It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Leahn
The Knapps have refused a multitude of weddings on the grounds that they conflicted with their religious convictions. They have consistently denied service on those grounds, same-sex marriage being a subset of the refusals.
Understand, the city is not demanding that the Knapps allow gay weddings at their chapel. The city is demanding that the Knapps perform themselves the wedding if they are so requested by a gay couple, in spite of their religious convictions.
originally posted by: beezzer
For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.
Most who have read my posts know that I have no issue with gay marriage. But this is what many have warned about.
This is the PC over-reach, telling faith-based organizations what to believe and how to act.
I look forward to seeing everyone condemn the acts of government in this and support the ministers, regardless of their faith.
As always, read, reply, ignore or eat raw meat on the subway. It is always up to you.
originally posted by: Leahn
Regarding the first argument:
Page 3, item 6
Page 16, items 105 to 107
Page 17, item 115, 3rd and 4th paragraphs
Page 18, item 119
Page 19, item 124, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs
Page 20, item 131, 1st paragraph
Regarding the second argument:
Page 42, items 309 and 313
Page 43, items 317and 318
Page 44, item 330
...religious entities are exempt from the Coeur d’Alene ordinance, so pastors in the city are not obligated to perform same-sex weddings. But any nonreligious business that hosts civil ceremonies would fall under the city law, Wilson said.
“The Hitching Post might still have an obligation to figure out a way to officiate at that ceremony,” he said.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
originally posted by: Leahn
The grounds for refusal has nothing to do with their sexual preferences but rather with the decision of the owners to only officiate weddings in accordance to their religious beliefs.
Evidence has been presented that the city is demanding that the Knapps perform the ceremony themselves. It's in the item 310 of the page 42 of the court document you linked.
“If they are operating as a legitimate not-for-profit religious corporation then they are exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association,” Gridley wrote, noting that he had heard the family recently filed to become a religious corporation. “On the other hand, if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”
The city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, says This Hitching Post, a for-profit wedding chapel owned by two ministers, doesn't have to perform same-sex marriages.
Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d’Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.
But Gridley said after further review, he determined the ordinance doesn’t specify non-profit or for-profit.
“However, if they do non-religious ceremonies as well, they would be violating the anti-discrimination ordinance,” Morales said. “It’s the religious activity that’s being protected.”
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
And in response to my post above, it seems the Knapps are completely off the hook, as long as they don't perform anything other than religious ceremonies. They will probably have to lose some business (civil ceremonies) to remain within the law.
originally posted by: Annee
This is not OK.
NOT if it remains a for profit business.
9.56.030: PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATORY ACTS:
The following acts are prohibited and shall constitute a misdemeanor:
B. To deny to or to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.
B. This chapter does not apply to:
1. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and this brings us to the other part of the First Amendment religious freedom provision: the Establishment Clause.
When a religion or even religion in general is allowed to operate under a different set of laws than every other citizen, organization and corporation, how is it that religion is not thereby being "established" as in a superior, favored position?
Any corporation the charter powers of which are to be used in aid of the propagation and practice of a religious belief, but the fact that a corporation is under the control of members of a particular church does not make it a religious corporation. Nor does the fact that a board of trustees of a corporation college is to be elected by an association of churches, constitute it a sectarian or religious corporation. Corporations organized under acts authorizing the incorporation of religious societies or congregations are not to be classified as ecclesiastical corporations, but are civil corporations and subject to the same principles of law, and the same control by the civil courts, as any other civil corporation. 1 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations 141.