Posted on 10/20/2014 6:04:33 AM PDT by dennisw
Here’s the sticky widget the Knapps created for themselves. By advertising a for-profit business that essentially says they’ll marry any two adults of opposite sexes, apparently with no counseling and no refusals based on any conflict which scriptural fidelity, they are discriminating based on sex.
Most ministers I know insist on a counseling visit with the engaged where they discuss the scriptural meaning of the vows and assess whether the couple should go through with the wedding based on their responses and apparent emotional maturity. Some even insist you pass a workshop before they will agree to do the nuptials.
It will be more difficult for such ministers, with a track record of declining to do heterosexual weddings they felt were unwise or unprepared for marriage, to be trapped by this ordinance.
However, these drive-by wedding chapels, like the ones in Las Vegas, are in a different boat because they don’t screen the couple for biblical readiness before agreeing to perform the vows.
In a sense, their lack of discrimination to hetero weddings is why they are now seen as clearly discriminating to homosexual weddings.
Not that I agree at all with this government bullying but I think there is an important distinction to be made between people like the Knapps and people who are church ministers who take performing vows seriously enough to have said no a few times in the past when the couple wasn’t a good match or required additional screening based on biblical principles.
Ministers are under no legal obligation to marry anyone. There are priests who will not marry divorcees unless the earlier marriage was annulled. Our minister will not marry any couple unless one of them is member of the congregation.
What happened to freedom of speech and religion? What’s the difference between freedom of religion of a for profit church vs a not for profit church? You can refuse to marry someone if you don’t get paid? Most ministers get paid to perform weddings,they just don’t claim it.
The words are the same,the pay is the same...what’s different? One pays”0 taxes,one doesn’t. So if you pay taxes to the government,you lose your freedom of speech and religion?
“In their spot, facing criminal action, I guess I could marry them. It would be a brief ceremony. No particular words are required as far as I know. When they came to me, I’d ask to see their marriage license and perhaps their IDs. Then I’d say, “You’re married,” and sign the paperwork.”
Then you’d be endorsing and supporting a falsehood (by Biblical standards, they are NOT married). That’s why the folks under attack won’t go through with the hypocritical pretense only to save their business.
> they are discriminating based on sex.
WRONG!!!
They are discriminating based on BEHAVIOR!
Homosexuals are perverse, sick, deranged, delusional, and mentally ill.
They are incompetent to marry, even the opposite sex, let alone eachother.
They need treatment.
Because Christians shouldn’t be allowed to compete in the marketplace?
Mark Steyn makes the perfect observation that conservatives wok on changes through elections that are held one day a year in alternating years. But, liberals work on changing the culture every minute of everyday all year long and that’s how they are taking control of the country.
Look for the pastors to do a “Houston,” disregard the ruling.
Marxists do that crap full time, frequently supported by tax money ... taken at gunpoint from conservatives.
Ever heard of a little case called Hobby Lobby v. Burwell? That held that even a for-profit corporation could refuse to abide by certain laws that were in conflict with the owners sincerely held religions belief. Under RFRA, the law has to address a compelling government interest, and it must do so in the manner that least affects the company's religious freedom before the company can be forced to comply. Since there are many other places gays can get married in Idaho, forcing this particular facility to marry them, against the sincerely held beliefs of the owners, is not the solution that interferes the least with the owner's religious freedom.
They are adhering to their own religious views. The First Ammendment doesn’t narrowly define what our religious views must be. It doesn’t preclude pastors from making a distinction between homosexual behavior and other human failings. It doesn’t require them to equate homosexual acts with immaturity.
It wasn’t so very long ago that people generally understood that the First Ammendment secures their right to not participate in homosexual acts against their religious convictions.
What gay couple in their right mind would want a minister or official who is opposed to gay marriage to officiate their wedding? It doesn't make sense. Same with the wedding cakes, etc.
I have a feeling ‘activists’ call around with the intention of trying to find ministers and officials who refused to perform the weddings so they (the activities) can contact the media and raise a big stink.
If you are shopping in Hobby Lobby for a product or service they don’t provide, they are not required to provide it. You cannot legally force Hobby Lobby to perform homosexual “marriages.”
That would be one approach. Another would be a Biblically based Hellfire and Brimstone condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle, ending with a "You may be married in eyes of Satan but my advice to you is to go and sin no more. You may kiss the Bride."
Bad analogy in this case. That analogy would work in the case of the Christian baker if, for example, the baker refused to sell cookies or brownies to homosexuals rather than just refusing to bake a wedding cake. The city might have a case if the pastors regularly rented out the chapel for weddings where other people would perform the ceremonies, but refused to rent out the chapel because these people were homosexual. (Notice I said "might" have a case - I would argue against that as well, but the courts might feel differently.)
In this case, you have a city trying to force a licensed minister to perform a religious ceremony that would violate his conscience and religious beliefs. It is requiring the minister's personal participation in what he considers to be a sinful act that makes this so egregious. (I feel the same way about the bakers and photographers who have been sued.) And that is exactly the goal of these deviants and their supporters - to try to force Christians to be participants in their sin, or put them out of business otherwise.
Nothing in my post said either of these things. But the Knapps advertised The Hitching Post in a manner that made absolutely no reference to specific religious beliefs or prohibitions of any sort; only that the marriage ceremonies are performed by ordained and licensed ministers. They do not advertise “opposite-sex marriages only” or prohibit any legal unions. Here is the ad:
http://hitchingpostweddings.com/
It seems to me to be a “come one, come all” solicitation, very much like any business open to the “public” and unlike a private club or other organization with membership requirements. I wish the Knapps well, but I think they will lose this one. My preferred solution, which I have advocated many times on FR, is to get the government completely out of the marriage business.
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.
