Idahoans rejoice!

The Coffee Shop
1

Social Justice is yours.

The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, is taking a step many opponents of same-sex marriage feared would come – forcing those with religious objections to perform same-sex marriages or risk facing prosecution for violating non-discrimination laws.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who oppose gay marriage, own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene. Early in 2014, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, but the ruling was put on hold while the case was appealed. When the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the ruling stood and went into effect.

The city of Coeur d’Alene has an ordinance that prohibits discrimination, including on the basis of sexual orientation, in public accommodations. It does have a religious exemption, but the Hitching Post is a for-profit company, not technically a religious organization, in spite of the Knapp’s deeply held personal beliefs.

Back in May, when everything was on hold pending the Supreme Court, Donald told KXLY, “I think the Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is not his way, and therefore I cannot unite people in a way that I believe would conflict with what the Bible teaches.” The Knapps have said they will close their doors before violating their religious beliefs.

But before that happens, there is another legal battle ahead.

“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine *for each day *they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.” Note that jail time and the fine is per day, not per offense, The Daily Signal reports.

Ugh.

I can’t imagine many of the SSM supporters (myself included) here think this is the best possible resolution to an essentially non-existent problem. But so long as church and state remain intertwined on the issue, it’s the only solution I think we’re likely to see.

2

This seems like the key bit “the Hitching Post is a for-profit company, not technically a religious organization”.
.

3

I’m all for gay rights and I think that the owners of the establishment are wrong if they are a for-profit company.

Having said that, I have to question why same-sex couples would go to this place to get married. It’s possible that I live in some sort of utopia but I thought that people outside of Vegas actually had a prior relationship with their marriage provider. That or go to the town hall. Even if the Knapps give in and perform the ceremony, is this the kind of person you want presiding over your wedding? The Knapps could do the ceremony but work in a bunch of “I’m opposed to this union and I think the couple is going to hell. I now pronounce you wife and wife”. I just don’t understand why the couple, or any same-sex couple, would go back to this place even after they begrudgely consent.

(I also find it interesting that the penalty for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony is more strict than killing someone on a bike with a car.)

4

(I also find it interesting that the penalty for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony is more strict than killing someone on a bike with a car.)

I would guess the former is designed to bring the business into compliance, the latter is just punishment.

5

The company markets a comprehensive wedding day experience, and makes it clear that ministers will perform “traditional religious” ceremonies. Bible verses are quoted in several places on their website. So it appears that they operate on the border between religious institution and commercial enterprise (not simply a religiously themed service or commercial enterprise with religious ownership: weddings are inherently religious ceremonies in the eyes of the religious). That being the case, I can understand how they would be subject to the antidiscrimination law while pastors operating as an agent of the church would not. I don’t like it, but I understand the rationale.

I share your opinion, on the whole. The intolerable hardship clearly falls on the pastors with the ruling. I think some among SSM advocates consider every rejection of their worldview an obstacle to overcome for the greater good (their own personal Rosa Parks moment) more so than an act of retaliation, but that may be too generous an assessment.

6

I’m surprised there is jail time involved. Normally aren’t discrimination cases that do not involve violence or breaking some other criminal law handled as civil charges? That is what I am reading on the Federal civil rights division website. But it sounds like this town has turned it into a criminal charge.

7

That is surprising. I’m unaware of other similar situations. It is disturbing, to put it mildly.

8

That is surprising. I’m unaware of other similar situations. It is disturbing, to put it mildly.

I’d guess if they were beholden to God and not the Benjamins it wouldn’t be a problem. I’d find it disturbing if they were a religious organization and not a business, but they’re not.

9

Would you find it disturbing if the government forced you to contribute your time and labor to an activity you opposed? How about facing jail time if you didn’t allow your last finisher’s photo to be used in a Marlboro marketing campaign. OK by you?

10

So when will government get off its collective ass and separate “wedding” and “marriage”? Let anyone do (or not do) whatever they want for the former, as it won’t have any legal ramifications whatsoever.

11

So when will government get off its collective ass and separate “wedding” and “marriage”? Let anyone do (or not do) whatever they want for the former, as it won’t have any legal ramifications whatsoever.

Exactly.

12

Would you find it disturbing if the government forced you to contribute your time and labor to an activity you opposed? How about facing jail time if you didn’t allow your last finisher’s photo to be used in a Marlboro marketing campaign. OK by you?

I’m not following you. If I had business providing services to the public I’m fine with not discriminating who I provide those services to.

13

So it appears that they operate on the border between religious institution and commercial enterprise

No, they are straight business. They want you to think they are a church being persecuted but they are operating as a business.

If churches were being forced to perform SSM then I would have a large problem with it, but that’s not this case in the slightest.

14

So when will government get off its collective ass and separate “wedding” and “marriage”? Let anyone do (or not do) whatever they want for the former, as it won’t have any legal ramifications whatsoever.

Pretty much already are. Most (I think all, but, could be wrong) states require a couple to obtain a marriage license before having a wedding ceremony. Without the license, the wedding ceremony does not convey any rights recognized by the state. The exception, of course, it common law marriage. But, in that case, the state is granting the right (or recognizing the marriage) without a wedding ceremony.

Looks like I was correct that all states require a license (again, the exception is common law marriage): http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chart-state-marriage-license-blood-29019.html

So, anyone or anything can perform whatever ceremony it/they would like, but, there are no legal ramifications (without a state-issued license).

15

So when will government get off its collective ass and separate “wedding” and “marriage”? Let anyone do (or not do) whatever they want for the former, as it won’t have any legal ramifications whatsoever.

I think this business would still be in trouble regardless, businesses have to follow the anti-discrimination laws right?

Now if they were a church that would be different.

16

Would you find it disturbing if the government forced you to contribute your time and labor to an activity you opposed? How about facing jail time if you didn’t allow your last finisher’s photo to be used in a Marlboro marketing campaign. OK by you?

I’m not following you. If I had business providing services to the public I’m fine with not discriminating who I provide those services to.

Exactly. This is why the wedding cake cases were so ridiculous (i.e.: refusing to make wedding cakes for same sex couples). You have no right to operate a business. You have to get permission from the state to do so and have to abide by the laws of the state in order to operate that business. That is the “contract” you make with the state when you open the business. You do not get breach that contract.

17

I wasn’t trying to be cryptic. It’s a simple question, really: do you think our government, or any government, should have the power to force you to provide a good or service in a way that violates your deeply held beliefs.

So again, would you be okay with your likeness being used to push a cancerous product in the marketplace, under threat of imprisonment for refusal? There is a difference between “not discriminating” and being forced to act in violation of your conscience and moral obligations.

18

I wasn’t trying to be cryptic. It’s a simple question, really: do you think our government, or any government, should have the power to force you to provide a good or service in a way that violates your deeply held beliefs.

So again, would you be okay with your likeness being used to push a cancerous product in the marketplace, under threat of imprisonment for refusal? There is a difference between “not discriminating” and being forced to act in violation of your conscience and moral obligations.

I do not think the government should have the power to force you to provide a good or service in any manner. But, I firmly believe that if you want to provide a good or service you should not be legally allowed to do so in a manner that discriminates against a protected class.

19

As I mentioned previously, I understand the legal rationale for the decision, and why it applies to the wedding chapel and not churches. I’m saying the law is offensive.

20

I wasn’t trying to be cryptic. It’s a simple question, really: do you think our government, or any government, should have the power to force you to provide a good or service in a way that violates your deeply held beliefs.

So again, would you be okay with your likeness being used to push a cancerous product in the marketplace, under threat of imprisonment for refusal? There is a difference between “not discriminating” and being forced to act in violation of your conscience and moral obligations.

Yes if in doing so you discriminate against people. No one is forced to open a business.

I wouldn’t really care about the latter, but I’m not sure what law that falls under. Doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with the anti-discrimination laws in the U.S.