Posted on 10/26/2014 7:27:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
ON OCTOBER 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage. On Oct. 15, county clerks in the state for the first time issued marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Then, five days later came startling news out of the Idaho resort town of Coeur d'Alene: Two Christian ministers, owners of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, had reportedly been told by local officials that they were now required to perform same-sex weddings, or risk fines of up to $1,000 and as much as six months in jail if they refused. Under the city's antidiscrimination ordinance, the Hitching Post is considered "a place of public accommodation," and refusing to marry couples on the basis of sexual orientation was no longer a legal option.
So the two ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, filed a lawsuit, seeking to block the city from forcing them to host same-sex ceremonies in violation of their sincere religious beliefs. "The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted, and sent to jail," their attorney told reporters.
At first blush, the story seemed to confirm the grimmest forebodings of those who have warned that the gay marriage juggernaut will roll right over religious liberty concerns. Was the government really threatening to jail clergy who refused to perform same-sex weddings?
The short answer: No, it hasn't come to that — at least not yet. The Knapps weren't charged with any violation, and since they recently reincorporated the Hitching Post as an explicitly "religious corporation" under Idaho law, it seems doubtful that any prosecutor is seriously gunning for them.
But Coeur d'Alene isn't ruling out the possibility, either. Only if the Hitching Post truly operates on a not-for-profit religious basis, City Attorney Michael Gridley wrote in an Oct. 20 letter, would the Knapps be legally exempted from the antidiscrimination ordinance "like any other church or religious association." Conversely, if their wedding chapel provides services "primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation," they could be cited for breaking the law.
Should they be?
Religious convictions haven't sheltered florists, bakers, and other vendors who have declined to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies. The Supreme Court earlier this year let stand the penalty imposed on a New Mexico photographer who turned down a request to shoot a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that wedding chapels, like bakeries and photo studios, are bound by nondiscrimination law, regardless of the owners' moral beliefs. By that argument, it makes no difference that the owner of a company is an ordained minister. An operation like the Hitching Post isn't a ministry, the ACLU would say, it's a business — and the First Amendment can tell the difference.
Yet there is considerably more to the First Amendment than the unique protection it extends to churches. The freedom of expression it enshrines secures the right to speak no less than the right not to speak. Time and again the Supreme Court has confirmed that government may not force Americans to utter words they disbelieve or deny.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," Justice Robert Jackson wrote in a landmark 1943 decision that struck down a law compelling students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Whatever one's views on same-sex marriage — or on nondiscrimination statutes generally — it is unfathomable that ministers could be forced by law to pronounce the words of a marriage ceremony against their will. That they are being paid to perform the ceremony doesn't diminish the significance of the words they are saying, or erode their constitutional liberty to choose not to say them.
Supporters of same-sex unions have nothing to gain by forcing anyone, least of all clergy members, to officiate at weddings when it would violate their principles to do so. That is "just something we don't do in a liberal society," insists Andrew Sullivan, a stalwart advocate for gay marriage. Concerns about what "marriage equality" is doing to religious tolerance and dissent run deep; surely the best way to allay those concerns is with respect and goodwill. As same-sex wedlock comes to Idaho, it is in everyone's interest that freedom of speech and conscience not be driven out.
The city’s “antidiscrimination ordinance” is unconstitutional.
Right on!
Everyone's?
Not the Gay Mafia and not the ACLU. They are shopping for Christians to crush.
If the Hitching Post has a right not to utter the words celebrating the abominable fiction of Gay marriage, then so does a baker, photographer or anyone else in the normal heterosexual marriage business.
You do not forfeit your First Amendment rights just because you engage in commerce.
A discussion on FNC pointed out that this is not a church.
But of course it is fine to discriminate against conservatives and Christians.
Yeppers. The Constitution establishes a separation of church and state. Which means (to the inconvenience of an overweaning government)that government can’t dictate to the Church any more than the Church can dictate to the government.
While the courts fall over themselves to cater to special interest groups, I would humbly suggest that if someone attempts to force you to do a job that violates your conscience, that you do the job only very, very badly.
Bake a cake? Ok...ooops, forgot sugar.
Photograph it? Sure, but who need to focus when you leave the lens cap on.
Flowers? No problem. Oh, you wanted LIVE flowers? You should have said so.
It’s obvious the gays are seeking places they know will turn them down. Of course, this needs to be fought tooth and nail. In the meantime, the church could simply be closed do to illness on the day of the wedding. The pastors tried to get in touch with the “couple” but apparently wrote down the wrong phone number.
The photographer can also be sick and simply not show up. If these peoples’ wonderful plans are ruined enough times they’ll eventually stop taking the chances.
What happens if they ask a muslim to officiate? or cater? or photograph? If a muzzie refuses, which favored group wins?
the Constitution does NOT establish a separation of Church and State.
The First Amendment says “ Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances “.
What that means is that the government cannot establish a state religion and make people toe the line to it.
This so called Wall of Separation is what causes the TEN COMMANDMENTS to be removed from courthouses, to make cities and towns to remove Nativity scenes from the town squares and causes the removal of religious symbols from various public memorials.
This so called wall was nothing more than correspondence between two individuals in the Federalist Papers; it is not in the Constitution.
If religion was meant to be kept out of our political system in all it’s shapes or forms I am pretty sure it would have been addressed in our founding contract, those guys weren’t stupid when it came to writing a contract.
This so called wall is a creation of the progressive/liberal movement in this country, thrown up to weaken our most revered institutions and give a pass to those scoundrels who refuse to take their oaths seriously.
“Wall of Separation” works both was. If the regime is going to insist in destroying Christianity - like the Mohammedans are doing — then likewise, likewise, they may not cross the wall and interfere in our religious beliefs.
You can’t have it both ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.