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
So, suppose these ministers had a menu with prices of the types of services (products) that they would offer and don’t offer. How is it any different than any other business not offering other products? Should the govt. be allowed to force Jewish deli to sell me non Kosher foods?
Queeky the “truth” about sex is that there are things ‘biological’ happening. Neither giving birth or sex is disgusting unless you want to make it sound like it is. That is YOUR issue, not mine. I’m a nurse, I’ve taken care of human beings, I got over the ‘ick’ factor long ago. Also FYI if you’re so worried, use hot water detergent and bleach if need be. Grown ups know these things already.
Good grief.
Lots of things in life are messy and squishy. That doesn’t mean that people want to lie down and wallow in it. Nor should we have to do so. We go through life trying to overlook or minimize in public…. the icky and gross things that our bodies do. Farts…for example. This is civilization and polite manners. You don’t need to have the grossness shoved in your face either.
leg….pulled….
@Annie
Sooo, you don’t feel the need to pretend that the birth process isn’t ” mighty messy, bodily fluids and all sorts of things that go squish.” Hmmm. How come you are sooo reluctant to acknowledge that gay male sex does the same thing??? Oh, I know! One passes the PC test, but telling the truth about gays isn’t PC.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
What happens when one squeaks during sex?
“Thy lips rot off!: – Shakespeare (Timon of Athens)
Queeky giving birth can be mighty messy, bodily fluids and all sorts of things that go squish, you going to make disgusting comments about that also?
Personally, I don’t want to sleep on sheets covered in fecal matter no matter how it got there. Maybe other people like to sleep in poop. I like clean sheets But….that’s just me. 🙂
I’m pretty sure that Squeeky is pulling your collective leg.
More like poopophobia. But you people are free to sleep on anything you want to. If you want to ignore the physical reality of things so that you can win a PC medal, knock yourselves out. But as for me, I want clean sheets.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky ewww. Would you want to sleep on some sheets where 2 heterosexuals had been sodomizing each other? etc and so on of ditto from your post. The homophobia I find to be much more disgusting then anything people hetero or homosexual might do with one another
Annie, We are witnessing extreme homophobia.
I guess gay bashing does not merit a deletion, Annie.
Whoa Squeeky, a view into your inner thoughts is making me want to disinfect this thread. That’s such a nasty thought, not biology of it, it’s the hatred…
Annie – as a MSN you should be aware of the problems of infectious diseases. What is the proper handling of linens in the hospital with patients with infectious diseases?
Paul why would you assume healthy gay people have an infectious disease? Linens in hospitals that come from a patient with an infectious disease get red bagged. Linens than come from people without infectious disease go into the regular laundry bags. There is no ASSUMPTION of an infectious disease in anyone of any sexual orientation without symptoms. If labs come back showing infection, patients get put into isolation depending on what the organism is.
Annie –
Why are you arguing with FACTS? We’re supposed to be the FEEEELING side. We couldn’t possibly know what is right or wrong. Just ask the supercilious ones who keep on letting us know that. They have truth, justice and the American way behind them, didn’t you know? I have tried to be conciliatory, and I’ve also started conversations that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, but when it comes down to ideology, they will beat you with a bat for even suggesting that you have as much right to your opinion as do they. Actually, as I said, you don’t have opinions or facts, only feelings. They claim to have the 1st, 2nd, and all the other amendments on their side. We’re just here, as communists, to destroy all that.
Yep…WE’RE the anti-Americans. Amusing, no?
Wow Max, that Texas good old’ boy’s face is a personification of the evil of bigotry.
Max, I asked David that very question about older adults not being allowed to marry because they can no longer procreate. His answer was that older people shouldn’t be engaging in sex and should instead devote themselves to the grandchildren and knitting or something to that effect.
Thus spaketh David from the Mound of Venus. David declarith who shall marry and who shall love who.
LeeJ,
I find the whole idea of marriage for procreation to be so sad. No love, no devotion, no adoration, no passion? Children are wonderful in a marriage if that is what you want, but there are a myriad of reasons to marry other than children. What happens when the wife has had all the children she safely can have? No caresses or kisses for the elderly couple, no ultimate expression of unity between two people, which could be sex in a loving relationship? No more fun between the sheets? Oh how sad to think old people and infertile people must be forced to sneak a quickly in David’s perfect world.
Annie wrote: “No caresses or kisses for the elderly couple, no ultimate expression of unity between two people, which could be sex in a loving relationship? No more fun between the sheets? Oh how sad to think old people and infertile people must be forced to sneak a quickly in David’s perfect world.”
This is a complete mischaracterization of my views. No caresses and kisses? Really?
Paul, I’m not concerned with the divorce per se. I’m concerned that she caused her husband and herself unnecessary heartache. If she would’ve had children with him, the kids would’ve been affected by her denial of what she was to begin with, so as to conform to family, societal and religious pressures.
Annie – I have two good lesbian friends, now married, who were previously married to males and had children. Except for one exception, the children have turned out quite well.
That’s good to hear. I don’t doubt for a minute any HAPPILY married couple can be successful at raising great kids. I’m betting the kids saw a positive change in their mothers’ attitudes when they were true to themselves.
There is a young woman in my daughters husband’s family that was raised in a strictly religious family who married a man. She decided she would try to squelch her desire for women and have children and become heterosexual. It didn’t work, a few years later she divorced and came out as openly gay and quickly found a partner. Thank goodness there were no children from that union. She is married to her partner and they have a daughter and are a lovely happy family, that the extended family finally accepted and embraced.
Max, it quacks like a duck…
@Annie
Huh??? Ewww. Would you want to sleep on some sheets where two guys had been sodomizing each other??? There’s probably poop and fecal matter and God knows what else all over the place. No telling what some Luminol and a black light would reveal. I am not sure that just putting some PineSol in the wash would do the trick. If it was my sheets, I would dress up in a HazMat suit and take them to the back yard and turn a flame thrower on them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Sheesh Squeeky, your 5:21 PM comment is…. Can’t say, will get deleted. Wow.
I am persuaded that the amendment was written not to protect the rights of theocrats , but rather to defend civil society from them.
I believe this too. The founding fathers came from a government (in England) that had an official church and if you didn’t belong or follow the church you were at best ostracized and unable to get the ‘good’ jobs. At worst…persecution for those other sects.
As the the people in this case. I doubt that they will prevail since their business is a for profit one offering a service to everyone else. I feel for them and their quandary. However, they chose the wrong business format and shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. If they chose to establish their ministry as a non profit church, then that might be a different issue.
Non Profits CAN charge for their services. Non profit doesn’t mean that they don’t make money. The rules are on what they can do with their profits and who can benefit.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/anthony-culler-gays-gremlins ”
The Republican challenger to Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) has apparently decided to make the most of the attention he received for describing gays as “Gremlins.”
In a video posted to Facebook on Monday, challenger Anthony Culler doubled down on the comment and vowed if elected he would represent and fight for Christians against “the worst Gremlin outbreak we’ve seen in 30 years.”
“What we have is, I made a comment that same-sex couples that want to destroy traditional marriage and our way of life, they’re Gremlins,” Culler said. “They’re these creatures that are so destructive.”
Culler posted a lengthy diatribe on the dangers of same-sex couples to his Facebook page on Oct. 14 and received strong backlash this week when it was picked up by national media outlets. Instead of backing down, he took to Facebook to continue disseminating his message.
Culler’s latest rant against the “Gremlins” that threaten the Christian way of life lasted for seven minutes. The measured tone of his monologue was dramatically punctuated by the blast of train whistles in the background.”
@sulphurdunn
I fail to see the celebration of sodomy as social progress. But, to each their own.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It is not really our government. It is the government of the City of Coeur d’alene.
@ Bettykath
My fault. I wasn’t clear.
“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.
The referenced article went on to speculate what difference size of the organization would make in these kinds of exemptions for religious views. For a small S Corp, few owners who are all family like Hobby Lobby and Calestoga Wagons. it is pretty straight forward. However, for a larger S corp with more shareholders and not all family, but still closely held, not publicly traded it is much more murky.
I expect we will see this issue revisited again for those other situations. The question then is about a closely held C Corp which is publicly traded like WalMart, as you mentioned. Do THEY qualify for the exemption? Very murky.