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
http://www.wfaa.com/videos/news/local/2014/10/25/15987526/ Video of anti-gay assault at DFW airport.
Mafioso give a guy a pass if he went to gay sex in the joint. The prison I worked in, Leavenworth, wasn’t too bad. The population were seasoned inmates, who knew how to do time. They averaged in their mid 40’s w/ some guys in their 80’s. I would talk w/ hacks who worked @ places like El Reno. That was 18-26 year olds. It was like a SF bath house.
@DarrenSmith
With your sense of humor, I think I know something you would really like. My father had this really great book that I stole from him called The Boomer Bible. He liked it sooo much, he bought another copy. The whole thing is online. Pick a book, and then hit next or previous when you are on that page to read the whole thing. Here is the link:
http://theboomerbible.com/
Here is an excerpt from the Book of Rationalizations.
I liked it so much, I did my own Birther Bible in honor of it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Now God himself is on Twitter. I’m in the dark ages.
Or maybe:
Hebrews 1.0
“In the past God spoke to our people through the prophets. He spoke to them many times and in many different ways. And now in these last days, God has tweeted to us again and re-tweeted through his Son. He made the World Wide Web through his Son and not Al Gore. … The Son became much greater than the trolls, and God gave him an avatar that is much greater than any of their avatars.
@Max 1
You said, “I already discussed the ‘down low’ issue… it is a prime example of promiscuity due to social dogmas about marriage and stigmas about sexuality.”
Oh, what a crock of hooey! If gays are not faithful to each other, it is because they are too busy screwing like rabbits to settle down into a mature relationship. There is nothing to keep two gay guys who wish to commit to each other, to do so. Some states have had gay marriage for years. And, there are always contractual means to effect the same thing outside of marriage.
You are just trying to blame straight people for gay people’s lack of commitment to each other. Check out the gay marriage rates in Europe, where IIRC far less than 10% of gays have made the commitment.
Plus, you need to address the majority of gay marriages which openly contemplate taking in additional lovers. Face it, to gays, the whole notion of “Forsaking all others til death do us part. . .” is an anathema.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/522535530459041792
Promiscuous… as in not being allowed to settle down in society through unions and marriage of Fidelity? Or like not being recognized as equal in a society that is bent on maintaining religious notions about morality?
It’s tough living in a world where basic Rights are commonly denied you, so you tend to move on. Unstable relationships often occur in a social atmosphere that rejects said relationships. Such social constraints tend to place undue burdens on the relationship and tends to not last because the community shuns it.
I already discussed the ‘down low’ issue… it is a prime example of promiscuity due to social dogmas about marriage and stigmas about sexuality.
Oprah interview of JL King, his ex and his Husband.
davidm
100% of gay men engage in fellatio, 93% engage in rectal sex, 92% are active in rimming, and 29% engage in golden showers. Without taking time to look up statistics for heterosexuals, I don’t think they are even close to this frequency. Promiscuity in gay men far surpasses heterosexual men.
= = =
Schooled on gay sex by a straight man. LOL.
Is there a link to support your stats?
davidm
Stop being disingenuous. You cited Scripture so as to defend discrimination. I even linked it for you above.
Sorry, that last comment was infantile. I just HAD TO.
davidm,
I cited religious Christians that show great disdain toward the LGBTQ community. Sorry, was I the first one to cite the Bible? Really?
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/10/21/same-sex-marriage-showdown-idaho-ministers-told-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-or-face-fines/#comment-1327655
davidm
LOL. You started it!
= = =
roflmao
@David
You are right. The answer is 5 because each of the first 4 answers could be true statements, yet they were mutually exclusive. To wit:
Both men could be gay, if we even know what that truly is. The standing man could self identify as straight, and just getting pleasure with no more attraction to the kneeling man than toward a $5 female crack ho providing the same service. The kneeling man could just be a male prostitute and doing it only for the money with no more attraction to the standing man than a $5 crack ho has toward her john. Since either could be straight, then answer 4 could also be true, that both of them are straight.
Plus, I have read studies that the majority of both homosexual males and females routinely have sex with the other gender. This leads me to think of it more as a continuum, with some degree of slide in either direction. To understand it better with an example. . . I prefer cats, but I have had a dog or two in my life.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
squeeky – it could also be situational, such as prision, where sexual outlet with the opposite sex is impossible so same sex release is acceptable under the circumstances. It is not considered that either is straight or gay, just getting sexual release.
Paul C. Schulte
Max-1 – well, if you have the right to marry you should have the right to divorce and be miserable. 😉
= = =
LOL
I look at it the other way… everyone should have the right to be miserable in a marriage and seek escape through divorce.
Max-1 – you should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. 😉
Love the sinner and hate the sin…
How does that love work when you’re busy damning those you’ve defined as sinners. When the energy is focussed on damning the sin, what energy is left for love? Isn’t that very act of damnation an act of Judgement that Jesus suggested we stray away from? Doesn’t this damnation cloud the mind of the person speaking about how they’d love you more IF you weren’t gay?
David, I put up a video for you to watch above, about a Baptist Minister’s son…
Who was busy hating his son’s gayness while proclaiming he loved his son.
Please, watch the story unfold.
davidm
“I do not have homophobia, nor do I abhor gay and gay marriage.”
“I am against homosexual behavior for the reasons I mentioned.”
= = =
You’re busy defining the sinner by defining the sin then trying to cover it up with double think.
I do not have a fear of liars nor do I abhor lying and tall tails.
I’m just against not telling the truth for the reasons I have stated.
Doublethink.
davidm
I do not have homophobia, nor do I abhor gay and gay marriage.
= = =
Then why all the Biblical citations to back it up with?
davidm
I do not have homophobia, nor do I abhor gay and gay marriage.
= = =
Max-1 wrote: “Then why all the Biblical citations to back it up with?”
I didn’t cite Bible verses that were against being gay or gay marriage.
davidm
Sexual orientation is internal. We don’t even know if it is voluntary or if a gun is being held on them.
= = =
Self test your conspiracy theory.
Is anyone holding a gun on you to be straight?
Or are you voluntarily straight?
Annie,
They do it for the puppies… and knitting.
davidm
Like I’ve said all along… the Knapps are a victim of their own making.