Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings

[Heywood]

Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this wasn't a church, it was a business open to the public.
And it was a business that offered civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

The point of law that is being invoked is that a business cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

No one is suggesting that churches must allow anyone to marry in their churches. They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

There is more than one point of law being invoked. The other point being people are protected from being forced by the state to preform a religious ceremony they don't want to preform. This protection doesn't go away simply because you are in business.

There is no compelling need of the state to force these ministers to preform a religious ceremony they do not want to perform. If a gay couple wants to get married, they can walk to the courthouse right next door and get just as married as they can in the chapel.

Forcing these ministers to preform gay marriages doesn't help gays. Its merely the imposition of someone else's will upon another for no good reason other than a disgust in their beliefs.

[Jenny A]

Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this wasn't a church, it was a business open to the public.
And it was a business that offered civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

The point of law that is being invoked is that a business cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

No one is suggesting that churches must allow anyone to marry in their churches. They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

It a business engaged in religious services conducted by two ministers. I don't see how or whether they are paid or not has much of anything to do with it except that the Idaho Anti-discrimination law takes that into account. The Idaho RFRA does not. Why should religious practice, or freedom from religious practice depend upon profit?.

[Brian37]

Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this wasn't a church, it was a business open to the public.
And it was a business that offered civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

The point of law that is being invoked is that a business cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

No one is suggesting that churches must allow anyone to marry in their churches. They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

There is more than one point of law being invoked. The other point being people are protected from being forced by the state to preform a religious ceremony they don't want to preform. This protection doesn't go away simply because you are in business.

There is no compelling need of the state to force these ministers to preform a religious ceremony they do not want to perform. If a gay couple wants to get married, they can walk to the courthouse right next door and get just as married as they can in the chapel.

Forcing these ministers to preform gay marriages doesn't help gays. Its merely the imposition of someone else's will upon another for no good reason other than a disgust in their beliefs.

NO, but a church can be protested publicly, no different than boycotting a business. But a church can lose it's tax exempt status for discrimination. Just like a business can be find and sued for discrimination.

I agree though that they should not be forced by law to perform them. There are other ways to get them into the modern world.

[Chas]

Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this wasn't a church, it was a business open to the public.
And it was a business that offered civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

The point of law that is being invoked is that a business cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

No one is suggesting that churches must allow anyone to marry in their churches. They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

There is more than one point of law being invoked. The other point being people are protected from being forced by the state to preform a religious ceremony they don't want to preform. This protection doesn't go away simply because you are in business.

There is no compelling need of the state to force these ministers to preform a religious ceremony they do not want to perform. If a gay couple wants to get married, they can walk to the courthouse right next door and get just as married as they can in the chapel.

Forcing these ministers to preform gay marriages doesn't help gays. Its merely the imposition of someone else's will upon another for no good reason other than a disgust in their beliefs.

Were they asked to perform a religious ceremony? They offer civil ceremonies - were they asked for that? I suspect so.

---

Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this wasn't a church, it was a business open to the public.
And it was a business that offered civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

The point of law that is being invoked is that a business cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

No one is suggesting that churches must allow anyone to marry in their churches. They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

It a business engaged in religious services conducted by two ministers.

No, it fucking isn't. They offer civil ceremonies, as well. They offer ceremonies for other religions not their own.

I don't see how or whether they are paid or not has much of anything to do with it except that the Idaho Anti-discrimination law takes that into account. The Idaho RFRA does not. Why should religious practice, or freedom from religious practice depend upon profit?.

See above. This is not religious practice.

[Heywood]

Were they asked to perform a religious ceremony? They offer civil ceremonies - were they asked for that? I suspect so.

It is a pre-emptive lawsuit so I doubt they were asked anything. They are suing so they don't have to conduct their business in fear of being asked and jailed/fined for refusing.

---

No, it fucking isn't. They offer civil ceremonies, as well. They offer ceremonies for other religions not their own.

I don't think they offer civil ceremonies anymore as evidenced in the change of their website.

[Chas]

Were they asked to perform a religious ceremony? They offer civil ceremonies - were they asked for that? I suspect so.

It is a pre-emptive lawsuit so I doubt they were asked anything. They are suing so they don't have to conduct their business in fear of being asked and jailed/fined for refusing.

---

No, it fucking isn't. They offer civil ceremonies, as well. They offer ceremonies for other religions not their own.

I don't think they offer civil ceremonies anymore as evidenced in the change of their website.

The revamped business model is probably exempt. They should drop their suit.

[Heywood]

The revamped business model is probably exempt. They should drop their suit.

The whole point of the suit is to insure the anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't apply to their revamped business model. Why should they drop it in favor of uncertainty?

But suppose they continue to do civil ceremonies...but just don't charge for them. Should they be forced to provide free civil ceremonies to gay couples?

[Mister Agenda]

Non-discrimination laws have been around for quite a while now Woody. If it's a business, they must follow those laws to participate in the public sphere. Just like a business can't refuse to serve black patrons, a business cannot refuse to serve gay patrons. Now, if it were a church and not a busniess then they can refuse to do whatever they like legally. The fact that the owners of this business happen to be pastors is beside the point. They could refuse all the gay couples and black couples and pre-marital-sex-having couples or any other sort of "affront" to their religion, if it was a church. But it's not. It's a business.

By the way, I didn't think using religious ritual as a business was quite...kosher.

This is the product they are selling:

We strive to make your wedding experience memorable and personal for you. At the Hitching Post, ordained ministers will marry you using a traditional, religious ceremony. You are also able to choose which themed room you would like to have your ceremony in.

-bolded by me.

http://hitchingpostweddings.com/resources/faq/

Freedom of Religion has been around a lot longer than anti-discrimination laws. Free exercise of religion trumps anti-discrimination laws as evidenced by the numerous ministerial exceptions the courts say exists.

The government cannot force a minister to preform a religious ceremony against his will.

In the original advertisement, before they changed it for purposes of covering their assessment for this lawsuit (aka, lying), their website indicated that they also offered civil ceremonies for people of any faith. And they don't have to perform the ceremony themselves, they could have someone else do it. But their business is a place of public accommodation, and subject to the relevant laws.

[Chas]

The revamped business model is probably exempt. They should drop their suit.

The whole point of the suit is to insure the anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't apply to their revamped business model. Why should they drop it in favor of uncertainty?

But suppose they continue to do civil ceremonies...but just don't charge for them. Should they be forced to provide free civil ceremonies to gay couples?

Of course not; just like a kosher butcher doesn't have to sell pork.

If they carefully consider what they are selling, they will get 'acceptable' clientele.

[Mister Agenda]

Then what's the section titled "Hitching Post Courthouse & License Office" about? Additionally, if you look under the "Wedding Packages" they offer, the cost of a marriage license is included as one of the items. Just get rid of the government documents and they can do whatever the hell they want with their ceremony.

They are talking about the county courthouse 400 feet away. It means when the ceremony is complete, they will sign the license, walk the 400 feet to the courthouse, and file the license for you. Its not uncommon for a minister to file the marriage license for you.

Are we going to prevent sincere clergy from filing marriage licenses if they refuse to preform gay marriages in their church?

It's not a church. It's not even particularly Christian. Atheists could get hitched there in a civil wedding a few weeks ago, no questions asked.

---

Fair enough. But if these people are running this marriage service as a private business and not as a non-profit, they should follow the anti-discrimination business rules that everyone else has to follow. If they're a non-profit church, then of course they can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage.

I can't say I much like the Knapps' belief system. It's abhorrent (many religious beliefs are). And they are in violation of Idaho's anti-discrimination laws. The question is whether the the First Amendment, the RFRA, or other law gives them an out because of their religious beliefs.

This not like baking a cake for a wedding, or renting an apartment. The Knapps would actually be preforming a ceremony that they consider blasphemy. I think they have a case. I don't see that whether they are for profit or not matters to the RFFA or First Amendment.

I don't see why they'd have to perform the ceremony themselves. They can get someone else to do it, but they can't refuse to let it be performed at their place of business.