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
Moreover, look at all the negative press this business has afforded itself. That is why in the various business ventures I have engaged in I made every attempt to be politically and morally neutral. It makes no sense to be otherwise because sure a person might please one market but it will alienate others.
There have been businesses that have committed corporate suicide by garnering hostility from their customer base.
Darren Smith wrote: “Moreover, look at all the negative press this business has afforded itself. That is why in the various business ventures I have engaged in I made every attempt to be politically and morally neutral.”
Darren, this chapel began 95 years ago. The Knapps have been there for 27 years. Furthermore, ministers are not usually in it for the money. There is that lesson of the greedy false prophet Balaam to think about. They see themselves as performing a spiritual function. Many will not marry a couple that has not interviewed with them and they are comfortable that the couple understands what marriage is. So with this mindset, do you really expect a minister to marry a couple that in his heart he does not believe meets the qualifications for marriage? Knowing that God disapproves and considers homosexual behavior to be an abomination, do you really expect them to participate in the sacred union anyway, for the money?
David asked:
…do you really expect a minister to marry a couple that in his heart he does not believe meets the qualifications for marriage? Knowing that God disapproves and considers homosexual behavior to be an abomination, do you really expect them to participate in the sacred union anyway, for the money…”
~+~
When the minister is operating under a business license that is open to the general public they are required to adhere to that state’s business and anti-discrimination laws as a condition of that license. It does not matter what the minister’s mindset with regard to this as long as he conforms with the law.
If the minister performs weddings under a religious ceremony only as part of a particular church and not under a domestic profit corporation or entity pursuant to a business license then they can perform the ceremony according to their beliefs.
In the Washington State example, the law on gay marriage exempts a charity operating as a church from performing a gay marriage if that church objects to the practice. If the entity performing the marriage, either civil or otherwise under a for profit scheme then the consumer protection laws then take precedent since it becomes a commercial enterprise.
In this case the statutory authority is this city and under the constitution of that state cities are allowed to enact municipal codes that do not preempt or violate the state’s laws and constitution or the federal constitution. If there is a disagreement over the statute by a particular party the aggrieved party may seek redress through the courts, including obtaining an injunction enjoining the city from enforcing the ordinance pending a decision of the courts.
It is important to recognize that the law and the constitution are constructs of the state and enforceable by the courts and the state. It might different as to what individuals hold to be the law of nature or of a particular deity or religion but the expectation and the obligation is to obey the former and that intrinsic to our civil society presently.
Darren Smith wrote: “When the minister is operating under a business license that is open to the general public they are required to adhere to that state’s business and anti-discrimination laws as a condition of that license. It does not matter what the minister’s mindset with regard to this as long as he conforms with the law.”
A business license is simply a tax for permission to operate. The requirement to follow the law applies to EVERY individual regardless of business licenses purchased.
No law should ever violate the Constitution or somebody’s conscience. This anti-discrimination law violates both the Constitution and minister Knapp’s conscience and religious conviction.
To be a law based upon equality, this anti-discrimination ordinance needs to get rid of all exceptions and then be voted upon. The reason they will not do this is because they know that it will be a slam dunk for an attorney to prove the law unconstitutional in a court of law. By creating exceptions, they garner more votes and create enough of a smoke screen that people cannot clearly see how invalid this law is. Too many are already into groupthink and do not understand that the Constitution is about Individual Rights, not group rights like homosexual rights or religious rights.
By the way, ministers are not licensed by the State. They are licensed by the religious organization that ordains them. The State simply recognizes their authority to officiate weddings. I don’t know how every State does it, but here in Florida, ministers who officiate marriages do not register with the State to officiate marriages. The State statute simply recognizes their authority to officiate marriages and sign the marriage license that is procured by the couple getting married. So the minister mostly recognizes the religious organization that trained him and ordained him to marry couples. His license (if he has one… some religions don’t believe in licenses or ordination) came from the religious organization, and that organization may very likely revoke his license to marry people if he violates their rules by marrying same sex couples.
This matter is much more complicated than most people recognize at first glance. We are barely touching the tip of the iceberg concerning the societal unrest and distrust of government situations like this are creating. People say our culture is changing, but I think they have no idea how much it is going to change. They underestimate the degree of differences the same way Britain underestimated the differences during colonial times.
david – relatively small town like that, the publicity is not going to hurt them. On the other hand the blow that Amy’s Baking Company took on TV almost put it out of business. However, there are people who go there just for the experience of being abused.
Ore. first lady’s marriage for money shines light on common scheme
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/17/sham-marriages-green-cards-oregon-first-lady-terrorism-immigration/17433333/
I just don’t understand the logic that says gay people can’t get married for love but straight people can get married for a sham and money.
As a Christian, I would wish they are successful in their pursuit of happiness. If their business model doesn’t work then they will need to adapt or close.
Max-1, for me, from a business point of view, one would think they would welcome additional customers and revenue; irrespective of moral disagreement. One does not have to know the life of a customer to sell a service or a product.
Olly
I wouldn’t go into any business and tell them to accommodate my request or I will sue them for discrimination.
= = =
Cite the filed case against the Knapps that supports this argument.
I cannot see how the state can successfully argue that it has a compelling interest in whether or not two married persons are straight or gay.
For example, allowing a marriage between an adult and a thirteen year old one could argue that the state has In Loco Parentis interests in protecting child welfare.
In the case of fraudulent marriage, the state has an interest due to the potential for a victim, that is a person who is unaware their spouse is married to another person for both protecting individuals from fraud and obtaining state benefits, favorable tax treatments, tax evasion, and that heirs could be affected negatively in probate.
So from these regards I find it hard to accept the state can argue it has a role other than a political structure for regulating morality which it does not have a basis for in this case.
Olly,
My prediction about the Hitching Post:
It will be closed in less than 5 years due to low marriage reservations…
Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene
Max-1,
If society agrees that government should be in the marriage business then it should be equal treatment under the law. No business, profit or otherwise, should be required to accommodate every request of customers. If the Knapps only offered wedding ceremonies for gay couples, I would not expect them to change the menu of service options to accommodate me and my partner. I wouldn’t go into any business and tell them to accommodate my request or I will sue them for discrimination. If the State only licensed businesses that performed gay weddings, then that would be unequal treatment and unconstitutional.
What this ordinance and quite frankly most of these laws seem to be trying to do is accelerate the natural transformation of a culture. Normally, demand would drive supply, but these laws don’t seem to want to wait for supply to catch up. What is supposed to happen is businesses get created; not transformed against their will.
National Geographic – Explains the Biology of Homosexuality – Epigenetics
davidm
Homosexuality involves cognitive factors.
= = =
So, when did you decide to NOT BE GAY?
Max-1 wrote: “So, when did you decide to NOT BE GAY?”
Sexuality is determined by a lot of decisions. When I kept turning down men who propositioned me, especially those who offered me hundreds of dollars to have sex with them, that tended to solidify my path of heterosexuality. You never know though. Clive Davis did not become homosexual until after he was in his fifties. He never had any interest in it whatsoever. Maybe there is hope for me yet to switch over. I doubt it though. Women are so much greater than men.
davidm
because of the intense homosexual propaganda.
= = =
So I’m a “propagandist’?
davidm
“On the down low” is a term used by gay and bisexual men to describe their encounters with other men. It is a term used to explain how these behave socially because of social dogma. And yes, many times these men will infect their female partners/wives with STD’s because… of the social dogmas around sex and sexuality.
It is this social dogma that prevented people like Ronald Reagan from saying AIDS in the first place. And because of this social dogma, research AND education was delayed. Was that a good thing? Were the results a good thing?
Max-1 wrote: ““On the down low” is a term used by gay and bisexual men to describe their encounters with other men. It is a term used to explain how these behave socially because of social dogma. And yes, many times these men will infect their female partners/wives with STD’s because… of the social dogmas around sex and sexuality.”
I’m a little slow and cannot follow you. Do you mean “social dogma” or “social stigma.” How does social dogma cause gay men to infect their female partners/wives with STD’s? I’m not following well but would like to.
Olly,
As a gay man, I’ve been asking that myself.
Where my religiously protected RIGHT to get married?
davidm
it would be a stupid idea for elderly couples to marry.
= = =
So, can you cite the movement to ban elder marriage based on your reasoning and why is that not happening???
Max-1 wrote: “So, can you cite the movement to ban elder marriage based on your reasoning and why is that not happening?”
Not everything that is stupid or even immoral should be banned. I am not part of any movement to ban homosexuality. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home. But when you start violating my civil liberties by forcing your sexuality upon me, that is when you will find me studying what exactly you are doing and whether or not I agree with it.
My objection to homosexual marriage has to do with the legality of how it is being done. They are hijacking laws voted upon and created over hundreds of years with a very different idea of what marriage is. They are usurping these laws to include a completely different definition of marriage. An honest approach would have been to be satisfied with solidifying their domestic unions through civil unions and domestic partnerships. I think the reason they were not satisfied with that is because of a nefarious goal of destroying marriage.
“How is the Right of Conscious being alienated from the Knapps when the State recognizes their religious stance as being protected FROM the law?”
How is a law that forces ANYONE to seek additional protection from it, just to secure their natural right of conscience, constitutional?
davidm
Maybe it is because Abraham had a child when he was 100 years old.
= = =
So you are in favor of slave girls for sex?
Max-1 wrote: “So you are in favor of slave girls for sex?”
She was not a slave girl for sex. The slave girl actually became Abraham’s second wife for the purpose of bearing children. Yeah, sex is how children are conceived. The code of Hammurabi made it the duty of Sarah to find him someone to bear him children. They lived in that area during that time. So Sarah gave her servant to Abraham to be his wife. The son of that girl named Hagar became the ancestor of the modern Arabs.
davidm
And did you notice that this discrimination you defend comes from a response to the towns folk’s behavior and NOT at the mere discretion of any one Disciple?
If the town rejects the word of Christ…
davidm,
What’s a good Samaritan and why didn’t Jesus tell his Disciples to discriminate then? The lecture goes on through 10:-37, here is how it starts. It finishes with, “Go and do likewise”.
LUKE 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
Max-1 wrote: “And did you notice that this discrimination you defend comes from a response to the towns folk’s behavior and NOT at the mere discretion of any one Disciple?”
Yes I did. But to be clear, I was not defending his discrimination, just pointing it out.
davidm
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.
= = =
Are you suggesting that gay people shouldn’t have companionship?
Again, what is wrong with TWO CONSENTING ADULTS getting married?
I agree, companionship is a good foundation. So is trust and … L O V E !!!
Max-1 wrote: “Are you suggesting that gay people shouldn’t have companionship?”
Of course not. You can have companionship with anybody you like. It is the role of sex that changes all the dynamics here.
Max-1 wrote: “Again, what is wrong with TWO CONSENTING ADULTS getting married?”
Nothing is wrong *IF* they meet the qualifications for marriage.
Max-1 wrote: “I agree, companionship is a good foundation. So is trust and … L O V E !!!”
Are you saying that you are against marriages arranged by parents?
Companionship, trust, and love are not foundational for marriage. They might be nice side effects of marriage, but they are not required. Furthermore, you can have companionship, trust, and love with anybody, same sex or opposite sex, but marriage is only for opposite sex couples who have the proper biological equipment.
Homosexuals are like a man taking two male ends of an electrical cord and trying to plug them together. They were not designed to work that way, so it doesn’t work very well. The male part plugs into the female part, and now the electrical cord works the way it was designed to work.
davidm
You just don’t get it.
= = =
Do speak…