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
Civics 101, Trooper. Politicians appoint judges. Ginsburg will be out soon. Obama is trying to kick her out, but she won’t go. So, Dems lose elections, they lose judges. Chrissake man, did you go to public school?
Just like any business that sells spiritual books, paraphernalia, can they say they that they won’t sell to homosexuals? It’s a product they’re selling, not religion. Since when can religion be for sale? Hmmmmm…..
Well, I think the Knapps will win. Nobody should be able to make us celebrate sodomy and sexual freakiness if it conflicts with our religious beliefs. States have the right to pass non-discrimination laws for business, but something as abhorrent as this same-sex silliness goes beyonds the bounds of what the State can mandate. IMHO.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Auto correct is a bitch.
Elections mean nothing when judges overturn the will of the people on a whim.
Most of these cases overturn laws or state constitutional amendments that where passes failure and square in the voting booth.
Elections mean squat.
Justice Holmes
Businesses don’t have a religion.
= = =
Are you sure? I mean, since Corporations can be people and peole form religions… I’m sure the argument will arrive sooner in the courts than man/dog marriage will…
davidm2575
And yet let’s watch how many people keep screaming the same tired mantra that homosexual marriage doesn’t hurt others in society one bit.
= = =
That’s like a gun owner that continually shoots himself in the foot who insists that he isn’t a menace to society… when it’s his own actions that are the issue.
davidm,
The only people in society gay marriage harms is the reticent homophobe who’ll hurt other people because THEY can’t have their way.
Max-1 wrote: “The only people in society gay marriage harms is the reticent homophobe who’ll hurt other people because THEY can’t have their way.”
Totally disagree, as you well know. The cases keep piling up infringing upon the fundamental rights of our citizens. The worse effect is the destruction of marriage. More young couples will skip marriage and just shack up, creating many single family homes, which have been documented to have more crime, drug abuse problems, alcoholism, sexual abuse problems, etc. Homosexuals have made marriage meaningless.
trooper, I agree. But where we disagree is that they will prevail. Elections have consequences and there will be stiff consequences the next few cycles. Judges appointed who respect the Constitution will be a result. There are many people like JT out there, and they will be wearing robes in the near future.
Of course they will leave the Muslims alone.
DBQ, Great information. You are a woman of substance. Small business owners are the foundation of our economy and this country.
Annie,
Why they stayed for-profit is beyond me. Maybe they like the wealth prosperity movement and how Jesus was wrong about money…
… It IS a racket, ‘your soul for my profits.’
This is just another step in enforcing the gay agenda on all religious practices. One step in the path to forcing churches and temples to perform same sex marriages. The state will force the Catholic Church under penalty of law to perform the sacrament of marriage for same sex couples in direct violation of its doctrine and belief.
These people are easy targets. It is just the next step.
@ Darren
Here is a link to the IRS rules and lots of sublinks to explain the restrictions on 501-c-3 organizations. http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Organizations
The restrictions on political activity and especially the one I quote below are the main bone of contention for religious institutions.
voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Speaking out against or for a candidate is forbidden, although it is often done anyway. The crux comes when the church speaks out against or for certain laws, ideas or positions. Such as abortion, gay marriage, birth control and many others. While these positions may not be expressly against or for a particular candidate, those types of speech on positions and ideas have been attacked. Reference the Houston link in Jims 11:15 post.
501-c 6 organizations are tax exempt but not charitable as opposed to being business oriented or promoting business. The donors to a 501-c 6 don’t get a tax write off as they do to a 501-c 3. I suppose a religious group could be a 501-c 6 but then they would be subject to all of the donor disclosure requirements and they would likely no longer be considered a “religious” entity. A 501-c 4 would put them squarely in the political arena.
So. I guess the answer is probably not retain their tax exempt status since they wouldn’t fit into any other tax exempt form. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be a TAXABLE religion and then not be restricted by the 501-c 3 rules. Why not? Maybe it would be worth their while to be able to express their religious views of public policy.
Thanks for the information Dust Bunny Queen. It is helpful.
Mr. Turley,
It appears that the city has not even threatened the Knapps. It appears the Knapps are being proactive in their homophobia it attempting to protect their ability to discriminate as there are no cases pending against the Knapps. This is more of a case of, “Woe is my burden to be humble and humane. I seek relief from the State.”
In light of what you have written about how the city responded, or rather did not respond, to the Hitching Post’s same sex policy there could be an issue of Standing. It becomes a more solid issue on Standing if the city had actually fined or caused some kind of action that prevented them from operating their business or suffered a loss. I don’t know how significant standing is in a case such as this but it is often the reason that many cases are dismissed.
In that cause, unfortunately, it is often that someone might have to be punished by the government before they person can take action in court to call a law or governmental action into question. Yet, having the specter of the looming possibility of government action against an individual can be just as stifling or oppressive as the enforcement itself.
Precisely Max. Why didn’t they just become a church ?
Tyger, LOL.
Weddings for profit is like making wedding cakes for profit…
… Equal under the Law.
Legal hitch at Hitching Post
http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html
(bolding mine)
Maybe this couple should take a page out of the government’s “free speech zone” playbook: “Yes, we do same-sex weddings once a year. The next available date we have is October 31, 2015.”
Jim, Weekends are a glimpse into the past. JT is liberal as have all his weekend bloggers. His blog. But, JT does welcome opposing views in commenters and has walked the walk in that regard. So, I just take the posts as they come. It’s JT’s right to have the weekend bloggers that comport w/ his world view. He gives everyone a forum to present opposing views. That’s a RARITY in the blogging world. This place is not an echo chamber. Almost all blogs are.