It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 47
53
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

1. This case has been settled. The Knapps don't have to perform same-sex marriages. No need to argue it anymore.

2. Please read (again): The document you're referring to is NOT a factual account. It is a charge. If you charge someone with murder, that doesn't mean you can use the charge as proof that they committed murder! That's ridiculous! You cannot depend on that document for facts. It even says "Wilson or Gridley" said this or that. Who was it? And here's the ACTUAL letter of Gridley's response to ADF:

Letter

It says "based on their corporate status at the time" (in May, before they became a religious corporation) "THEY would likely be governed by the anti-discrimination ordinance", not that Knapp himself would have to perform the marriages. THEY would be liable. That COULD mean Knapp himself would pay a fine, or it COULD mean the business would be liable in some way. But NOWHERE does the city say that Knapp would have to perform marriages of anyone. Except in the charge, which I hope we know by now, is NOT a factual account.


despite their claims that they have only performed ceremonies that were consistent with their religious convictions


They have never made that claim! You're making things up. Have you read my responses to you??? What they have claimed (on their website previously to scrubbing it) is that they happily performed civil (non-religious) marriages. They don't do that anymore and are within their rights to refuse same-sex marriages. Give it up.



Once you have replied and clearly explained how do you understand those sentences to not to mean what they clearly mean, then we can resume talking.


I have replied. I understand those sentences, but they are not facts, they are what ADF is charging. They may or may not be true.




posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are incorrect in your statements. The Knapps have not committed any crime. When they refused to perform same-sex marriage, it was not illegal to do so. Law cannot be applied retroactively.


They have refused two same sex marriages AFTER it became legal in Idaho. That's WHY this lawsuit was started! It's clear you don't know the facts of this case.


On Friday, two days after county clerks in Idaho began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, the Knapps refused two requests to perform weddings for same-sex couples, according to attorney Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona religious liberty law firm. Anticipating enforcement action by the city, ADF filed a lawsuit in federal court the same day seeking an injunction against Coeur d’Alene, preventing the city from imposing a $1,000 daily fine and prison time of up to 180 days.


Source

Was it a crime? It depends on if they were already a religious corporation or not. But NO ONE is or has threatened to charge them with a crime. There was no complaint.

edit on 10/25/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
From what I've read and understand, the Knapps started their legal process prior to gay marriages being legal.

They saw the "writing on the wall" and took legal steps to change their business so that they would be exempt from performing gay marriages.

IMO the Knapps did what they felt they needed to do, through legal means.

They are not the ones blowing this up into sensationalism.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

Well, at least I can see your difficulty in communicating with non-theists ...

The Knapps admitted that they have refused service in a public accommodation in the spurious case filed for them by ADF.

That closes your first point, as it's been closed at least a dozen times in this discussion.

Are you talking about Reynolds v US? Do you mean the fundamental case regarding interpretation of the Free Exercise clause, the landmark case that set the standards in this country for what "freedom of religion" means, legally.

The Constitution is 223 years old, do you want to throw that out too because of it's age?

Where do laws and precedence start to actually count, in your esteemable opinion eh? 10 years, 50 years? What's the number in your "expert" opinion.

Ah yes, the RFRA. I'm very familiar with that hack piece of legislation. I don't need to look it up. Any particular part of it you thinks says something about this case? Cite it.

You might, however, want to look up the term "legal precedent" before you go much farther into your, er, presentation, since you seem to think our laws have an expiration date.

I quote fundamental a SCOTUS case, you mention "what you think you might have heard someone say sometime in this discussion or maybe some other time, somewhere."

You are obviously a more skilled debater, indeed.

/eyeroll emoticon.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It's pretty clear that the Knapps were being used as political pawns.

To me at least. My gripe is not with them per se. Get a secular official to conduct the wedding or hey how about one of the many Christian denominations that don't have an issue with equality?



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

It's pretty clear that the Knapps were being used as political pawns.


Yeah. I feel sorry for the old coots. Fortunately, everything is settled and they don't have to go against their religious beliefs. I do have some concern that their business will go down, because they won't be able to sell secular items in addition to their religious weddings. The ACLU sides with the Knapps, because they're a religious corporation, but says they won't be able to sell flowers, cakes or hold secular services, as they are not religious in nature.

Source

I'm not sure the Knapps are as innocent in all this as they portray, however:


originally posted by: mOjOm
Also, the ADF that is allegedly Representing the Knapps and have filed a complaint and allegedly been working with Knapps in fighting this might possibly be doing all this without the Knapps approval or even meeting them according to another statement by Knapp. I'm not even sure how that's possible if that's true.


So, Knapp made a statement that he didn't even know the lawyer at ADF, right? Well, seems one of the gay couples that was turned down filed a police report. I hadn't heard about that until now. In the last paragraph of that report, it says that Mrs. Knapp called the police on the 23rd to provide their lawyer's name: Jeremy Tadesco of ADF. She also directed the police to take any further concerns to ADF.

So, even if they didn't know the lawyer before, they do now and definitely approve working with the ADF.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I think they will find that being a religious organization just just ain't that much fun.

But, the good thing is, I guess, that they can ask for donations now from the faithful.

Why do am I willing to bet that we won't hear anything from the pro-business, pro-profit folks about taking handouts and living off other people.

Perhaps that's mean-spirited ... it is indeed a complex issue. A shame it couldn't be settled rationally.
edit on 18Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:12:31 -050014p0620141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The same argument could have been said about women's right to vote or slavery. Govt' overreach blah blah blah. I hope the bigoted ministers go to prison. Their hocus pocus religious hogwash doesn't give them the right to discriminate. God is love not prejudice and hatred. The worst thing about Christianity is christians.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: rebelv

I don't have a problem with anything you wrote except for the fact that if you're talking about this thread you should know that "The Hitching Post" isn't a church. In fact it only just recently has been reclassified to a Religious Organization by changing their policies to only participate in Christian Weddings. Before that change they did Weddings of Other Faiths as well as Non-Religious Civil Weddings as well. As far as I know they have never done Gay Weddings though.

Ok, that's it. Just an FYI.


Wow, that was embarrassing. I thought it was a church.
Thanks for the FYI

Rebel 5
edit on 25-10-2014 by rebelv because: syntax



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I hadn't heard about that until now.


I'm guessing the reason we hadn't heard about this until now is because it didn't happen until 2 days ago so this is new information. The calls mentioned here in the police report didn't happen until all of this had already become a media circus and pretty after everything had already been settled also.

This is highly speculative on my part and probably isn't the case, but it sure seems convenient that some irate gay woman called and made such an overt attempt at causing trouble so there is something like this on record. But then again, I also predicted that because of the media surrounding this that it would only be a matter of time until someone did do something stupid like this.

Anyway, so it's now official that ADF is in fact handling their defense now. We can close the file on that little mystery now I guess too. Looks like this is just about wrapped up all nice and tidy. Are there any other loose ends that we haven't accounted for yet???



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
There is no couple involved. No one has taken any action except the owners of the Hitching Post. They are suing the city to prevent having to marry ss couples. No one is suing them. So far, the couples that have been turned away have done exactly as you suggest. Gone somewhere else.


Sorry, I should have made it clear I was presenting the argument as if it were occurring; it was evident to anyone who understood that the Knapps were preempting their legal stance. Truly a slight on my part.

That is the argument of the Knapps, and as you have pointed out, parties have sought out their unions via the court house.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
I'm sure there's a perfectly acceptable water fountain down the street - and an appropriate place at the lunch counter

Separate but equal doesn't fly any more - and what you're suggesting is just more of the same thing


No I am not. You have no problem while you are enjoying a sandwich and tea when that establishment invokes its "no shirt, no shoes" policy I would assume.

I am not seeking the systemic segregation of any group but I will protect private citizens of their choice of associations.


The laws are changing - rights are changing.


Rights don't change. I fully agree in the verbiage of the Deceleration of Independence; that all Men (human kind) are created equal and that we are each afforded an equal footing in which we engage our lives.

I however do not agree with the State deciding who I need to do business with, so in sense; I abhor the concept of "public accommodation".


All people in this country have equal rights. Enforcing those rights has always been complicated. People don't have to like it - and they won't

That's too bad, but it changes nothing


I never argued that they do not. I do wish people would actually read and comprehend without imploring their own biased upon what others have said.
edit on 26-10-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   

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.

...

“It’s the religious activity that’s being protected.”



See? Told you.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy



No I am not.


You may not have that intention, but that is exactly what you are doing.



Rights don't change.


Correct but groups recognized as deserving them change.



I however do not agree with the State deciding who I need to do business with, so in sense; I abhor the concept of "public accommodation".


The State didn't decide anything for anyone as far as public accommodation goes, business owners did by choosing to do business with the public. The State just keeps getting more inclusive as to whom is defined as public... as it should be.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Possibly, if Idaho doesn't have a legal definition of traditional Christian marriage.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
HaHa! Here we go again!

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

But again, much ado about nothing!


Posted: 10/25/2014 8:21
There is one major problem with all this outrage, according to city officials in Coeur d’Alene: The owners of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel do not face arrest or fines or any other penalty for refusing to marry same-sex couples.

The lawsuit argues that Coeur d’Alene’s non-discrimination ordinance -- which was passed last year and bars businesses and public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity -- will “unconstitutionally” force the Knapps to either “violate their religious convictions and ministerial vows” by performing same-sex weddings or face jail time and fines. According to the suit, the city has “privately and publicly threatened to apply” the ordinance to the Hitching Post.

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.



edit on 26-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

The whole thing is one big Media Hoax to gain support for this cause. It's happening in various "news" sources with more than just this one case too. I don't mean it's fake exactly. Just sort of controlled I guess.

They keep repeating the same arguments and everything. Just like all the recent speeches and stuff they had with one of the Religious Right Organizations. Did you watch those. They were insane. So much BS I'm surprised anyone could leave the place afterwards without tunneling equipment.

This seems to be one of the Conservatives Tactics to gain as much support and funding as possible. Operation: "Scare the Crap out of Old Religious Conservatives" by talking about "Gay Marriage, Gay's in General, Ebola, Obama being Racists against White People, etc." You know, the same crap they've been saying for years now only now they seem to be hyping the sh*t out of it, repeating it over and over and from everyone on the right.

Haven't you noticed all the propaganda news that's been around for months now??? Most of it comes from obvious sources and is easily traced back to either be fake, twisted wording, or something similar.
edit on 26-10-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Haven't you noticed all the propaganda news that's been around for months now??? Most of it comes from obvious sources and is easily traced back to either be fake, twisted wording, or something similar.


Oh yeah! I see it! LOL

I keep saying, " I must be getting old, and having visions, because I can see right through their veils, right to the AGENDA!"



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

Rights don't change. I fully agree in the verbiage of the Deceleration of Independence; that all Men (human kind) are created equal and that we are each afforded an equal footing in which we engage our lives.

I however do not agree with the State deciding who I need to do business with, so in sense; I abhor the concept of "public accommodation".


Well, it's real nice that you believe all humans are created equal :-)

It's just too bad that you don't think that all of us should be afforded those rights in real life


I am not seeking the systemic segregation of any group but I will protect private citizens of their choice of associations.


You're free to associate with whoever you choose - a business transaction is not a personal association. It is a public business transaction

You said that as long as there was a separate facility that could and would perform the same services as the Hitching Post - they shouldn't trouble the Hitching Post folks with their requests to be married. Even though the State has decided that gay peeps are as free to marry as anyone else

So, how is that not just another version of separate but equal? I know...it just sounds bad. Doesn't it?

However, no matter how many times you try to tell us that turning away gay customers is the same thing as turning away the shoeless - it still smacks of something else


I never argued that they do not. I do wish people would actually read and comprehend without imploring their own biased upon what others have said.


Forgive me ownbestenemy - what you argued is that we are all born with equal rights, but that the States should have the right to ignore those rights when some people decide they don't like certain other people

:-)

Better?


You have no problem while you are enjoying a sandwich and tea when that establishment invokes its "no shirt, no shoes" policy I would assume.


I just realized - you shouldn't make assumptions either. I can be as catty as the next person, I suppose, but in the grander scheme of things - I actually could not care less. Thought it was worth mentioning. Feel free to say: figures

edit on 10/26/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: because I recognize that Idaho wasn't crazy about the idea...

edit on 10/26/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I find it sad that so many of our friends on the right have been basically brainwashed to consider the rampant deceit offered by "their" media outlets to be Gospel, while anything that challenges that very tightly controlled belief structure is not merely wrong or incorrect but EVIL.

Have you noticed that? I dont' know a single moderate or left leaning independent or even liberals who can't see the BS that is sometimes hyped in the less right-wing oriented media, perhaps because we tend to look for facts and logic rather than something to believe in ... I regularly, for example, throw the remote at MSNBC or CNN when they start churning out BS.

The Right though ... looks more and more like a wide-scale cult to me every day. There's no reasoning with some of the adherent anymore, quite literally, it's their religion.

I certainly don't think anyone "on the left" is always right. They're politicians or media whores. I don't expect The Truth from them.

Not so on the other "side" though.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join