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
Squeeky what name did I call you? Please point it out. I seem to have missed it.
@MaxCat06
Read the WebMD link above. Hetero’s do it, too, in smaller numbers, and I don’t think any higher of that than I do gay sodomy. It’s filthy, risky, and dangerous. I am not afraid to say so. Yet for gay men, it is sort of de rigeur. And 20% of them are paying the price in a big way.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Olly
Shakespeare wasn’t English? I learn something new every day.
===================
One of the leotards (know what I mean Verne?) told me to speak English, not Shakespeare yesterday.
@NickS
That’s why I call them the Gaystapo and The Puritans. I seldom see one of them do anything other than call names when you disagree with them. For example, Annie above does not dispute my characterization of Gay Aftersex. She simply resorts to name calling, and false equivocations, like “well childbirth is messy, too.” I am not just picking on her, because her fellow travelers do the same thing. For example, I have yet to see one of them tackle the “how come Blasio’s wife and others aren’t lesbians anymore if one can’t change their orientation???” that was on another thread. Because to address that conflicts with the Gay PC standard. It’s easier to just call names.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky –
You know what? You can call them whatever your sheltered brain likes. They are people, they are Americans, they are not going away, and they have rights. That you dislike them has no bearing on anything. There are STILL many in my state of Georgia who dislike African-Americans.
As to “how come Blasio’s wife…”. There are also bisexuals, whether you agree with them or not.
“Go, ye giddy goose.” – Shakespeare (Henry IV, part I)
Maxcat, I warned you.
And having sex with Gallager …
Yep.
Like making dirty salad.
Dredd, maybe some would prefer sex with a full body raincoat on.
Squeeky, I don’t have the same strong feelings about gay sex, porn and drugs as you do. But here’s the difference. I would NEVER call for your thoughts on those issues to be banned here. Progressives jump up and want to censor your words. Despicable. They hate the First and Second Amendments. They want to control our thoughts, our speech, our religion and our guns. And, they are proud of it. They must be defeated and their mindset exposed, derided and mocked.
Shakespeare wasn’t English? I learn something new every day.
Saying Shakespeare is not English is like saying right wingers are not racist.
“Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth.” – Shaelspeare (Hamlet)
Sex should be clean like the oceans (New Continent Found – Garbage Gyre II).
“Thou art unfit for any place but hell.” – Shakespeare (Richard III)
@NickS
The other side can not afford to let reality enter into the discussion. It is hard to be warm and fuzzy with the strong odor of poop permeating the atmosphere. Yet, that is the stark reality of gay male life. It is reality which is sooo stark that 20% of them are HIV positive, and tons more susceptible to other funky diseases. There is a reason why we have sewage treatment plants. Yet, silly people want to celebrate sodomy and pretend it is just wonderful and peachy! And how dare anyone disagree!
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky –
I suppose you truly believe that no heterosexual couples commit sodomy. Yours is a very sheltered life.
Then, again, there’s Nick, who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is operating only on FEEEEEEELINGS, and can’t possibly have a brain as magnificent as his.
Amazing. Really amazing. To think I was beginning to see sparks of humanity.
“Peace, good pintpot, peace, good tickle-brain.” – Shakespeare(Henry IV, part I)
But, we’re all using reason. For progressives, it’s all about FEEEELINGS.
Fat people are not a protected class. So progressives will never care about their plight. Progressives hate fat people. They will be calling for food codes forcing them to lose weight under Obamacare.
Olly makes a very good point. The product or service being sold is specialized. Like the Big and Tall store or the Thai restaurant. It isn’t that they won’t clothe you or serve you. It is that THIS is the clothing, food or service that they offer. This and no other.
I would suggest that the Knapps, cease doing the registration, government paperwork part of the business and just perform the services that they wish to perform.
Lot’s of attacks on the First Amendment here by the people who bring us censorship, bans, speech codes, PC, religious bigotry, and all other wonderful aspects of the progressivism. Amazing to read. Don’t like what someone says, answer it w/ speech. No, they want to ban the words they find offensive. When I was a liberal in the 60’s we worshipped the First Amendment. Just WTF has happened?
Forget being forced to violate their conscience; why would the Knapps have to customize their services? We’ve all been to businesses where you only get to choose what they offer and “no substitutes” is commonly found on menus. Should Big & Tall stores be forced to carry ALL sizes? Should Thai restaurants have to serve carne asada burritos?
So if the Knapps only sell a service that “fits” heterosexuals or if they offer a service that only suits the “taste” of heterosexuals; then should they (or any business) be forced to accommodate the multitude of preferences that exist?,
P.S. I support same-sex unions (I believe government should be out of the marriage business).
Olly – the government (not sure which one) did try to require Hooters to hire male waiters.