Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

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.

I have searched the document and do not find this. In fact, I have found just the opposite. Before their website was scrubbed, they claimed to perform civil ceremonies and ceremonies of other faiths.

Source

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.

Same here. Please back up these statements. I cannot find this ANYWHERE. Please back up your claims.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Actually, yes, that's exactly what they said.

originally posted by: Leahn
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Actually, yes, that's exactly what they said.

Well, can you show me? Or not?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

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

a reply to: Leahn

I think this is mostly pointless to continue, particularly as you somehow conceive that you are being "rampantly and offensively attacked."

Rational, logical, you've used those terms repeatedly. Apparently, you mean by them that you write in complete sentences because both rationality and logic are based primarily on facts, or at least, an attempt to discover facts. They are not found merely in illegitimate statements uttered with certainty.

Ah, yes, the ubiquitous ad hominem maneuver. If you read a bit more carefully, I have critiqued your statements, your expressions, even your style; I have never critiqued YOU the person behind that. Why? Because I don't know you; that would be irrational.

Ad hominem doesn't merely mean that I used language you didn't like or didn't appreciate, or that made you feel bad for some reason. If I did, I'm sorry at the basic human level, I had not intention of "attacking" you personally, and did not do so, so please remember you're on an internet discussion board and don't take it personally.

Your posts and their content and your "logic," on the other hand, are fair game.

So, you have evidence that heterosexual men or heterosexual women have come in and been rejected as well? Kindly provide it, if you please, thank you.

In fact, do you have any evidence of any individual being rejected besides same sex couples? Kindly provide it, if you please, thank you.

The same criteria you say is being applied to everyone is illegal. You can take your pick, they're either discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of sex; both are illegal in Coeur d'Alene.

You are incorrect, once again, regarding your statement that there is a demand on the two individuals themselves to perform the wedding. They are the principals of a corporation. If the corporation fails, they pay the penalty. There is no reason for the corporation to fail in its duties to the public.

I see you have an innate prejudice about conversing with non-theists. That is unfortunate. Perhaps that is a chicken-egg problem?

Are you implying that I've used a straw-man argument in our discussion? If so, kindly point it out. If not, I fail to see how it's relevant here, aside from an expression of your own feelings about internet debate.

For the record of personality types, I'm an INFP. You know, the Questor. You've got about as much chance of me giving up a reasonable argument as ... well, there is none actually.

No, it is the opposite.

Christians and traditionalists are NOT being persecuted in any way, shape or form. In fact, Christians in western society have been persecuting anybody not like them for hundreds of years, from the inquisition to non-equal marriage rights.

For example, the ONLY argument you guys have against gay marriage is that your beliefs and traditions prohibit it.

However, there are zero valid scientific studies that show it is bad for anyone.

Hence, fundamentally, such inequality represents YOUR beliefs and religion being codified in government and law, a violation of separation of church and state.

Hence, on this topic and many others, it is Christians who are actually oppressing others, not the other way around.

You are not being persecuted when you are not allowed to be merged with government, when you are not allowed to push the Bible or 10 commandments into public spaces, and so on.

originally posted by: beezzer
Linky

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.

Thank you for your response.

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

Not one of those paragraphs state or imply that "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.

The paragraphs you point out all make clear that the Knapps WILL NOT perform same-sex, polygamous or bigamous (which are both illegal) marriages , but no where does it say that they HAVE denied any services on those grounds (as you assert). They HAVE, however stated that they have denied services to gay couples before. And their website (before it was scrubbed) offered civil marriages (which means non-religious). So, your assertion is incorrect.

Regarding the second argument:

Page 42, items 309 and 313
Page 43, items 317and 318
Page 44, item 330

The argument: "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."

The complaint (written by the ADF) does seem to allege that, but it simply isn't true. The BUSINESS must serve gay couples, but Knapp isn't required to perform them, himself. He can bring in other ministers and has said he's OK with that. It's also against the city's own laws and federal law to insist a particular minister perform a particular marriage against his or her religious beliefs. But if the business offers civil marriages, they have to get someone to do it, even if that means bringing in another minister.

This from a city lawyer involved in the case:

...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.

Source

I guess we'll see when it's all over.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I have clearly and unambiguously stated the facts that I used to support my argument. Not once you have questioned them, or shown by any measure why my reasoning about them is incorrect.

There is no discrimination based on sexual orientation if the criteria used to refuse them is the same criteria used to refuse anyone else that would be refused. 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.

To show discrimination, one has to show that a class is being singled out because of a characteristic of said class, which is not in this case.

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. Mr. Knapp specifically question the city council about this, as a question distinct from a question about his business.

a reply to: Leahn

You have repeatedly and without reference to or acknowledgement of direct evidence demonstrated both to you personally and in this discussion on multiple occasions made statements that are either clearly in error, stubbornly ignorant, or willfully deceptive. Indeed, each of your premises as well as your conclusions have has been dealt with directly, fully and decisively.

The facts have been demonstrated to you, and yet, as you noted previously, you will doggedly continue to restate the same flawed arguments and/or misunderstandings, claim that you are being personally attacked when it is certainly obvious to all concerned that I and several other posters here have gone out of our way to show you respect, because you have a biased, pre-conceived notion of how "non-theists" are going to debate with you.

Statements made by the Knapps DIRECTLY, declarations made by their attorney's in their lawsuit, make the matter utterly manifest and impossible to miss: their business, the Hitching Post, will not offer their services to individuals of the same sex. The reason why the business will not do that (the principal's supposed religious belief) is irrelevant.

Denying reality based on your personal beliefs does not change reality.

Mr. Knapp, acting as an agent for The Hitching Post has committed crimes in Coeur d'Alene. He has admitted on the record that he committed those crimes himself (denial of service based on sex or sexual orientation). Even so, no charges have been brought by the city, but he has been told, clearly, that on those occasions in which Hitching Post acted to deny services based on illegal discriminatory criteria, he is personally responsible both because his own actions and as a principal of the corporation.

Mr. Knapp has admitted this fact; his attorneys have documented this fact in their filing with the court.

He and his wife, his attorneys, the rabid right-wing media, individuals in this thread, and now you have all made the case for special pleading for these persons, that they should be held above the law and grated superior privileges because of their religious beliefs.

In this case, as in many before it, the focus is, of course, not on the religious beliefs of the individuals, but on their actions.

Thomas Jefferson made this point clear in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802):

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.

In the first case before the US Supreme Court that regarded the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Reynolds v. United States (1879), SCOTUS made clear what Mr. Jefferson explained: the First Amendment protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.

The facts of the matter simply cannot be made more clear.

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.

The baker in Colorado tried to use that "reasoning" saying he'd service them anything other than a wedding cake and he lost the case. Truth is, Knapp HAS performed non-religious weddings for years (that were not in accordance with this religious beliefs), and only changed his position when same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho, so it's VERY clear he's discriminating based on sexual orientation. The ONLY couples he's refused are same-sex couples.

Let me ask you this. If a hardware store owner decided that he would only serve customers who were aligned with his religious beliefs, wouldn't that be considered discrimination based on religion, in your view?

What's the difference?

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.

It's evidence, but certainly not proof. The complaint is simply a CHARGE, not a detailed factual account. It's written by ADF, who are known to be anti-gay and dishonest. I do believe there is the possibility of the business "contracting" a minister or other officiant to conduct non-religious ceremonies.

It's possible that IF the Knapps have changed their business model (and that seems to be in question at this time, as AFD says they have not), that they are within their rights to discriminate, but that is yet to be verified. And if they refuse a couple who are atheists, for example, that would boost their position. But they haven't.

Here's the important issue, from Gridley's letter to the ADF:

“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.”

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.

Cour d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

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.”

Stay Tuned...

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.

This is not OK.

NOT if it remains a for profit business.

Yes, stay tuned.

originally posted by: Annee
This is not OK.

NOT if it remains a for profit business.

It may not be morally OK, but it seems it's legally OK. This is the relevant parts of the ordinance and exceptions:

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.
...
9.56.040: EXCEPTIONS:
...
B. This chapter does not apply to:

1. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.

Coeur d'Alene Ordinance

It does not specify non-profit.

It's OK with me. The city can make their own rules.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's that slippery slope that concerns me.

Will other cities start altering their rules to discriminate.

... 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?

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?

Obviously it is being established as special which is why they aren't supposed to be mixed. That is the whole plan from their perspective. Little by little mixing Government (Law Making) with Religion (Highest Authority based on Belief).

That's the problem with the Hobby Lobby Ruling as well. It's a Corporation that has been allowed to be Legally Excused from following the Law based upon it's Beliefs. Big win for Corporations obviously since the Corps. beliefs are whatever it's owners want to claim them to be.

In this case however, as long as they qualify as a Religious Institution and follow the rules which constitute that then there is nothing more to say really. It's apparent that it is deceptive and dishonest since they have in the past had Marriages that were not Religious but that has changed now and that is there right to do so. Claiming that they have always done so when clearly they haven't is BS but so be it. But now, as long as they only do strictly Christian Weddings, for profit or not, I guess they can turn away Gay couples all they want.

a reply to: mOjOm

Agreed on all counts.

The really ironic thing, interestingly from an ethical if not moral standpoint, after they qualify as a religious organization, it doesn't even matter what they do, they are, literally sacrosanct and untouchable, so it doesn't matter what is fair or equitable.

They can marry atheists, the divorced, fornicators, thieves, liars ... all equally forbidden by their Book ... with impunity.

I don't believe that the Founders intended the First to apply to businesses, and certainly not to Corporations.

Who cares what they intended though, huh? Amirite?

Gooooo Jesus!!!

*shakes head and walks off*

I'm sure there will be lawyers all over this case, picking it apart, trying to set it right with the law. And there will be many similar cases, I'm sure. Until "sexual orientation" finds its way into the federal anti-discrimination laws (which, you can believe is the next step) it will be done piecemeal across the nation, city by city, state by state, just like marriage equality itself.

And though churches would still be permitted to discriminate against gays, at this time, they can still legally discriminate based on race, too, but you don't see many that do. I suspect eventually, it will be the same with homosexuality.

Federal Public Accommodation Laws

Legal Definition of "Religious Corporation"

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.

So, the Knapps meet the first requirement: the "aid of the propagation and practice of a religious belief", that belief being that marriage is between a man and a woman. What I'm not clear on, is will they still be permitted to sell flowers, wedding planning, music, venue, trinkets etc. That's how they make their money.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I totally agree. It's interesting to note that what is really happening here is it just gives them the ability to do whatever they choose. They can Marry Gay Couples the same as they do anyone else, if they choose to. There is no consistency at all. Just like there are Christian Ministers who will marry Gay couples now and there are those who won't. There is really no set rule established at all for anything really. It all depends on each persons interpretation of their religion.

So for example, the Knapps here, if they so choose, could remain Christian Ministers and simply decide to interpret the Bible to allow for Gay Marriage and they could do it. Not that it will ever happen. Or some other Christian ministers could open up another place next door, still also be Christian and Marry anyone even if the Knapps don't.

Must be nice to just choose whatever you want to do on Religious Grounds and get away with it.

a reply to: mOjOm

I think the best way to get out of all this would be to take religious marriage out of the government's hands. They're not supposed to be involved in religious affairs anyway, right?

That way, religious people would have the option of going to church and getting married without a legal license (in the eyes of God) and wouldn't have any legal benefits tied to it... OR they could have a civil marriage along with their religious marriage and have the legal benefits. Non-religious people could have a civil wedding, along with all the local and federal benefits. Both could be called marriage. Legal marriage and religious marriage.

Wait a minute... that's the way it is now... LOL! It's just that religious people want to deny gay people the right to have a civil marriage, because they THINK they own it.