did being cogent enough to recall. David falls into the consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. He is unable to see past his fears, prejudices and belief that he has the right answers for everyone if we would only be smart enough to heed him.
leejcaroll wrote: “but I do not recall his ever bothering to reply, or if he did being cogent enough to recall. David falls into the consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. He is unable to see past his fears, prejudices and belief that he has the right answers for everyone if we would only be smart enough to heed him.”
Actually, I do try to answer, but I think many of you want a simple answer to a complex issue. Life is just not that accommodating. I suppose it makes you feel better about yourselves to impugn my character, describing me as fearful and prejudicial, but the truth is that I am simply being true to what I perceive about this subject. It is fascinating for me to see how everybody aligns themselves.
leejcaroll – I am not sure how old you are, but I am old enough that when I got married, it legitimized sexual intercourse with my wife and made my offspring with her legitimate. In those days adultery was a felony and being illegitimate was frowned on. The had special homes and schools for girls who got pregnant without benefit of marriage.
Olly,
All non-profit religious institutions are exempted. The Knapps chose to restructure their chapel into a for-profit religious Corporation and it too is being recognized as a protected religious organization and is being exempted.
How is the Right of Conscious being alienated from the Knapps when the State recognizes their religious stance as being protected FROM the law?
Annie,
Was it was that chit eatin’ grin that gave it away?
DAvid,
You said “parents of kindergarten through middle school students having to contend with a book about two daddies,”
I said “As to middle school students reading about two daddys or two mommys,”
You said ” for children in kindergarten ”
So apparently you agree re: middle school.
“Fair enough, but the prevention of homosexual behavior based on its unhealthiness is frowned upon as being condemnation.”
Interfering with the sexual behavior of consenting adults is condemnation. There are unhealthy aspects of many kinds of sexual behaviors, including those of heterosexuals. Do you also believe that heterosexual behavior should be prevented due to its unhealthy aspects? Or would it be better to have the information about dealing with unhealthy aspects well known and let the adults decide for themselves?
bettykath wrote: “So apparently you agree re: middle school.”
I think middle schoolers are old enough to consider and discuss such issues. I don’t agree with the way the propaganda is put together.
bettykath wrote: “Do you also believe that heterosexual behavior should be prevented due to its unhealthy aspects?”
Education needs to be truthful. Gay men have health problems that are more than 40 times worse than their heterosexual counterparts. I suspect you and most people on this blog are ignorant of that because of the intense homosexual propaganda. Very few people look at the facts from the CDC. I think the health problems of sexual contact needs to be amplified. Too many people in school think they can’t catch anything through oral sex. They do not understand the battering the immune system takes with multiple sexual partners. They need to be taught that marriage is the best avenue for sexual relations, and that the biological purpose of sex is not for fun, but for reproduction. Biologically, the natural role of the sex drive is meant to bring the male and female together for reproductive purposes. History has shown us that marriage is a vehicle that brings prosperity and strength to families, and that sex is wholesome in the marriage bed. Outside of the marriage bed, there is a much higher chance that there will be heartbreak, diseases, confusion, and unrealized expectations. Some people develop to be sexually attracted to the same sex. Freud taught that everyone is born bisexual, and he saw homosexuality as normal. Not everybody agrees with that. Some people believe that homosexuality is not a healthy development in a person. Some people believe in reparative therapies that can help with that. Others do not agree. I could go on and on, but my point is that if you teach one side, then teach all sides. Let’s stop sugar coating the subject and pretending that same sex unions and opposite sex unions are exactly equal with the same consequences. Homosexuals will have to deal with more mental illness, they will suffer from more diseases, they will become more depressed, they will commit suicide more often, etc. These are the known facts, but people debate what these facts mean. Ultimately, each person must make his own decisions and find his own path in life. None of us should hate others just because they are different from us. We should respect one another and let them make their choices, whether good or bad, but hopefully we will encourage what we consider to be good.
Max-1,
Please explain how the right of conscience is not being alienated when the Knapp’s require an exemption to freely express it?
davidm
I object to marginalizing the reproductive purpose of sexual relations and encouraging an attitude of sex for pleasure.
= = =
So, are you in favor of outlawing elder couples from being wed?
They can’t have children. Yet, I don’t see that religious argument ANYWHERE in our society. Why is THAT?
Max-1 wrote: “So, are you in favor of outlawing elder couples from being wed?
They can’t have children. Yet, I don’t see that religious argument ANYWHERE in our society. Why is THAT?”
Maybe it is because Abraham had a child when he was 100 years old. His wife Sarah was over 90.
No, I am not in favor of outlawing elderly couples, but generally speaking, it would be a stupid idea for elderly couples to marry. While the primary function of marriage is still in place, the secondary reason, reproduction, becomes very doubtful.
I had a grandfather who married several times in his old age when his wives died. Looking back on it, I think that was a very bad idea. I would never want to outlaw it, nor condemn him for doing so, but it was not wise.
davidm
The quote IS out of context…
Jesus’ instructions were to leave if someone didn’t receive the message of Christ. Just like Lott…
Max-1 wrote: “The quote IS out of context… Jesus’ instructions were to leave if someone didn’t receive the message of Christ. Just like Lott…”
I get that context. Not sure why you raise that point. They were still instructed to discriminate against people who did not accept them. Did you notice that they were instructed to make an insulting gesture as they left?
davidm
they will not be allowed to do that without facing criminal prosecution.
= = =
Scroll up and READ!!!!!!!!!
The city is EXEMPTING them FROM the LAW!!!!!!!!
Yet, you press on…
Max-1 wrote: “Scroll up and READ!!!!!!!!!
The city is EXEMPTING them FROM the LAW!!!!!!!!
Yet, you press on…”
You just don’t get it. Their exemption is based upon them restructuring their business to be religious. They are expected to be sectarian in order to avoid the law penalizing them. If they choose to be non-sectarian, and instead they perform non-religious weddings for people, like they have done in the past, then their religious organization will be ruled a sham and the city ordinance can then be used to prosecute them as criminals.
The government does not operate just based upon what you call yourself, but on how you act. You can call yourself a religious non-profit, but if you act like a for profit business, then that is what you are. The government is not fooled by false labels.
davidm
Now because of this stupid homosexual law
= = =
What’s stupid about allowing two adults to marry?
Max-1 wrote: “What’s stupid about allowing two adults to marry?”
Nothing stupid about allowing two adults to marry, but there is something stupid about two people of the same sex marrying. The primary reason for marriage is the joining of two people of the opposite gender because they are dissimilar from each other and become complete in the joining. The secondary reason for marriage is reproduction. The third reason is companionship, but that is mostly connected with the first reason. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron that is contrary to nature. The primary and secondary reasons are not in play, so it is not marriage, but a contractual civil union. Two people want to be roommates until death… fine. I have no objection. But creating a law forcing people to violate their understanding of a sacred institution is STUPID. It also is stupid because the law does not apply equally to everyone. The city ordinance is an unjust and stupid law that violates individual liberties.
Dredd,
I prefer alcohol as the attractant…
(in Russian… Because you know, Vodka and anti-gay laws mix)
“I find the ass in compound with the major part of your syllables.” – Shakespeare (Coriolanus)
More of your conversation would infect my brain.- Shakespeare (Coriolanus)
davidm
Yes, like that. These laws are completely unnecessary.
= = =
They would be unnecessary IF the social dogmas weren’t bent on oppression in the first place. These laws address such dogmas because people won’t and refuse to self correct.
Here’s an example of social dogma in the midst of change:
(p.s. His animus is vocalized passionate) Is this a hate crime?
Hey my bruddas and sissers … I am testing out a new gaydar system.
It has detected some of the enola gay strain:
davidm
Exactly right, Max. I like it when we come to agreement. Expose those religious hypocrites. I like it.
= = =
It’s like that Solar Eclipse yesterday.
It happens…
davidm:
I believe that your response is overwrought. Mr. and Mrs. Knapp are not at any real risk of a jail sentence. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that their business is exempt from the ordinance and a permanent injunction against its enforcement. It will indeed be an interesting case, for many reasons.
Mike Appleton’s comment is correct regarding the Knapp’s restructuring protecting them from the ordinance. As long as they don’t deviate into the “public accommodation” area of the law and stick to conducting religious ceremonies, then they are protected.
http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2014/10/23/aclu-n-idaho-chapel-now-a-religious-organization/?s_campaign=crux:rss
Olly wrote: “Mike Appleton’s comment is correct regarding the Knapp’s restructuring protecting them from the ordinance.”
Of course it protects them. The reorganization makes them no longer in violation. The important question still remains. What about individual rights? A person who believes exactly the same way must accommodate same sex unions unless he creates a religious entity? That’s messed up. Any notary doing a wide variety of public services including weddings would be in violation of the ordinance, even though he has exactly the same beliefs and conscionable objections to officiating over same sex marriages.
A minister who will not marry divorced people based upon religious views is allowed to refuse to do that, but he is not allowed to refuse to marry same sex couples because of this specially protected class? Do you really believe this is a just law? No way. It is an unjust and evil law. People need to ignore that law and disobey it so we can have a real test case.
The Knapps use to perform non-religious marriage ceremonies. Now because of this stupid homosexual law, they will not be allowed to do that without facing criminal prosecution. This is a sad day for civil liberties.
davidm
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.
= = =
I’m not sure this would qualify as a hate crime. What did they call you?
And vice versa.
As we saw in the case of Professor Mireille Miller-Young it’s assault. But to have it rise to a hate crime means there needs to be proof of animus based ON the hate directed toward you, not just a reaction incited by you.