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
Paul C.
Divorce in Florida… banned. (if you’re gay)
Florida’s Twice-Divorced Attorney General Opposes Lesbian Divorce
http://www.advocate.com/florida/2014/10/24/floridas-twice-divorced-attorney-general-opposes-lesbian-divorce
Max-1 – well, if you have the right to marry you should have the right to divorce and be miserable. 😉
davidm
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?
= = =
Why they marry? Probably is unique to each person. Isn’t that correct? And yes, the stigma of being gay or bisexual IS the reason they operate on the ‘down low’. As far as raising a family, gays and lesians are doing that just fine already because they’re successfully challenging BOTH the stigma and dogma of family units in the 21st Century.
Here’s a famous couple living and building a beautiful family.
http://cdn.glamasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/neil-patrick-harris.jpg
And you can follow the actor dad and his family here.
http://www.pinterest.com/Abismj/neil-patrick-harris-board-of-awesomeness/
Annie – and that young woman has the same statistical chance of divorce 50/50 as any straight couple.
QUESTION:
Since the Hitching Post has changed their business model to non-secular weddings ONLY… what might happen if a straight couple seeks to get married without a religious officiant?
@leejcarroll
If you can not even figure out who is gay and who isn’t in the scenario above, then how can you say that there is no conversion therapy that will ever prove effective??? Face it, we don’t even know for sure what causes gay behavior, or if it is genetic, or developmental, both, or neither. To figure the stuff out takes time and honest scientific study.
In the meantime, what we do know is that gay male behavior has a whole big bunch of bad side effects. And the more promiscuous the more potential bad effects.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
davidm
I suppose it makes you feel better about yourselves to impugn my character
= = =
So, terms like gay agenda and gaystapo aren’t meant to impugn the character of said animus?
Max-1 wrote: “So, terms like gay agenda and gaystapo aren’t meant to impugn the character of said animus?”
I have never used the term gaystapo, but gay agenda, yeah. That is purely academic. It impugns nobody’s character. There are activists working hard to change our culture, and the phrase “gay agenda” refers to what they are doing.
I don’t know if you are a gay activist or not, so the term “gay agenda” has never been used by me as an epithet against you.
davidm
You shift from Biblical to Secular and back fluidly…
I just can’t follow you anymore.
If I respond to your Biblical reference in religious frame, I’m wrong because you meant secular terms. If I respond to your secular frame in a non religious and non Biblical way, I’m wrong because then you’ll cite the Bible. It’s a no win situation with your circular logic.
Max-1 wrote: “You shift from Biblical to Secular and back fluidly…
I just can’t follow you anymore.”
LOL. You started it! I guess I should not have answered your Biblical references.
Max-1 wrote: “If I respond to your Biblical reference in religious frame, I’m wrong because you meant secular terms. If I respond to your secular frame in a non religious and non Biblical way, I’m wrong because then you’ll cite the Bible. It’s a no win situation with your circular logic.”
Not exactly sure what you meant here, but the problem likely hinges on the perception that if I am quoting Bible, then I must be using it religiously to prove a point. I am only referencing it academically, in response to what you said.
I am a theist. I am not religious. I don’t adhere to any creeds, like the Bible being infallible, inerrant Word of God, or the foolish Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura, or the Apostle’s creed about the Trinity. I do not separate my life into the religious versus the secular. I approach life as a unified whole. If I subscribe to any belief, it is rationalism. I believe that logic and rational thinking are our best guides.
So ignore all Bible stuff if you like. They really meant very little to me. The freedom issues and individual liberty issues are much more important to me.
Olly
I’m not the one caught falsely witnessing… Yes, Peace be unto you, too.
1) there were no lawsuits filed against either the Knapps OR their business
2) the Knapps preemptively changed their business model to a Religious Corporation as an attempt to skirt State law and protect their business from any POTENTIAL lawsuits that might arise from marriage equality.
3) the The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations says in a letter to the mayor and city council that the Knapps fall under the religious exemption in the law.
4) the support groups behind this dustup have been caught lying both about the law and the Knapps and their business.
Let me propose a test for you related to the “no conversion” issue.
You enter a room. There are two men in the room. One is standing, and the other is kneeling and providing oral pleasure to the standing man. Which is the correct answer?:
1. Both men are gay.
2. The kneeling man is gay, and the standing man is straight.
3. The standing man is gay, and the kneeling man is straight.
4. Neither man is gay.
5. It is not possible to determine the sexual orientation of either man.
Pick one of the above, and explain your answer.
Not sure what this has to do with ‘conversion therapy”
Well first of all one is providing oral pleasure to the other. Maybe the oral pleasure is he is a good word smith. Maybe he has liong arms and is giving the standing man a piece of cake.
I have no idea if one or the other is gay. If it is a sexual situation, who knows why they have chosen to engage in it. More to the point none of my business and I don’t care why they are doing whatever it is they are doing unless I am also in the room.
Max-1,
No sour grapes at all. I understand natural rights and that apparently annoys you. If you had a good argument you would have made it by now; instead you make comments like that.
Have a good evening and God’s Peace!
Olly wrote: “If you had a good argument you would have made it by now; instead you make comments like that.”
For what it’s worth, Olly, I thought you were very clear and articulate. For some reason, Max just totally doesn’t understand what you are saying.
“According to the law, principles end where discrimination begins.”
Darren,
Every business discriminates in the products and services they offer. They discriminate in what their conscience and profits permit. You cannot force someone to violate their natural right of conscience as a condition of operating a business. At least that is what UNALIENABLE used to mean; but then again, we live in ProgressAmerica where everything is alienable in the cause of social justice.
Olly wrote:
Darren,
Every business discriminates in the products and services they offer. They discriminate in what their conscience and profits permit. You cannot force someone to violate their natural right of conscience as a condition of operating a business
~+~
As long as they do not discriminate against what is considered a protected class within that scope of the law that is. If a business is offering rental housing to consumers and the business owner has a moral objection to having non-married couples cohabitate toward each other his/her belief is irrelevant in terms of the law. If such a landlord did this both federal and state anti-discrimination laws would apply and the FHA and other entities would come down on that landlord with a vengeance.
If they do not want to offer rental properties to a protected class then their option is to find another investment else suffer some formidable consequences.
Various businesses can discriminate, as you put it, against certain customers: those who do not pay; those who have bad credit or no credit; those who have been bad customers to the business in the past, etc. But with regard to our discussion here our nomenclature is discrimination for the purposes of civil rights, not legitimate grounds for denial of business.
Whatever the ambiguous term “Natural Rights” is, we still have to follow common law and statutory law else face consequences in doing so. Even if someone such as John Locke was revered so highly by a particular group of individuals, as far as the law is concerned Locke’s teachings are irrelevant as matters of law. While they have had certainly a guiding influence and were referred to in the framers of our system of government it is again judicial precedent and law that codifies the operations of entities according to the law.
David not all churches accept your homophobia and abhorrence of gay and gay marriage. http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/statements.html
It is essential to note that the Gospel
values of covenant do not come from
the practices of marriage, which change
and evolve throughout the history of the
biblical story. Indeed, it is not possible
to rely exclusively on scripture for
understanding marriage today. For
example, biblical texts that encourage
celibacy, forbid divorce, or require
women to be subservient to their
husbands are not considered to be
authoritative because they are primarily
expressions of the cultural norms of the
ancient Middle East. At the same time,
there are also many biblical models for
blessed relationships beyond one man
and one woman. Indeed, scripture
neither commends a single marriage
model nor commands all to marry, but
rather calls for love and justice in all
relationships.
WHEREAS the Nineteenth General Synod called on the church for greater leadership to end
discrimination against gays and lesbians; and
WHEREAS the Executive Council of the United Church of Christ in April, 2004 called the
church to action and dialogue on marriage;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church
of Christ affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the
government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and
share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized
marriage; and
leejcaroll wrote: “David not all churches accept your homophobia and abhorrence of gay and gay marriage.”
I do not have homophobia, nor do I abhor gay and gay marriage. I am simply acknowledging that some people have strong convictions about it, and nobody seems to acknowledge that conviction as a valid religious conviction. You seem to think that a minister officiating a marriage ceremony is equivalent to him washing someone’s window. It is not the same thing at all. He is doing something sacred and holy.
The viewpoints I have expressed about homosexuality are logical and not based in religion. As you point out, many religions have a different view. I am against gay marriage for the logical reasons that I outlined. I am against homosexual behavior for the reasons I mentioned. Whether all churches accept it or don’t accept it does not matter to me one iota. I am not trying to be true to any religion whatsoever. My theism may bias how I look at things, but there is no religious doctrine that I must embrace. Logic is what leads me to take the positions that I do. I find the whole homosexual agenda to be a fraud, and in this case, I find it to be destroying our legal system. They are passing anti-Constitutional laws that will take years to fix.
The H word you use has the same negative connotation to me as the N word does to a black person. I would appreciate it if you did not sling that vulgar epithet around, especially when you want to hit me with it.
davidm
If the Knapps continue to operate in a non-sectarian way, and then refuse
= = =
Here. (because you refuse to scroll up)
Read. (because I doubt you saw this)
Enjoy. (because the Knapps will never be facing any lawsuits)
Coeur d’Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/coeur-dalene-says-hitching-post-exempt-gay-rights-law
Max-1, I read all that. I think that you did not read the link that Olly provided which shows the ACLU’s plans.
http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2014/10/23/aclu-n-idaho-chapel-now-a-religious-organization/?s_campaign=crux:rss
=======
Interim Executive Director Leo Morales said in a news conference Thursday that the Hitching Post became a religious corporation in Idaho nearly a month ago.
Morales said the ACLU believes that under its new business classification, the chapel does not have to comply with the city of Coeur d’Alene’s ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation because the chapel only provides religious services.
Unlike most churches, which are tax-exempt and private organizations, a religious corporation is still considered for-profit.
However, the legal organization will reconsider not challenging the chapel if it begins offering secular services, such as providing flowers or cake or holding nonreligious marriage ceremonies.
“This situation is very nuanced, it’s also very new for us and for most of the attorneys involved in the case,” Morales said.
=======
Notice that although the ACLU currently considers the chapel exempt under its reorganization three weeks ago, if the chapel “begins offering secular services, such as providing flowers or cake or holding nonreligious marriage ceremonies, then the ACLU is prepared to challenge the chapel in court.
Do you understand this point? The chapel MUST be religiously sectarian or they may run into problems with the law.
This law is a bad law. It does not treat INDIVIDUALS equally under the law. It is unconstitutional. Too many exceptions in the law based upon groupthink. Same as Obamacare. It exempts various religious groups like Christian Science. These are sneaky ways of changing the culture.
Olly,
Keep pounding mudd… Wine will never flow from your sour grapes.
davidm
I’m not favoring anything, just reporting the facts.
= = =
Would it be correct, then, to say you’re ok with marriage equality?
@LeeJCarroll
Let me propose a test for you related to the “no conversion” issue.
Squeeky, my answer is: “5. It is not possible to determine the sexual orientation of either man.”
Sexual orientation is internal. We don’t even know if it is voluntary or if a gun is being held on them.
Max-1,
Your social change agenda is overshadowing the legitimate right to equal treatment under the law. You are conflating the right of the “legal” union with the business of providing it.
If you lived in a town that had only a Ford dealership because nobody would buy Government Motors; would you demand they provide you the option to purchase a GM product, or would you go find a dealership that did?
If society and our culture has not yet caught up (business-wise) to your needs then what right do you have to force businesses to accommodate it? Start a business, at least while it’s still allowed. Claiming bigotry is the only tool you have to do this, isn’t it? It’s despicable and I’m in favor of same-sex marriage; so go figure.
Conversion Therapy – ImFromDriftwood.com
leejcaroll
The conversion therapy bans are a good thing as most conversion therapies prey upon families with children/teens that are coming out. The long term social and psychological damage is far reaching into those lives and, in some cases, ends in suicide due to extreme low self esteem.