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
This is the same pseudo religious/First Amendment argument used against performing interracial marriages until 1967 and trotted out to thwart most social progress. I doubt the Founders envisioned the Bible trumping the Constitution under the guise of the First Amendment. I am persuaded that the amendment was written not to protect the rights of theocrats , but rather to defend civil society from them.
Communists kill people for practicing religion. ISIS rape and behead Christians. our great govt. is just going to jail this ministers for 6 months. What a bunch of whining, knuckle dragging, Christians.
As I understand Christianity “a sin is a sin” so wouldn’t they have to also deny supporters of death penalty or the Iraq War (optional war) wedding services also? They also could only perform first marriages.
If that is the line they are selling, can they cherry-pick which sins to discriminate against?
Ross wrote: “… wouldn’t they have to also deny supporters of death penalty or the Iraq War (optional war) wedding services also?”
The problem with the Knapps is not based upon ideology. They do not want to join a couple together because they believe a certain way. For example, I doubt they would turn away a man and woman from getting married just because that couple believed in gay marriage. They probably never even ask that question.
What is more likely is that they believe that when a man and woman is joined together in holy matrimony, a change takes place. They are no longer two but one. Many Christian religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, say that marriage is a sacrament. They believe something spiritual and mystical take place, and a presence of God’s love and grace is bestowed upon the couple that was not there before. As Jesus taught, what God has joined together, let no man separate. So this is a clear teaching by Jesus about marriage that God joins the couple together. Although the Knapps are probably Protestant and do not view marriage as a sacrament, they do view it as a holy institution of God. They would believe in certain principles such that their participation in officiating a marriage between same sex couples would be a violation of their faith and teachings about marriage. It would basically make marriage a big joke that has nothing at all to do with the teachings they believe.
David, “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.”
David, anytime a religious ceremony includes a filing of the marriage with the relevant government clerk, it is also a civil marriage. Gay marriage has not changed that.
It is not the homosexuals who have made a perceptual change but the homophobic people who don’t want homosexuals to be able to exercise the same civil rights as heterosexual people. Look in the mirror.
David, “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.”
I agree, more young couples are cohabiting now than previously. If they are cohabiting, how do you make the leap to the all the problems of single family homes? By definition, cohabiting couples are not single family.
You also make a leap of logic in attributing the decision of young people to cohabit to what homosexuals think of marriage. It’s more likely that their decision is affected by the high divorce rate of their parents and the parents of their friends.
I guess your marriage must be at a terrible risk because there are same sex marrieds out there. That’s a shame. I would think that you would welcome same sex couples making the marriage commitment, rather than just shacking up, as you so elegantly put it.
Pogo, Gore invented the Internet. What’s not to like about that?
bettykath wrote: “If they are cohabiting, how do you make the leap to the all the problems of single family homes? By definition, cohabiting couples are not single family. … You also make a leap of logic in attributing the decision of young people to cohabit to what homosexuals think of marriage.”
The philosophy of hedonism and sexual immorality causes divorce. Homosexual activists are dissembling when they claim to be fighting for civil rights. They are fighting for the right to behave in sexually immoral and perverted ways. When people accept homosexuality, they accept hedonism and all forms of sexual perversion, whether homosexual or heterosexual. This leads to heterosexuals misunderstanding the purpose of sex, becoming more promiscuous, cheating on their wives, which leads to divorce. Do I really need to make a long post connecting the dots for you?
Davidm2575,
FYI: I didn’t write that. It was an excerpt from a ThinkProgress article.
David,
If the owners want to run a church, they can do it and not worry about being tread upon for refusing to marry gay couples. If they want to run a for profit wedding service, different story.
rafflaw wrote: “If the owners want to run a church, they can do it and not worry about being tread upon for refusing to marry gay couples. If they want to run a for profit wedding service, different story.”
Why should an individual have to create their own church in order to preserve their religious liberties? Groupthink like this is very dangerous to civil liberties.
“Religionists, true to their authoritarian natures
…Turnaround is fair play..”
So your complaint is not with totalitarian authoritarianism per se, merely the religious basis for its use.
You only care whose ox is gored, but you’re in favor of goring.
David,
Respectfully, if homosexuals are allowed to get married, how can it possibly impact straight couples to “shack up” more? There is no connection. Besides, most couples do cohabit prior to getting married these days already. You make a quantum, unsubstantiated leap that gays getting married will create even more single parent homes. Please explain why homosexuals have made marriage meaningless for straight couples by them getting married??
rafflaw wrote: “Please explain why homosexuals have made marriage meaningless for straight couples by them getting married?”
Homosexuality is based upon sex for pleasure. The biological functions are perverted, so reproductive organs are inserted into organs made for excrement of waste or basically any orifice that will suffice to bring pleasure. Because there is no reproductive goal in homosexual sex, then the purpose of the sex drive, which biologically is entirely about reproduction, is perverted to being about pleasure only. When society sanctions these principles of sexuality as equal and equivalent to the biological functions, then young people in society look at sexuality as simply who or what brings you lustful and sexual pleasure.
The institution of marriage is tied to the original purpose of bringing male and female together into one completed whole person. For a religious person, this is tied to the concept of the Creator making man male and female, ordained by him to be completed when the man and woman come together in a sacred bond of marriage. The concept is that men and women are different from each other. They are equal before the law, but not equal in abilities and gifts granted by the Creator. So to be complete, they enter into marriage, so the weaknesses of the man are covered by the strengths of the woman, and the weaknesses of the woman are covered by the strengths of the man. The man develops ultimate sacrificial love toward his wife. Through this union, they find completion for themselves. There is a synergy whereby their union is greater than their individual lives apart. This leads to greater economic success as a family unit created by the institution of marriage. They reproduce and spend years raising their young.
In homosexual marriage, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other through normal biological means. Furthermore, they lack the gender diversity in their union whereby the strengths of one spouse supplement and cover over the weaknesses of the other. So there is no completion in marriage in this sense. In order to force an equality of same sex and opposite sex unions, the definition of marriage must be changed or destroyed. In actuality, the institution of marriage is destroyed and no longer an institution. Marriage is no longer about reproducing and having children. It is no longer about gender diversity. Gender diversity no longer matters. So marriage is now simply a romantic feeling for another person with whom you want to commit a lifelong relationship. That is not at all enough reason to support marriage. If that was all marriage was, I would have never married.
The attack on marriage began before mainstreaming homosexuality. It began with birth control and the pill. It was furthered along by feminism. The war against women waged by feminists has been this entire push to neuter women and make them more like men. They don’t want to reproduce, and they want wages equal to men. The homosexual agenda is simply the nail in the coffin to entirely destroy the institution of marriage. When a heterosexual accepts the concept of homosexuality, there is simply not much of anything that would fall into the category of sexual immorality. His mind shifts to thinking that pretty much any kind of sexual activity for pleasure is just fine. That kind of thinking, as previously explained, is not amenable with the concept of marriage. It basically changes marriage into being the same as a domestic partnership.
I’ve shared the following youtube video before. It makes a good point about your question. The homosexual activist starts out being for marriage equality, but then later change to do away with marriage by showing it does not work for them. Marsha Gessen is a homosexual activist who married in Massachusetts when gay marriage was made legal there. Now in this video, she says homosexuals lie when they say gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage. She explains her own situation of having entered into gay marriage, and she now thinks our concept of marriage should be done away with because it does not work for her and her family. The concept of husband and wife do not work for her, nor does the concept of a child having one mother and one father work for her.
http://youtu.be/n9M0xcs2Vw4
There are people who comment on this blog who agree with my viewpoint on many issues. When they speak up in agreement, it doesn’t mean they are “defending” me. They’re expressing their opinions. It’s as simple as that.
The state as the secular authority has the duty to enforce the law. Religious bodies are by their nature discriminatory; their beliefs are based on myth alone and cannot be verified. This case does not threaten their beliefs, to which they are entitled, but they are not entitled to break the law. The Hobby Lobby case opened the door for religionists to put a wrench in the civil rights of women and others. In fact, it was specifically designed to do so, as people like those at Hobby Lobby are opposed to the equality and autonomy of women. Religionists, true to their authoritarian natures, have never supported women’s rights or the rights of homosexuals. Hobby Lobby ensures the further mischivious fragmentation of American civic life. The religionists have had their time for several hundred years (several thousand when you count from the early Church) to coerce Americans and others who did not accept their beliefs to have those beliefs forced on them nonetheless. Turnaround is fair play. Save your sympathy for those who truly need it.
Theo wrote: “This case does not threaten their beliefs, to which they are entitled, they are not entitled to break the law.”
In many cases we have a right and duty to break the law when it is oppressive and violates civil rights and the Constitution. That was how this country was founded. The Declaration of Independence is a justification for breaking the laws of England and disassociating with them entirely. Keep forcing sexual immorality upon our society, making us look like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and you will find a lot of people losing respect for the law and for our present government. Sodomy destroyed those cities, and it can destroy us too if we let it.
Theo wrote: “… people like those at Hobby Lobby are opposed to the equality and autonomy of women.”
This is a lie. Hobby Lobby supports women, but it is against women killing their unborn children. Women do not have to become biologically equal to men in order to have a good life. Women have a very special gift over men of being able to bear children. Women should embrace that gift, not be ashamed of it. Using artificial means to destroy that gift to murder their unborn children and thereby achieve “equality” with men is foolish.
To ask these people to violate their religious principles and perform same sex marriages is just the first step. They are an easy target. A cheap win.
After all the government wanted to force nuns to provide abortfacients and condoms. So the intrusive tyrannical government means to reach into religious institutions to dictate how they live and how they practice their religion. It is all of a piece.
Soon enough the government will attempt to force churches to perform same sex marriages. Any who says that is not their goal and endgame is a liar or a fool.
DBQ, btw, I didn’t say anything about gay marriage in that post, but I will now. The “chapel” in question has been run as a for-profit business providing legal unions that they call marriage with all comers, regardless of religion, being welcome until the law that required them to serve same sex couples as well. Homophobia is alive and well.
@SWM
Thx! I am hoping xtranormal gets back on line so I can do more videos. The old format they had was too confining, so maybe the new owners will loosen it up a bit.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Nice one, Squeeky.
DBQ, I may be preaching to the choir but I was also correcting your misstatements.
You said, “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.”
There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that addresses the size of the closely held corporation, so those with thousands of employees are in the same category as those with few employees. Neither does it address the number of owners. A publicly traded corporation can also be closely held according to the IRS so it, too, qualifies to have a religion. See my previous statement for the IRS definition.
Well, if you like uplifting poetry, one of my favorite poets is this guy. I have been trying to get him to come here for a few months without luck, and trying to get him to start writing poetry again. Here is a sample of his fine and philosophically deep deconstructionist poetry:
http://charlestanz.wordpress.com/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul C, Of course, Elaine is capable. There is a group here that strongly supports her.
I think I will open a store, declare it against my religion to sell to anyone other than white people, and then claim I’m a church when I get sued for violating the law. After all, a lot of people in these comments are claiming the the argument that a for profit business is not a church is somehow an attack on what the legal definition of a church is. When people point out the Civil Rights Act, i will just ignore it and claim that it was nothing more than ‘judicial activism’.
I will ignore the entire concept of equal protection of the law because I have decided that my personal beliefs trump the rights of anyone I choose. Screw the law, screw the Constitution, and screw the very idea of liberty, because after all, my rights are more important than anyone else’s.
At least that is what some of you seem to be suggesting.
What has happened to this blog?
Daniel Frankovitch wrote: “I think I will open a store, declare it against my religion to sell to anyone other than white people, and then claim I’m a church when I get sued for violating the law.”
Your mistake is thinking that homosexual behavior is equivalent to race. It is not. People do not choose their ethnicity, but there are cognitive factors involved in becoming a homosexual. You also engage in groupthink, not realizing that civil rights are about the rights of an individual. If I believe exactly the same thing about homosexuality as a church, my right to believe and practice that belief should not be infringed upon just because I do not belong to a church that is exempted by the law.
Daniel Frankovitch wrote: “… after all, my rights are more important than anyone else’s.”
You misworded that. You should have said, “my rights are equal to the rights of others.”
No person, organization or government has the right to force an individual to violate their conscience. It is against nobody’s conscience to serve people of a different race. It does violate the conscience of some to be forced to unite two people of the same sex in the sacred institution of marriage when the law of the Holy Bible they follow says that homosexuals should be executed. Why should any person be forced to participate in any way with something they believe is an abomination? You might as well craft a law forcing Jews and Muslims to serve pig blood for people to drink in their restaurants.
Bettykath
You are preaching to the choir. We are an S Corp, which I set up for us myself. I have advised many people in my career as a financial adivisor to set up S Corps, C Corps, FLPs and many other strategies for tax and inheritance purposes…Working closely with their attorney and CPA of course!. I am quite familiar with all of this.
I also don’t object to homosexual marriage. It doesn’t mean a hill of beans to me. I really could NOT care less what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. As long as you act like a decent human being and are respectful of those around you, I don’t give a rat’s behind what people do in public and that goes just as much for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual.
I do object to having others being forced to perform the ceremonies for those marriages and in other ways be forced to participate in those marriages if it is against their religious beliefs. There are plenty…PLENTY of other venues who would be glad to perform a marriage, bake a cake, dress up the bridal party. I see no need other than activism to try to punish someone for their religious beliefs to force yourself on them.
In addition, why would you want to force someone who really really doesn’t want to do it, and who likely isn’t wishing you well, and may actually hate you to participate in what should be your special memorable and sacred day? Why. To prove a point? Is that what marriage means to someone? A club to hit other people over the head with? I feel very sorry for them if that is the case. Not a good foundation for marriage. IMO