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
“I was chaste, and never caught, yet kept both the gold and my virtue.” Shakespeare (Pericles, Prince of Tyre) Squeeky. Yes, one can be gay and chaste and virtuous. I had a lovely young engaged gay couple visiting my home two weeks ago. They are engaged and totally loyal to each other.
“Nothing can come of nothing”
Shakespeare (King Lear)
“I was chaste, and never caught, yet kept both the gold and my virtue.” Shakespeare (Pericles, Prince of Tyre)
“Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.” – Shakespeare (All’s Well That Ends Well)
Max-1 You’re the one claiming that the Knapps have nothing to worry about. From what I understand, a gay couple complained about the Knapps not marrying them. If this is true, how can the city not take action about this? How can you say the Knapps are doing this for publicity? The facts say otherwise.
Not the best ‘first test case’, but then again it depends on which side you’re on.
Oooh, as much as I love freedom of choice and adherence to the law, as well as the individual business owner’s right to not do business for any reason they please- I believe they opened themselves up for fair use by all by offering ‘civil ceremonies’ on their website, per Max-1’s links.
Some fantastic points and angles on this thread up there. A good read.
Jim22
I don’t have times for your games.
Just read the damn link already.
Elain M
They’re attempting to skirt the law. That is all.
As I eluded to above, the Knapps have been paying attention to the public about marriage. The public is growing ever more comfortable in knowing equal marriage really doesn’t to any harm and the the only perceived harm is done so by the religious fanatics seeking to discriminate. This time it’s against gays. Last Century we saw RELIGION used, and that’s what they’re doing, useing God and Christ as tools for discrimination. I cited but two examples of how religion has been used against blacks and women. Those struggles seem to keep going on even though the law has been settled…
Max-1 – personally I support gay marriages. However, I do NOT support forcing someone to marry gays when it is against their religious teaching or training. The last gay marriage I attended, the priest’s bf (they were living in sin, a bad example to the whole congregation) did not attend the wedding. However, since the newlyweds had lived together for some 35 years we all cut them some slack. 😉
Just as I cannot see MAKING someone make my bridal bouquet or wedding cake, I cannot see FORCING someone to marry me. The Hitching Post cannot be the only place in town.
“knows”
Max-1 – “Jim22
City spokesman, Erickson did.
I’m just relaying info.”
So the city nows of a violation and it is not enforcing the law?
@ Bettykath
That is not what the Supreme Court decision said or implied. Hobby Lobby is a ‘closely held’ business. http://online.wsj.com/articles/hobby-lobby-ruling-begs-question-what-does-closely-held-mean-1404154577 And the Supreme Court decision has not been applied to other types of business, although the line can be blurred as to what SIZE of closely held business can be exempt. Large corporations the are publicly traded do not count in this equation….at this time. It is still up in the air.
For instance a small S Corp with a few owners and all family members with a few employees is a closely held business versus a S Corp with the same owners but thousands and thousands of employee.
Completely different than a publicly held corporation. Publicly held corporations have publicly traded stock and the stock holders are deemed to be owners of the corporation. NOT closely held. So if you invest in a few shares of Chevron, you and about a million other people are owners and therefore cannot claim a religious exemption. Too many people, not a cohesive family unit with a common set of religious principles.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/oct/17/hitching-post-sues-coeur-dalene-after-declining-ma/
“The city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2013. It applies to housing, employment and “public accommodation.” Religious entities are exempt from the ordinance. But in May city attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review that The Hitching Post, which is a for-profit business, likely would be required to follow the ordinance.”
If true, it sounds like they were gearing up to go after them back in May.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/20/3581733/idaho-marriage-chapel-adf/
Excerpt:
Indeed, the Hitching Post is a for-profit business, but with help from ADF, the Knapps have been gearing up for this challenge for some time by redefining their business in more religious terms. In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month, which was authorized by Michael S. Oswald, an ADF attorney. Along with the new business was a new Operating Agreement, dated October 6, 2014, which enshrines all of the religious values offered in the complaint as part of the business. They similarly added a new Employee Policy and Customer Agreement stipulating that the Hitching Post will only perform unions “between one biological male and one biological female.”
Jeremy Hooper notes that back in May when it was first in the news, the Hitching Post Chapel’s website said that the Knapps offered a “traditional or civil ceremony” for weddings and that they also would “perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths.” Though the website still said as much as recently as October 9, 2014, the old language has been scrubbed and the Hitching Post now only offers “a traditional Christian wedding ceremony.”
Elaine – what would we do without you and ThinkProgress to give us the “straight” poop.
Elaine M wrote: “the old language has been scrubbed and the Hitching Post now only offers “a traditional Christian wedding ceremony.” ”
Nothing nefarious about that. The city ordinance is new, the laws are changing, so now the Knapps have to secure a lawyer and change the legal structure of their business model so they do can continue to behave in a manner that does not violate their conscience.
The sad thing here is now we have a split between religious and civil marriages, when they use to be considered equivalent. Thank the homosexuals for this new inequality.
Jim22
City spokesman, Erickson did.
I’m just relaying info.
Max-1,
So are you saying that the Hitching Post never got a call from a same sex couple and they didn’t report it to the city?
Justice Holmes.”Businesses don’t have a religion.”
The Supreme Court says yes, they can have a religion and they don’t have to obey employment laws that they don’t like, e.g. Hobby Lobby, Koch Industries and many more very large companies.
Tyger, you beat me to it. yep, free publicity, even if their lawsuit is thrown out due to lack of standing, as pointed out as a possibility by Darren.
Pogo
The Fascists killed the gays and now you want to paint gays as the “fascists”?
Please…
Pogo
State law vs “I can do what ever I want”
I think I know who’ll be crying their eyes out and it won’t be me.
🙂
Peace
Lee – “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.”
So this was to be taken as an even statement? Ok.
“(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 know how you feel. Still wondering what the exaggeration or lie was that you were referring to.