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
Olly
“But I want an Oompa Loompa now, Daddy!”
= = =
Again, cite the Ompa Lumpa case filed against the Knapps…
This is ask #2.
Google is but a click away…
davidm
especially those who offered me hundreds of dollars to have sex with them
= = =
That’s called solicitation for sex in exchange for monetary benefits.
As far as “switching over”… gayness isn’t a light switch. You can’t turn it on or off, as you attested too, even though people were willing to pay you. davidm, you have to feel it in your gut, so to speak. Just like you know you are straight…
Just like Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography, you know it when you see it.
davidm,
You know you like women when you see women. And you know you don’t like men as you do women when you see men. Many people know it when they see it… And many people see BOTH!!!
David sex is not the only way children are conceived, IVF, surrogacy etc makes sex, absent sex for one, irrelevant
David New Jersey and California both have outlawed conversion therapy because of how dangerous it is
As of this week, gay conversion therapy is outlawed in the state of New Jersey. Kids who are either gay or suspected of being gay cannot be forced by their parents to endure homophobic corrective therapy, which assemblyman and bill sponsor Tim Eustice correctly calls “an insidious form of child abuse”.
Not only does conversion therapy fail to actually “convert” gay kids into straight ones, but, according to the American Psychological Association (which disavows the practice), it often leaves lasting scars, leading to mental health issues and substance abuse. California is the only other state in the nation that has attempted to ban conversion therapy, but that ban is caught up in ongoing legal battles.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/new-jersey-outlaw-gay-conversion-therapy
and it’s stupid for older people to get married is it?
I am 62 and never been married. If I could find someone to love and who loves me I would get married in a new York minute
(Oh I asked you about this in another thread but you did not reply. My father and grandfather both died of ALS. ALS has a genetic component and as I noted in an earlier post my parents were first cousins increasing the chances I would pass ALS on were I to have had a child. I guess under your scenaripo had I married I should have been happy to have children and the heck with their potential health and possible horrendous death.
I truly don’t think you always think through to the endpoint the positions you espouse.
Olly
Are you upset that I wouldn’t patronize a business that doesn’t want my business…?
davidm
The social dogma of marriage has been one of faithfulness to your companion. If you’re out screwing others without the consent of your faithful partner, you are breaking the social dogma known as Fidelity.
The social stigma behind the “down low” is that many men feel compelled BY society to ‘prove’ their manhood by getting married to a woman. The “stigma” is about being BI or GAY and needing to hide that ‘shame’ from society.
Max-1 wrote: “… the social dogma known as Fidelity. The social stigma behind the “down low” is that many men feel compelled BY society to ‘prove’ their manhood by getting married to a woman. The “stigma” is about being BI or GAY and needing to hide that ‘shame’ from society.”
That helps. Thanks. So generally speaking, do they marry only to hide from the stigma, or do they have other reasons, such as raising a family? Do they care for their wives at all, or is it all for show?
I know one homosexual who is married because he wants a family. He had children by his wife. He stays in a monogamous relationship because he learned to be sexually attracted to his wife. He says that she is the only woman he has ever been sexually attracted to. He is still sexually attracted to men, but he stays true to his wife.
Max-1,
The Knapps operate a business that doesn’t offer a service you want. It’s that simple. Do you go into EVERY business and call them bigoted because they don’t have what you want? It just so happens to be a service you WANT to be provided by EVERY business you choose.
“But I want an Oompa Loompa now, Daddy!”
davidm
I’m a little slow and cannot follow you. Do you mean “social dogma” or “social stigma.”
= = =
Good catch… I mean BOTH!
Olly,
What are the principles behind choosing to actively discriminate?
Can you cite examples of such principled discrimination that actually adds and contributes to social well being in the long run?
Darren Smith
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.
= = =
I know, I know, I know…
Especially since they’re into the for-profit model of bringing Caesar’s gold to God.
davidm
Not everything that is stupid or even immoral should be banned.
= = =
Is this a concession, then?
davidm
The son of that girl named Hagar became the ancestor of the modern Arabs.
= = =
Um… I didn’t know Indonesia is an Arab country. Same with India.
Wow, we learn something everyday…
Top 10 Countries with Largest Muslim Population>
http://www.thecountriesof.com/top-10-countries-with-largest-muslim-population/
I think the correct way of describing Ishmael is the foundation of the Islamic faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_in_Islam
Max-1 wrote: “Um… I didn’t know Indonesia is an Arab country. Same with India.
Wow, we learn something everyday…”
Ishmael is important in Islam, but not every Muslim is descended from Ishmael. I read in Josephus that he was the ancestor of Arabs. There may be some hair splitting by other scholars, but I have not read the argument that the general inhabitants of Indonesia and India are descendants of Ishmael. Where did you read that?
“That is why in the various business ventures I have engaged in I made every attempt to be politically and morally neutral.”
Darren,
And some people choose to engage in business for money AND principles. I suspect when they can no longer remain profitable sticking to principles they will abandon them for the more neutral ground or go out of business. Fortunately, we still have a constitution that is supposed to protect principled-enterprises from having their rights alienated.
According to the law, principles end where discrimination begins.
Olly,
Why would I want to do business with a bigoted business that seeks to discriminate against me? Again, your fear based claim is baseless as there are no cases pending in the Knapp’s case. No one has leveraged any lawsuit against the Knapps.
Max-1 wrote: “No one has leveraged any lawsuit against the Knapps.”
They wouldn’t do so because it is no longer a civil matter but a criminal matter. If the Knapps continue to operate in a non-sectarian way, and then refuse to officiate marriages of same sex couples, they become criminals and face up to a $1,000 fine and 6 months in jail.
Olly
My statement stands on it’s own. Why do you need a case to my it valid?
= = =
Baseless…
davidm
She was not a slave girl for sex. The slave girl actually became Abraham’s second wife for the purpose of bearing children.
= = =
So, you are in favor of the traditional marriage rights that allow:
1) slaves in your bed, 2) multiple wives. ?
Max-1 wrote: “So, you are in favor of the traditional marriage rights that allow:
1) slaves in your bed, 2) multiple wives. ?”
I’m not favoring anything, just reporting the facts. I do not think multiple wives are a good idea. Just look at what happened in Abraham’s case. First Hagar ran away. Then Sarah wanted her kicked out and Abraham didn’t. Finally, God supposedly tells Abraham to kick Hagar out, and finally he is back to one wife and some peace.
Max-1 and david – I think you should both agree to disagree. The city has decided that the Hitching Post is off the hook for right now, so the question is moot.
The whole slave girl/wife thing pops up several times and let’s not even get started on Lot and his devious daughters. 😉
“my = make”
“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.”
My statement stands on it’s own. Why do you need a case to my it valid?
Darren Smith
Moreover, look at all the negative press this business has afforded itself.
= = =
Thus my prediction.
Many more “straight” people are becoming aware, personally, of gay people in their lives and these people matter. I know of many “straight” people that back Gay Rights and who’ll refuse to do business with other “straight” yet bigoted businesses.
At least gay people can’t use the “child” excuse for marriage…
“oops, the condom broke.”