TOTALLY GEEKED!

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.

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.

The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

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.

A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.

Government Coercion

The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”

But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion.

Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association, free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage.

The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989. Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their beliefs.

After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. They should not be forced to choose between strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.

What Can Be Done

At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.

States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.

Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government proves that such a burden advances a compelling government interest that has been pursued through the least restrictive means possible.

Protecting Religious Liberty

It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.

States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process, and equal protection.”

Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.

That is ridiculous. A religious ceremony is not a civil ceremony. something will come out of this.

Now, now Lilly, don't get hysterical. It isn't really happening. Just your imagination.

We've been told over and over by proponents of same sex marriage--including some on THIS FORUM (or, the last geek table) that this would NEVER happen.

It would NEVER extend to beliefs in church.

Well, it has. This would likely get thrown out in court--for now--but the fact that it has even come up is chilling.

We've been asked over and over again "well, how do two gays getting married affect you?"

This is how. Coming soon to a church in your neighborhood.

I want to puke.

Today's message, in part, was that Jesus was focused on INCLUDING groups that had previously been EXCLUDED...beginning with Pharisees & tax collectors and coming, in 2014, to homosexuals.

Hatred is NOT the way I choose to live.

But, carry on...

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I love how when you disagree with someone's position, you immediately jump to HATE.

---

 I actually don't have to jump; it's oozing through my screen.

flan

I'm not sure why gay pick SEEK OUT people who they KNOW will disagree with their lifestyle and then feel all offended. Oh wait, yes I do. Because then they can sue and win money.

flan327 wrote:

---

I want to puke.

Today's message, in part, was that Jesus was focused on INCLUDING groups that had previously been EXCLUDED...beginning with Pharisees & tax collectors and coming, in 2014, to homosexuals.

Hatred is NOT the way I choose to live.

But, carry on...

flan

---

 Soooo, show me where Jesus went soft on the Pharisees?  I would love to see that.  Chapter and verse please.

chef wrote:

---

Southern_Belle wrote:

---

Dumb. There are plenty of people willing to perform the nuptials, those who choose not to shouldn't have to.

---

 This.

It baffles me why anybody would want someone who doesn't want to be associated with their wedding forced into providing a service for their wedding. One would think that one would only want people at one's wedding who actually wanted to be there.

---

 I agree. It would be like demanding to have a full Catholic or Jewish wedding even though you are an atheist. Just why?

There are many ministers and officiants who are perfectly happy to perform same sex or atheist or hippie fairy weddings. Choose one that fits. 

So, can a Catholic demand that a Rabbi marry them? The real proof will be how they handle mosques. Then, you will see how the real AGENDA will operate.

Damn those Quakers & their peaceful ways.

flan

Well, on the bright side, we finally have a case for the Supreme Court to slap that crap out of stupid lawmakers that don't understand what freedom of religion is.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

So, can a Catholic demand that a Rabbi marry them? The real proof will be how they handle mosques. Then, you will see how the real AGENDA will operate.

---

 I want to see this come up. I'm curious if mosques would also be forced to participate in same sex weddings or if they will get an exemption somehow.

I really get sick and tired of the "everyone who disagrees with me" is a "hater". If you disagree with Obama's policies, then you "hate" him, blah, blah, blah.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I really get sick and tired of the "everyone who disagrees with me" is a "hater". If you disagree with Obama's policies, then you "hate" him, blah, blah, blah.

---

 Don't forget being a racist or bigot too.

This just makes me so tired.
Is it a business? Yes? Not allowed to discriminate.
Not a business, but a religious institution? Do whatever you want.



I don't agree with them being sued, but then, I rarely do. But it also annoys me when people bring their personal bias into their workplace.
Don't tell me I can't buy bacon because my cashier is Muslim, don't tell me my housemate can't get married at a random non-church location because the owner is Christian. It's rude, and annoying.

Don't they own a vegas style chapel? It's not a church right?

Buildings owned by minister do not automatically become churches.

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Buildings owned by minister do not automatically become churches.

---

Does it have a cross on top?  Is it used for religious purposes? 

 

It's a church.  To say otherwise is beyond ignorant.   

If the acid test is "do they perform weddings"--pretty much EVERY church performs weddings.

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Buildings owned by minister do not automatically become churches.

---

Does it have a cross on top?  Is it used for religious purposes? 

 

It's a church.  To say otherwise is beyond ignorant.   

---

 Just looked at the website.  It's a pay only and you can pick your theme type vegas style chapel.  It's not a church, it's a business run by ordained ministers.

---

It's a church. They are ministers.  If you want ministers to perform the wedding and invoke the name of God to bless your marriage, then you are getting a "church" wedding (even if it is in your parents' backyard).  It's a church service.

 

If you don't want that--then go to the courthouse.  

 

They aren't serving hamburgers at McDonald's.  You are asking them to perform a ritual IN THEIR RELIGIOUS CAPACITY.  There is NO WAY they should be forced to perform a religious ritual that is AGAINST their religion.  That is absolutely counter to the principle of freedom of religion. 

This will get thrown out by the court.  It will never stand.  It just gives gay marriage proponents a bad name. 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Sunday 19th of October 2014 10:27:46 PM

-- Edited by huskerbb on Sunday 19th of October 2014 10:29:10 PM

First off, I don't think they should have to perform for a gay wedding. But that business isn't a church.

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

First off, I don't think they should have to perform for a gay wedding. But that business isn't a church.

---

BS.  It is a church. To say otherwise is flat out ignorant.   

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

A church is used for public worship, not pay me or this theme package.

---

It doesn't matter.  They are asking them to perform a religious ritual that is AGAINST their religion.

 

It would be like requiring a Muslim to eat pork because not to do so would discriminate against pig farmers.   

---

 I don't think they should have to marry anybody. My point is that their business isn't a church.

---

You are wrong.  It has church services. It's a church.