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
Tyger Gilbert
Exactly and why JT plays into it is beyond me…
The Knopps are NOT being “forced” to do anything.
The State law banning gay marriages has been overturned…
The Knapps know how to cry and cry big, they have.
Well Jim you proved my point I did not say the left does not do it but go ahead misrepresent what I wrote. You seem to be a champ at that. (and I find myself getting snarky and that happens wen my head butts up against a concrete wall such as yours so I am out of the conversation.
I understand President Bush was once asked what his position was on Roe vs. Wade. He replied, “I don’t care how someone tries to cross a river.”
So, Max-1, one of your posts points out that the couple are the ones calling foul by filing a lawsuit and the city says it has had no complaints against them. That would make all this simply a PR ploy to get them free ink. It worked.
Well the fascists said this would never happen.
Now they’re saying, Well, it’s not really a church. It’s for-profit, so it’s a business.”
Then when they come after the nonprofit churches for this later, they’ll convince themselves by their impenetrable logic that there’s a good reason for it.
It’s already happened in Canada, it’ll happen here.
The left always lies about what they’re up to. Their form of taqiyya.
In their lust for absolute totalitarian power, they dissemble, misrepresent, and are most mendacious.
It’s all for ‘the good’.
Lee, What exaggeration or lie? But your right the left never does that. Good grief.
Activist judges will search and search to find a penumbra or a implied meaning in the Constitution that will prohibit the free exercise of religion. To force a church to perform a sacrament in violation of their doctrines.
Because that is what the founders intended.
As for this issue I recall a number of rabbis refusing to perform the marriage of my sister and her non jewish fiancé. They were all from not for profit synagogues, religious tax exempt, and therefore could refuse (the ethics of this is another matter, especially because it was reform Judaism)
If the rabbis had their own chapels and then said you know I don’t think I want to marry you because I disagree with your religion, i.e. the religion of your fiancée, that sure sounds like discrimination to me and not merely a business decision. The same seems true for these 2 ministers. Want to marry folks and discriminate? Then do it thru your church. They went into it to make money or it would not have been done as a for profit and not affiliated with the church
Roe v. Wade was most certainly the product of activist judges.
Because Jim it was not an “attack on religion” Subpoenas were sent relative to a civil action. The petitions involved in the action were done at the churches. It was acknowledged the subpoenas were “too broad” and the information requested removed sermons but hey this is what as I have said before the right does so much better then the left; distort, exaggerate or outright lie to make their point and the truth of a matter be darned.
Good catch Max.
“The only people in society gay marriage harms is the reticent homophobe who’ll hurt other people because THEY can’t have their way.”
Quite wrong.
In this very case, it’s the gay marriage fascists who are harming the owners of a tiny wedding chapel “because THEY (the GMFs) can’t have their way.”
It’s ALWAYS an “activist Judge”, isn’t it?
Not just a Judge enforcing Constitutionally sound law and overturning unconstitutionally sound laws… but when it crosses a certain segment of society and their rebel rousers do these Constitutional rulings get called “activist Judges”.
Roe V Wade = activist Judges?
Loving v Virginia = activist Judges?
This is but the crying and wailing, with some great gnashing of the teeth by infantile adults whose depends are in a bunch…
Caught ya: Far-right’s latest marriage ‘victim’ edited website to make more solid legal case
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/10/caught-ya-far-rights-latest-marriage-victim-edited-website-to-make-more-solid-legal-case.html
From The Hitching Post website in May
http://www.goodasyou.org/.a/6a00d8341c503453ef01a3fd099a82970b-pi
Civics 102. Conservative judges always “grow.”
“That’s not an a penalty it is a tax.”
You can not trust lawyers to protect you religious freedom.
Charlie, and judges don’t vote along party lines? What color is your sky. Keep pushing the evil white boogeyman.
Trooper York – “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.”
Trooper, I couldn’t agree more. When I lived in CA for about 10 years I stopped voting after a judge pretty much overturned the will of the people after we voted in prop 187. It seems that illegal aliens have more power than the citizens. I suggest we all get used to this though, since PC will only get worse.
60% of registered voters turned out for it and 59% of that 60% voted yes. But that didn’t matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187
Jane – We do not take an oath to uphold the voting majority’s will, but the Constitution. By your logic (or lack thereof), a voting majority could outlaw anything and the courts should have no say. Discrimination by the white male majority would be even more rampant than it is now (aka, Republican Heaven).
Just can’t appoint a Souter.
Greg
LOL the Britney Spears of all wedding chapels.
Well, at least in Vegas, gays can get annonomously married like famous hetrosexuals always could, i.e. Britney Spears for a whole 55 hours, too!
Britney Spears Married in Vegas
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,627413,00.html