Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[Syriusly]

Public accommodation laws = modern Jim crow laws....government forced discrimination does not belong in this country....

Public accomodations laws= what the people who supported Jim Crows laws opposed.

Sorry, these public accommodation laws come from the same place Jim crow did...the government mandating private business be conducted against the interest and judgement of the owner of the business...

It is a poisonous concept supported by the very people who would have supported Jim crow...


Public accommodation laws are Jim crow laws....and we need to stop perpetrating discrimination...

No- just the opposite.

Jim Crow laws reflected the desires of the majority to discriminate- and exclude a discriminated minority from equal treatment.
Public accommodation laws were- and are- designed to eliminate the very kind of discrimination that Jim Crow laws supported.

It is why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was so bitterly opposed by the defenders of Jim Crow.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to......

Those who opposed the discrimination of the Jim Crow laws, fought for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- to end discrimination of minorities in places of public business.

Claiming that the 1964 Civil Rights Act IS a Jim Crow law is just plain revisionist history.

 

[Syriusly]

it makes me a resident of reality. try it some time.

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

Not because they are marrying, but because you are using the courts wrongly, and because you are forcing people to either choose tyranny or losing their livelyhood.

Its not about the end result, its the process you fascists are using.

Funny you should mention that.

Since the OP itself is about Conservatives using the courts- just to stir this up- there is no one threatening 'miniisters with jail'- there is no 'church' being threatened- this is all a fake controversy ginned up by Conservative activists

Thanks- I didn't do my due diligence- and didn't recognize right how much a pile of crap the headline was- the article makes it pretty clear that this is entirely a created controversy.

It is Conservatives using the courts to try to force the City to change its ordinance. No liberals are attempting to force these ministers to do anything.


In the letter, Gridley confirmed the details of a telephone conversation he says he had Monday with Cortman.

Gridley wrote that his office has responded in the past to questions from the Knapps about their business - registered as a for-profit limited liability company with the Idaho Secretary of State's office. He admitted that the Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status.

Violation of the anti-discrimination law is a misdemeanor with a fine as steep as $1,000, and as long as six months in jail.

Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.

"Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote.

Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

In addition to exempting those groups, Gridley wrote that the anti-discrimination ordinance states that it "shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion."

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone who opens a trendy restaurant in SLC advertising that Christians are not welcome, watch all hell bust loose.

Conservatives would go Bat guano crazy over it.

Probably blame the Muslims or Atheists and then predict natural disasters.

 

[Dana7360]

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

Yes they did deny a gay couple a wedding.

Here's a part of the article:

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

 

[Papageorgio]

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

Yes they did deny a gay couple a wedding.

Here's a part of the article:

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

So, I thought charges had to be pressed for the city to take action. So the homosexual couple must have filed a complaint and pressed charges. Which goes back to my point is that the homosexuals are being petty.

 

[martybegan]

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

Not because they are marrying, but because you are using the courts wrongly, and because you are forcing people to either choose tyranny or losing their livelyhood.

Its not about the end result, its the process you fascists are using.

Funny you should mention that.

Since the OP itself is about Conservatives using the courts- just to stir this up- there is no one threatening 'miniisters with jail'- there is no 'church' being threatened- this is all a fake controversy ginned up by Conservative activists

Thanks- I didn't do my due diligence- and didn't recognize right how much a pile of crap the headline was- the article makes it pretty clear that this is entirely a created controversy.

It is Conservatives using the courts to try to force the City to change its ordinance. No liberals are attempting to force these ministers to do anything.


In the letter, Gridley confirmed the details of a telephone conversation he says he had Monday with Cortman.

Gridley wrote that his office has responded in the past to questions from the Knapps about their business - registered as a for-profit limited liability company with the Idaho Secretary of State's office. He admitted that the Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status.

Violation of the anti-discrimination law is a misdemeanor with a fine as steep as $1,000, and as long as six months in jail.

Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.

"Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote.

Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

In addition to exempting those groups, Gridley wrote that the anti-discrimination ordinance states that it "shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion."

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman.

and again, what does tax status have to do with religious liberty?

 

[Papageorgio]

Anyone who opens a trendy restaurant in SLC advertising that Christians are not welcome, watch all hell bust loose.

Conservatives would go Bat guano crazy over it.

Probably blame the Muslims or Atheists and then predict natural disasters.

Again, why would anyone go where they are not welcome?

If a restaurant put up a sign saying blacks not welcome, I would not eat there, they are telling me about their true feelings n an issue. Why would I want a minister marry me if he/she didn't support my marriage.

You tell me where you stand and I will make my decisions based on that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Papa, no one needs to explain to you.

You sound like the LDS who could not understand why Jews did not want their dead baptized by the LDS in their temples.

You don't have to understand; you simply can't do it.

 

[martybegan]

From Volokh:

Couer d 8217 Alene City Attorney confirms conservative Christian ministers 8217 wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies - The Washington Post

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee, could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

 

[Syriusly]

From Volokh:

Couer d 8217 Alene City Attorney confirms conservative Christian ministers 8217 wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies - The Washington Post

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee, could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

From Volokh:

Couer d 8217 Alene City Attorney confirms conservative Christian ministers 8217 wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies - The Washington Post

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee, could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

From the actual letter sent by the City

I am the city attomey for the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. As we discussed today by telephone I
have reviewed the 63 page complaint and the attached exhibits filed by your clients in their lawsuit
against the City. While I appreciate your clients' concems, it appears from the documents filed in
their lawsuit that they are claiming to be operating a "religious corporation". lf they are truly
operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City's
anti-discrimination ordinance, Municipal Code 9.56.01 0 et seq.

My office has responded to questions from your clients in the past and told them that, based on the facts presented and their corporate status at the time, they would likely be govemed by the anti-discrimination ordinance if a complaint was made against them

Their lawsuit was something of a
surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never
disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation. However it now appears that on or
about October 6,2014 they filed with the Idaho Secretary of State as a religious corporalion. These
are new flacts. [fthey are operating as a legitimate not-for- profit religious corporation then they are
exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association. On the other hand, if they
are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those
services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.


I want to be clear that absent a change in the City's anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable
state or lederal law, the City will not prosecute legitimate, nonprofit religious corporations,
associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a
result of their lawfi:l exercise of their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion. In
addition to specifically exempting religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and
societies, section 9.56.040 ofthe anti-discrimination ordinance states that the ordinance "shall be
construed and applied in a manner consistent with
first amendment jurisprudence regarding
the freedom of speech and exercise of religion".


Note- the City has not threatened any prosecution- this entire issue has been created by Conservative activists

 

[martybegan]

From Volokh:

Couer d 8217 Alene City Attorney confirms conservative Christian ministers 8217 wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies - The Washington Post

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee, could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

From Volokh:

Couer d 8217 Alene City Attorney confirms conservative Christian ministers 8217 wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies - The Washington Post

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee, could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

From the actual letter sent by the City

I am the city attomey for the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. As we discussed today by telephone I
have reviewed the 63 page complaint and the attached exhibits filed by your clients in their lawsuit
against the City. While I appreciate your clients' concems, it appears from the documents filed in
their lawsuit that they are claiming to be operating a "religious corporation". lf they are truly
operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City's
anti-discrimination ordinance, Municipal Code 9.56.01 0 et seq.

My office has responded to questions from your clients in the past and told them that, based on the facts presented and their corporate status at the time, they would likely be govemed by the anti-discrimination ordinance if a complaint was made against them

Their lawsuit was something of a
surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never
disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation. However it now appears that on or
about October 6,2014 they filed with the Idaho Secretary of State as a religious corporalion. These
are new flacts. [fthey are operating as a legitimate not-for- profit religious corporation then they are
exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association. On the other hand, if they
are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those
services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.


I want to be clear that absent a change in the City's anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable
state or lederal law, the City will not prosecute legitimate, nonprofit religious corporations,
associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a
result of their lawfi:l exercise of their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion. In
addition to specifically exempting religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and
societies, section 9.56.040 ofthe anti-discrimination ordinance states that the ordinance "shall be
construed and applied in a manner consistent with
first amendment jurisprudence regarding
the freedom of speech and exercise of religion".


Note- the City has not threatened any prosecution- this entire issue has been created by Conservative activists

Lol, the last paragraph implies that if the chapel cannot prove itself to be a religious non-profit, it WOULD be prosecuted for discrimination if it refused services to gay people.

You need to learn to read legalese.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes they did deny a gay couple a wedding.

Here's a part of the article:

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

BRAVO!

A conservative with a spine, willing to do civil disobedience? And you thought they were extinct! Next I want to see adoption agents refuse to adopt to two dudes pretending to be adequate "mom and dad" to orphans.

Where's the ACLU? Wouldn't they want to represent people who respectfully stood by their moral principles while the state was bearing down on them with a whip? Doesn't "ACLU" stand for "American Civil Liberties Union"?

 

[Plasmaball]

until the courts reverse the decision, or until the constitution is amended, yes, it's a settled matter.
i may disagree with it, but that doesn't change reality.

That makes you a quitter.

it makes me a resident of reality. try it some time.

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

aw the butthurt....

 

[bodecea]

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

Not because they are marrying, but because you are using the courts wrongly, and because you are forcing people to either choose tyranny or losing their livelyhood.

Its not about the end result, its the process you fascists are using.

Funny you should mention that.

Since the OP itself is about Conservatives using the courts- just to stir this up- there is no one threatening 'miniisters with jail'- there is no 'church' being threatened- this is all a fake controversy ginned up by Conservative activists

Thanks- I didn't do my due diligence- and didn't recognize right how much a pile of crap the headline was- the article makes it pretty clear that this is entirely a created controversy.

It is Conservatives using the courts to try to force the City to change its ordinance. No liberals are attempting to force these ministers to do anything.


In the letter, Gridley confirmed the details of a telephone conversation he says he had Monday with Cortman.

Gridley wrote that his office has responded in the past to questions from the Knapps about their business - registered as a for-profit limited liability company with the Idaho Secretary of State's office. He admitted that the Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status.

Violation of the anti-discrimination law is a misdemeanor with a fine as steep as $1,000, and as long as six months in jail.

Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.

"Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote.

Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

In addition to exempting those groups, Gridley wrote that the anti-discrimination ordinance states that it "shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion."

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman.

Looks like they are trying to pull a BSA.

 

[bodecea]

Yes they did deny a gay couple a wedding.

Here's a part of the article:

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

BRAVO!

A conservative with a spine, willing to do civil disobedience? And you thought they were extinct! Next I want to see adoption agents refuse to adopt to two dudes pretending to be adequate "mom and dad" to orphans.

Where's the ACLU? Wouldn't they want to represent people who respectfully stood by their moral principles while the state was bearing down on them with a whip? Doesn't "ACLU" stand for "American Civil Liberties Union"?

They already can do that.

 

[Plasmaball]

it makes me a resident of reality. try it some time.

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

Not because they are marrying, but because you are using the courts wrongly, and because you are forcing people to either choose tyranny or losing their livelyhood.

Its not about the end result, its the process you fascists are using.

how many fucking times does it need to be explained to you backwards people who don't understand the most simple of Government procedures?
You can't vote someones rights away. Courts are around to judge if laws are constitutional or not. This is the way the founders set this shit up.

Tyranny...Shut up you retard. You wouldnt know tyranny is you where stuck in a concentration camp. Such fucking abuse of words because you are wrong, and the more wrong you are, the more retarded you get.
Courses Template - University of Phoenix

Here perhaps you should go enroll and learn something.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes they did deny a gay couple a wedding.

Here's a part of the article:

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

BRAVO!

A conservative with a spine, willing to do civil disobedience? And you thought they were extinct! Next I want to see adoption agents refuse to adopt to two dudes pretending to be adequate "mom and dad" to orphans.

Where's the ACLU? Wouldn't they want to represent people who respectfully stood by their moral principles while the state was bearing down on them with a whip? Doesn't "ACLU" stand for "American Civil Liberties Union"?

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

Yes they did deny a gay couple a wedding.

Here's a part of the article:

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

Supposedly.

Quite the coincidence isn't it that they supposedly refused to perform a gay wedding on Friday- and a Conservative activist legal group was able to immediately file a suit against the city- on the same day?

Meanwhile- there is no record of the City itself taking any action.

This is all ginned up by Conservative activists- using the courts to attempt to change the law they don't approve of.

Which by the way Conservative argue is wrong when it comes to Gays filing suit against laws they don't approve of.

So let me be clear- I have no problem with Conservative activists using the courts to fight their battle.

I revel in the hypocrisy.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, they are not. Only a Jim Crow supporter would say such a thing.

Feel free to point me to the word that says "Business" or any synonym thereof

It clearly says that just because something isn't enumerated in the COTUS doesn't mean I don't have a right to it.

It's quite fucking sad that you're so dishonest that you are arguing both that you have a right to "fag marriage" and that i don't have a right to do business. Are you fucking stupid? I mean seriously, are you fucking stupid?

So is there or isn't there a right to marry?

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

Ideologues..absolutely wrong, just as they were wrong in the Dread Scott discussion, and Roe v wade. It's not their job to "declare" anything actually. it's their job to interpret the Constitution.

which means they are declaring something constitutional or not.Apes are smarter than you, seriously Apes.

 

[Syriusly]

From Volokh:

Couer d 8217 Alene City Attorney confirms conservative Christian ministers 8217 wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies - The Washington Post

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee, could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

From Volokh:

Couer d 8217 Alene City Attorney confirms conservative Christian ministers 8217 wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies - The Washington Post

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee, could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

From the actual letter sent by the City

I am the city attomey for the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. As we discussed today by telephone I
have reviewed the 63 page complaint and the attached exhibits filed by your clients in their lawsuit
against the City. While I appreciate your clients' concems, it appears from the documents filed in
their lawsuit that they are claiming to be operating a "religious corporation". lf they are truly
operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City's
anti-discrimination ordinance, Municipal Code 9.56.01 0 et seq.

My office has responded to questions from your clients in the past and told them that, based on the facts presented and their corporate status at the time, they would likely be govemed by the anti-discrimination ordinance if a complaint was made against them

Their lawsuit was something of a
surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never
disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation. However it now appears that on or
about October 6,2014 they filed with the Idaho Secretary of State as a religious corporalion. These
are new flacts. [fthey are operating as a legitimate not-for- profit religious corporation then they are
exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association. On the other hand, if they
are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those
services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.


I want to be clear that absent a change in the City's anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable
state or lederal law, the City will not prosecute legitimate, nonprofit religious corporations,
associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a
result of their lawfi:l exercise of their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion. In
addition to specifically exempting religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and
societies, section 9.56.040 ofthe anti-discrimination ordinance states that the ordinance "shall be
construed and applied in a manner consistent with
first amendment jurisprudence regarding
the freedom of speech and exercise of religion".


Note- the City has not threatened any prosecution- this entire issue has been created by Conservative activists

Lol, the last paragraph implies that if the chapel cannot prove itself to be a religious non-profit, it WOULD be prosecuted for discrimination if it refused services to gay people.

You need to learn to read legalese.

Nowhere does the City letter state that.

Doesn't even mention gay people.