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,
For the Love of Poetry…and A Farewell Post
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/27/for-the-love-of-poetry-and-a-farewell-post/
Elaine – I did miss this, for what ever reason.
I don’t feel a need to defend myself. Nice try!
I love how people in 2014 are actively arguing agains the expansion of civil liberties. American law was changed to make it illegal to discriminate against people based on a great many attributes. Are people actually suggesting we just allow civil liberties to be decided by popular vote?
Liberties are something that shouldn’t be up to a vote. That is why California allowing the voters to tell an entire group of people that they were not entitled to the same rights was declared unConstitutional; because it was. Would everyone here be fine if voters decided that only white heterosexuals were allowed to vote?
This chapel is open to the public. It is not a church, it is a business, and the exact same rules should apply to it as any other public business. If you can’t refuse to serve someone because of their race or religion, I’m not sure how you justify refusal of service based on YOUR religion. If this were a church, I’d stand with these people and defend their faith’s protected status, but this is NOT a church.
These people do not believe that gay people should have the right to the same protections under the law as straight people already enjoy. The states that enacted law to enforce a religious definition of marriage are seeing those laws declared unConstitutional, because NEWS FLASH, the Constitution protect all of us, not just those people that follow the tenets of a particular religion.
Sorry, you do not get to pick and choose who is protected by the Constitution. Unless people are genuinely saying that their religion trumps other people’s rights?
We are NOT a theocracy. If you want to force your religion on the public, go to Iran or Saudi Arabia. You are not welcome here.
Daniel Frankovitch wrote: “I love how people in 2014 are actively arguing agains the expansion of civil liberties.”
I do not consider the right to fornicate a “civil liberty.” Do you really not understand that concept?
Daniel Frankovitch wrote: “This chapel is open to the public. It is not a church, it is a business, and the exact same rules should apply to it as any other public business.”
Why should not the same rules apply to churches as to other businesses?
All the fire laws and disability laws apply to churches just like other businesses.
Whenever a law makes exceptions for certain groups, such as certain religious groups, we can be sure that the law is unjust and unequally applied. The exceptions are created simply to get the vote through.
Rights are based upon individuals, not what group someone is a part of.
If homosexual behavior is virtuous, then no church should be allowed to prohibit it. The law needs to apply equally to the religious as well as the non-religious.
Homosexuality has destroyed civil rights and the concept of equal rights for everyone under the law.
Daniel Frankovitch wrote: “These people do not believe that gay people should have the right to the same protections under the law as straight people already enjoy.”
This is a lie. They do not believe that same sex unions are identical to opposite sex unions. There are biological differences in the unions that laws are being crafted to ignore and thereby force an imaginary equality that does not exist and is contrary to nature.
Gay people have always been allowed to marry under the same biological definitions of marriage that have always existed. The ones who are trampling upon the rights of others by forcing their hedonistic philosophy through the court system are the homosexuals.
Daniel Frankovitch wrote: “Sorry, you do not get to pick and choose who is protected by the Constitution.”
The Constitution says NOTHING about homosexuality or gay marriage. Show me where it addresses this issue.
As the court opined in Windsor, marriage has always been a State’s issue. President Bush was right all along when he favored a Constitutional Amendment about marriage. We need one to end all the lies about what the Constitution says.
Paul,
I have spent a lot of time writing poetry lately. I had to meet a recent deadline for submitting original poems to a poet/anthologist who is compiling a book of poems to read to young children at bedtime. I prefer to write poetry for children…than to “meet a challenge” “put out” by you. I wrote about my desire to spend more of my time writing poetry for children in the last post that I wrote for Res Ipsa Loquitor. Maybe you didn’t read it. The post explains why I haven’t been around as much in recent months.
Paul C, Defending herself became a full time job.
Elaine – I wish you luck on your book. Much as you may feel you don’t need to defend yourself, there is a group that feels the need to defend you. I have always contended that you were perfectly capable of defending yourself and needed no help.
Not my idea of healing, Squeeky, but to each her own.
@swm
I write uplifting stuff, too! Here is my Poem of Healing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ylMWBzAEzc&list=UUp_AO2aOz03djYvb6UI2cvA
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@swm
You said, ” I had a lovely young engaged gay couple visiting my home two weeks ago.”
If they were gay guys, be sure you thoroughly disinfect the sheets. If you can afford it, just throw them away and buy some new ones.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter I am hoping that this a joke. and that you don’t seriously think these thoughts.
Paul C, Elaine does not have to comply with your requests. Elaine’s poetry is uplifting. She does not write poetry that denigrates gay people and deceased African American young men.
SWM – the was a time when Elaine was around enough to defend herself.
Thucydides wrote about ‘when words lose their meaning’ in The History of the Peloponnesian War,:
“Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any.”
“Marriage, church, religion, penalty, tax, etc.”
All redefined by the left, words now meaning whatever they say they do, in humpty-dumpty fashion.
“The wedding chapel isn’t a church.”
The left is always redefining words and airbrushing the past.
‘Don’t worry, we decided that isn’t a religion and isn’t a church.
Tomorrow we’ll decide you don’t have a religion or a church either.
See? We followed the law that!‘
‘ Elaine – what would we do without you and ThinkProgress to give us the “straight” poop.” Paul C. This blog needs Elaine for some balance. She is the good poet.
SWM – I put out a challenge to both Elaine and Squeeky for a sonnet. Only Squeeky was able to comply with a sonnet on the subject matter. Elaine still has not come through.
Elaine is spending most of her time on another blog. She does not have time for us any more.
In Houston, the request for sermons was dropped. The emails are still required.
bettykath wrote: “In Houston, the request for sermons was dropped. The emails are still required.”
Only because someone yelled foul.
david – I do not understand the reference to emails being required in Houston. What is that about?
Paul – It is an issue in Houston where the lesbian mayor is trying to block a petition drive to vote on an anti-discrimination ordinance passed last year.
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/26795123/city-of-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons
david – thanks for the link. I knew about the sermons and the backdown but not about the rest. It is over-reaching and outside her jurisdiction. This is the sort of thing that gives gays bad press.
DBQ, Yes, the Supreme Court did limit the decision to closely held corporations, e.g. Hobby Lobby, Koch Industries, Dell, Bechtel, Cargill, Mars, etc. The stock may be publicly traded.
For corporate tax purposes, a closely held corporation is one where more than half of the stock is owned (directly or indirectly) by five or fewer individuals at any time in the second half of the year.
S corporations,” which cannot have more than 100 shareholders (although all members of the same family are treated as a single shareholder). Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby is organized as an S corporation. Unlike regular corporations, S corporations don’t pay income tax themselves. Instead, their profits and losses are passed through to their shareholders, who then report them on their own personal tax returns. According to the IRS, in 2011 there were 4,158,572 S corporations; 99.4% had 10 or fewer shareholders.
To say that he chapel is not a church is just the first step in the plan to force churches to perform same sex marriages. You know that it is not going to stop there. They will remove the tax exempt status from any church that will not perform same sex marriages. Then if there is a fee the church will be operating a “business.” Then they will be forced to perform the sacrament of marriage or face onerous fines.
After all it is “settled” law.
That is the plan.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-20/faq-why-ted-cruz-wants-you-to-send-bibles-to-houstons-gay-mayor “If you want to feel what the Culture Wars have become in 2014, cast your eyes to Houston. Texas’s largest city, the largest city to ever elect an openly gay mayor, is right now the center of a showdown with religious leaders and Republican politicians on one side and the city’s progressive establishment on the other. The key figure, of course, is Senator Ted Cruz, who has demonstrated a mastery of these crises. It’s the sort of fight that religious conservatives have been waiting for.”
The wedding chapel isn’t a church. There has been no church that has been forced to marry anyone. The sky isn’t falling.
Trooper York, What church is being forced to perform gay marriages? These wedding chapels are not churches.
Allowing gay “marriage” is not same thing as forcing churches to perform a sacrament in violation of their doctrine. This case is just a step in furtherance of that goal.
Annie – Exactly. If you want to allow gay marriage, you’re now the bigot, and if you want to allow businesses the right to disallow them, your the constitutionalist. Down is up, and up is down. Have fun, gang. This is another one destined for the garbage can as to posts, and I already know the ending. I’ve read enough chapters.