"Oh but the gays just want to be left alone, and have their equal rights"
Bullshit, their rainbow flag is becoming the new Mark of the Beast.
Is Federal 'Leviathan' Pushing This 'Mark of the Beast' on Christians?
3:00PM EDT 10/14/2014 Bryan Fischer
4185 Shares
Bryan Fischer says the gay rainbow is today's mark of the beast. (torbakhopper/Flickr/Creative Commons) "And it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark" (Rev. 13:16-17, ESV).
A baker in Oregon is fined $150,000, told he needs "rehabilitation," and put out of business for declining to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. A baker in Colorado is fined, ordered to bake a cake in violation of his own conscience, and sent to re-education camp for the same offense. A florist in Washington is pursued by the state attorney general for politely declining to make a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding. A photographer in New Mexico is fined $6,700 for declining to do a photo shoot for a lesbian wedding.
A T-shirt company is ordered to produce T-shirts to promote a message it finds morally objectionable. Jennifer Keeton and Julea Ward are kicked out of graduate school counseling programs because of their moral objections to homosexual conduct.
Chris Culliver of the 49ers is sent to re-education camp prior to the Super Bowl two years ago for laughing at homosexuality in NFL locker rooms. The special-teams coach of the Minnesota Vikings is suspended and nearly fired for a joke about homosexuality. A safety for the Miami Dolphins is sent to re-education camp for tweeting out his displeasure over Michael Sam's slobbery homosexual kiss on draft day. A Canadian broadcaster is fired for defending man-woman marriage. Craig James is fired by Fox Sports Southwest for defending natural marriage in a senatorial campaign.
What do all these victims share in common? Their ability to engage in commerce was brought to a screeching halt because they would not celebrate, endorse or promote homosexual behavior.
The book of Revelation, in speaking of the end of days, indicates that one of the goals of the anti-Christ in his campaign to establish his own twisted caliphate over the entire world will be to drive Christians out of business altogether.
In John's vision, any Christian who does not willingly accept the mark of the beast will not be allowed to buy or to sell. He'll be fired, or won't be hired, or will be drummed out of business entirely.
So what is this mark of the beast today? That's easy. It's the gay rainbow.
This is the rainbow Big Gay has stolen from the Bible and from the church and turned into its own twisted symbol of perversion.
Anyone who does not plaster homosexual rainbow stickers all over himself, his resume and the windows of his business will have his or her commercial interests terminated with extreme prejudice.
The mark is on the "hand," referring to what a man does, and it is on the "forehead," referring to the way he thinks. It will not be enough simply to do what the Gay Gestapo demands; men will be forced to think politically correct thoughts about sodomy or face termination.
Legislation is even now under consideration—the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)—which will codify the mark of the beast and use the power of the federal leviathan to impose it tyrannically on the populace.
The great need of the hour is for prophetic voices to thunder against this demonic oppression from the pulpit and for statesmen to thunder against this beast in the halls of Congress. "We the people" must insist on this. If the voices of truth are not soon raised against this abomination, we may find out it's a lot later than we think.
Bryan Fischer is the director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association and host of the talk-radio program Focal Point.
This is crazy, wow. As for the Minnesota Viking coach, he tells Chris Kluwe that gays should be put on an island and it should be nuked. Considering Kluwe who is known gay rights supporter was released after the season, the coach had to be suspended, he is lucky is hasn't lost his job. Go to most professions, talk like that gets you fired.
The Holocaust and the evils of Nazi Germany are widely accepted as a pogrom to eradicate the Jews, and it is largely and overwhelmingly the Jews who were the victims. So when one callously uses the Nazi label for something like this issue which is basically nothing more than a long running debate with power and influence on both sides, I'll correctly label it ridiculous and offensive. Now the Soup Nazi -- THAT'S FUNNY. It's all about intent. Now concerning the issue I side with equal rights for gays. And I'll also agree that this woman is overstepping her bounds and she'll be unsuccessful. And the reason is because (drumroll please) this is not Nazi Germany.
As far as churches go there will be houses of worship who welcome homosexual parishioners and those that don't. They should go where they feel welcome and I don't think it's a matter of law unless these preachers advocate violence. If they are dumb enough to believe gays are more likely to go to hell than they are, and their congregants are also that stupid let them condemn them all they want. It doesn't change a damn thing.
Ted Cruz Tells Brody File: "Real Risk" Of Pastors Being Jailed For Preaching Against Homosexuality
In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, Senator Ted Cruz says pastors being hauled off to jail by the government for preaching against homosexuality is a “real risk” in the future. ““I think that is a real risk,” Cruz tells me. “Some in the media ridicule that threat saying there is no danger of the government coming after pastors. That is the usual response.” But he adds: “The specter of government trying to determine if what pastors preach from the pulpit meets with the policy views or political correctness of the governing authorities, that prospect is real and happening now.”
Watch the clip below along with a partial transcription.
The Brody File traveled to Houston Texas Thursday to interview Cruz after his press conference in defense of Houston pastors. They are under a severe religious liberty attack by city officials. The Mayor and the City Council are trying to subpoena the sermons of these pastors because of their supposed outspokenness on homosexuality and a controversial LGBT ordinance. The pastors are refusing to give in. More Brody File analysis on Ted Cruz and evangelicals here.
MANDATORY COURTESY: CBN NEWS/THE BRODY FILE
David Brody: “One of the next battles in this culture war could indeed be right there in the pulpit. Are we going through a potential period or could we very well soon go through a period where pastors are hauled off to jail for a hate crime because they are speaking for traditional marriage?”
Senator Ted Cruz: “I think that is a real risk and you and I have both pointed to that risk in the past and some in the media ridicule that threat saying there is no danger of the government coming after pastors. That is the usual response.”
Senator Ted Cruz: “The specter of government trying to determine if what pastors preach from the pulpit meets with the policy views or political correctness of the governing authorities, that prospect is real and happening now.”
Senator Ted Cruz: “When you subpoena one pastor, you subpoena every pastor. If government has the power to force the pulpit to knuckle under, if government has the power to insist that pastors hand over their sermons for government approval then we’ve lost the very first freedom that begins our bill of rights. We’ve lost the freedom that this country was built on. That’s what this fight is and I very much hope that this serves as a wake-up call to Christians, to people of faith, I hope it serves as a wake-up call to pastors to speak out and make abundantly clear that we will not give up our religious liberty. We will not go quietly into the night but we will stand and fight for principles that are right and true and will speak the truth and the pastors of this country will not be muzzled. :aktion033
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/a...ls-brody-file-real-risk-of-pastors-being.aspx
In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, Senator Ted Cruz says pastors being hauled off to jail by the government for preaching against homosexuality is a “real risk” in the future. ““I think that is a real risk,” Cruz tells me. “Some in the media ridicule that threat saying there is no danger of the government coming after pastors. That is the usual response.” But he adds: “The specter of government trying to determine if what pastors preach from the pulpit meets with the policy views or political correctness of the governing authorities, that prospect is real and happening now.”
Watch the clip below along with a partial transcription.
The Brody File traveled to Houston Texas Thursday to interview Cruz after his press conference in defense of Houston pastors. They are under a severe religious liberty attack by city officials. The Mayor and the City Council are trying to subpoena the sermons of these pastors because of their supposed outspokenness on homosexuality and a controversial LGBT ordinance. The pastors are refusing to give in. More Brody File analysis on Ted Cruz and evangelicals here.
MANDATORY COURTESY: CBN NEWS/THE BRODY FILE
David Brody: “One of the next battles in this culture war could indeed be right there in the pulpit. Are we going through a potential period or could we very well soon go through a period where pastors are hauled off to jail for a hate crime because they are speaking for traditional marriage?”
Senator Ted Cruz: “I think that is a real risk and you and I have both pointed to that risk in the past and some in the media ridicule that threat saying there is no danger of the government coming after pastors. That is the usual response.”
Senator Ted Cruz: “The specter of government trying to determine if what pastors preach from the pulpit meets with the policy views or political correctness of the governing authorities, that prospect is real and happening now.”
Senator Ted Cruz: “When you subpoena one pastor, you subpoena every pastor. If government has the power to force the pulpit to knuckle under, if government has the power to insist that pastors hand over their sermons for government approval then we’ve lost the very first freedom that begins our bill of rights. We’ve lost the freedom that this country was built on. That’s what this fight is and I very much hope that this serves as a wake-up call to Christians, to people of faith, I hope it serves as a wake-up call to pastors to speak out and make abundantly clear that we will not give up our religious liberty. We will not go quietly into the night but we will stand and fight for principles that are right and true and will speak the truth and the pastors of this country will not be muzzled. :aktion033
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/a...ls-brody-file-real-risk-of-pastors-being.aspx
FZ and JDeuce are absolutely correct in comparing this ugly fascist dyke to Hitler's Nazis.
It's not like Jews were instantly gathered up and shoved into ovens the moment Hitler came to power. The discrimination, ostracization and curtailment of Jew rights were subtle and incremental - dare I say progressive
uke1:
The first major law to curtail the rights of Jews was the "Law for the Restoration of Professional Civil Service" in April 1933 which meant Jews and "politically unreliable" civil servants were to be excluded from state service.
Say whaaaaat? Using the strong arm of the state to attack and exclude your "political enemies"??? Unheard of!
This is how evil seeds are planted and later metastasise.
And that is what is happening in Houston with this fascist hag dyke.
"But, but, but....that would never happen here! This is America!"
Yeah, because Patriotic conservatives will stand up, fight and call out evil for what it is:
And to think Scott L is a Jew... face)(*^%
It's not like Jews were instantly gathered up and shoved into ovens the moment Hitler came to power. The discrimination, ostracization and curtailment of Jew rights were subtle and incremental - dare I say progressive
uke1:The first major law to curtail the rights of Jews was the "Law for the Restoration of Professional Civil Service" in April 1933 which meant Jews and "politically unreliable" civil servants were to be excluded from state service.
Say whaaaaat? Using the strong arm of the state to attack and exclude your "political enemies"??? Unheard of!
This is how evil seeds are planted and later metastasise.
And that is what is happening in Houston with this fascist hag dyke.
"But, but, but....that would never happen here! This is America!"
Yeah, because Patriotic conservatives will stand up, fight and call out evil for what it is:
And to think Scott L is a Jew... face)(*^%
[ Vietnamese Pastor who escaped communism speaks out against nasty lesbian bitch mayor ]
[h=1]VIETNAMESE PASTOR ON SUBPEONAS: THIS SHOULDN’T HAPPEN IN US[/h]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Vietnamese Pastor on Subpeonas: This Shouldn’t Happen in US
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
on BREITBART TV 18 Oct 2014 135POST A COMMENT
[h=2]Khanh Huynh, the Senior Pastor of the Vietnamese Baptist Church in Houston, and one of the pastors whose communications were subpoenaed said that never thought something like this would happen in the United States during an appearance on Saturday’s “Huckabee” on the Fox News Channel.[/h]Huynh, who escaped Communism in Vietnam as one of the “boat people” stated “never, in my entire wildest dreams thought this would happen to us here in America.”
Huynh added that he would turn over his sermon because the church’s sermons are put online anyway, but declared, “to demand that I turn in my sermon and communication, correspondence it violates what this nation is for, it’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”
He also said that he believed that Houston officials are trying to send a message of “you speak up, you pay.”
Erik Stanley, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom argued “this is an unprecedented attack on the religious liberty of pastors. In fact, when I got the subpoena, I literally was shocked to see the amount and breadth of what the city of Houston was asking of these pastors. 17 different categories of communications, including their speeches and sermons, and also including private communications with congregation members, which could be covered by the clergy confidentiality statutes.”
Stanley added that an amendment of the subpoena to remove references to “sermons” was a meaningless change, and that the amended subpoena was still a massive overreach.
[h=1]VIETNAMESE PASTOR ON SUBPEONAS: THIS SHOULDN’T HAPPEN IN US[/h]
137
4
234
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
on BREITBART TV 18 Oct 2014 135POST A COMMENT
[h=2]Khanh Huynh, the Senior Pastor of the Vietnamese Baptist Church in Houston, and one of the pastors whose communications were subpoenaed said that never thought something like this would happen in the United States during an appearance on Saturday’s “Huckabee” on the Fox News Channel.[/h]Huynh, who escaped Communism in Vietnam as one of the “boat people” stated “never, in my entire wildest dreams thought this would happen to us here in America.”
Huynh added that he would turn over his sermon because the church’s sermons are put online anyway, but declared, “to demand that I turn in my sermon and communication, correspondence it violates what this nation is for, it’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”
He also said that he believed that Houston officials are trying to send a message of “you speak up, you pay.”
Erik Stanley, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom argued “this is an unprecedented attack on the religious liberty of pastors. In fact, when I got the subpoena, I literally was shocked to see the amount and breadth of what the city of Houston was asking of these pastors. 17 different categories of communications, including their speeches and sermons, and also including private communications with congregation members, which could be covered by the clergy confidentiality statutes.”
Stanley added that an amendment of the subpoena to remove references to “sermons” was a meaningless change, and that the amended subpoena was still a massive overreach.
FZ and JDeuce are absolutely correct in comparing this ugly fascist dyke to Hitler's Nazis.
It's not like Jews were instantly gathered up and shoved into ovens the moment Hitler came to power. The discrimination, ostracization and curtailment of Jew rights were subtle and incremental - dare I say progressive
The first major law to curtail the rights of Jews was the "Law for the Restoration of Professional Civil Service" in April 1933 which meant Jews and "politically unreliable" civil servants were to be excluded from state service.
Say whaaaaat? Using the strong arm of the state to attack and exclude your "political enemies"??? Unheard of!
This is how evil seeds are planted and later metastasise.
And that is what is happening in Houston with this fascist hag dyke.
"But, but, but....that would never happen here! This is America!"
Yeah, because Patriotic conservatives will stand up, fight and call out evil for what it is:
And to think Scott L is a Jew... face)(*^%
And to think you were once sane and able to exercise a bit of self-control.
FASCISM IN AMERICA: CHRISTIAN MINISTERS FACE PRISON AND FINES FOR NOT PERFORMING HOMOSEXUAL WEDDINGS
Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM in Misc | 46 Comments
By soopermexican
They kept saying it couldn’t happen here, but it was only a matter of time.
From Alliance Defending Freedom:
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”
This is exactly what many of us social conservatives feared – government approval of the gay agenda has led to a slippery slope where Christians are no longer allowed to practice their faith as their conscience demands.“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”
Where’s the supposed separation of church and state when it’s Christians being persecuted?
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/fascism-in...performing-homosexual-weddings/#ixzz3GdiBnbot
The Volokh Conspiracy
Can ministers who make a living by conducting weddings be required to conduct same-sex weddings?
By Eugene Volokh October 18
Donald and Evelyn Knapp are apparently ordained ministers who run The Hitching Post, a chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, at which they conduct weddings. (This strikes me as quite similar to many ministers’ practice of charging to officiate weddings when they are invited to do so at other venues.)
Coeur d’Alene has an ordinance banning discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. Earlier this year, after a federal judge in Idaho held that Idaho had to recognize same-sex weddings, a City of Couer d’Alene deputy city attorney was quoted by a local TV station (KXLY) as saying,
Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion.
Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)
I think the Knapps are also entitled to an exemption under the Idaho RFRA. The Knapps allege that “sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman”; I know of no reason to think they’re lying about their beliefs. Requiring them to violate their beliefs (or close their business) is a substantial burden on their religious practice.
And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don’t see how there would be a “compelling” government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.
I was very pleased to have the officiants I had for my wedding. But if I had instead asked a rabbi, and he told me that he didn’t want to preside over a wedding between my wife (who isn’t ethnically Jewish) and me, I can’t see how that sort of ethnic discrimination would create a harm that justifies trumping the rabbi’s religious freedom rights and free speech rights. Perhaps some might feel offended by such a statement of religious rejection, but I don’t think there can be a compelling government interest in shielding people from such rejections when it comes to the performance of ceremonies. The same, I think, is true when officiants refuse to perform ceremonies for interfaith couples, couples remarrying after a divorce (notwithstanding state laws that ban marital status discrimination), intercaste couples, or interracial couples — or same-sex couples.
Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply there, 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. And the logic of any rejection of the Knapp’s Free Speech Clause claims and Idaho RFRA claims would apply just as much to the itinerant officiant as to the one who has his own chapel.
Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
Can ministers who make a living by conducting weddings be required to conduct same-sex weddings?
By Eugene Volokh October 18
Donald and Evelyn Knapp are apparently ordained ministers who run The Hitching Post, a chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, at which they conduct weddings. (This strikes me as quite similar to many ministers’ practice of charging to officiate weddings when they are invited to do so at other venues.)
Coeur d’Alene has an ordinance banning discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. Earlier this year, after a federal judge in Idaho held that Idaho had to recognize same-sex weddings, a City of Couer d’Alene deputy city attorney was quoted by a local TV station (KXLY) as saying,
“For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit,” Warren Wilson with the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office said….
“If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation,” Wilson said.
A newspaper article carried a similar quote:“If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation,” Wilson said.
“I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding) activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said.
Similar laws have applied to florists, bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in other states, Wilson noted.
“Those have all been addressed in various states and run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance.”
According to the Knapps, the City Attorney’s office repeated this statement in telephone conversations with the Knapps.Similar laws have applied to florists, bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in other states, Wilson noted.
“Those have all been addressed in various states and run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance.”
Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion.
Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)
I think the Knapps are also entitled to an exemption under the Idaho RFRA. The Knapps allege that “sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman”; I know of no reason to think they’re lying about their beliefs. Requiring them to violate their beliefs (or close their business) is a substantial burden on their religious practice.
And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don’t see how there would be a “compelling” government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.
I was very pleased to have the officiants I had for my wedding. But if I had instead asked a rabbi, and he told me that he didn’t want to preside over a wedding between my wife (who isn’t ethnically Jewish) and me, I can’t see how that sort of ethnic discrimination would create a harm that justifies trumping the rabbi’s religious freedom rights and free speech rights. Perhaps some might feel offended by such a statement of religious rejection, but I don’t think there can be a compelling government interest in shielding people from such rejections when it comes to the performance of ceremonies. The same, I think, is true when officiants refuse to perform ceremonies for interfaith couples, couples remarrying after a divorce (notwithstanding state laws that ban marital status discrimination), intercaste couples, or interracial couples — or same-sex couples.
Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply there, since it covers only “place
Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
The Volokh Conspiracy
Can ministers who make a living by conducting weddings be required to conduct same-sex weddings?
By Eugene Volokh October 18
Donald and Evelyn Knapp are apparently ordained ministers who run The Hitching Post, a chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, at which they conduct weddings. (This strikes me as quite similar to many ministers’ practice of charging to officiate weddings when they are invited to do so at other venues.)
Coeur d’Alene has an ordinance banning discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. Earlier this year, after a federal judge in Idaho held that Idaho had to recognize same-sex weddings, a City of Couer d’Alene deputy city attorney was quoted by a local TV station (KXLY) as saying,“For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit,” Warren Wilson with the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office said….A newspaper article carried a similar quote:
“If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation,” Wilson said.
“I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding) activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said.According to the Knapps, the City Attorney’s office repeated this statement in telephone conversations with the Knapps.
Similar laws have applied to florists, bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in other states, Wilson noted.
“Those have all been addressed in various states and run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance.”
Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion.
Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)
I think the Knapps are also entitled to an exemption under the Idaho RFRA. The Knapps allege that “sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman”; I know of no reason to think they’re lying about their beliefs. Requiring them to violate their beliefs (or close their business) is a substantial burden on their religious practice.
And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don’t see how there would be a “compelling” government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.
I was very pleased to have the officiants I had for my wedding. But if I had instead asked a rabbi, and he told me that he didn’t want to preside over a wedding between my wife (who isn’t ethnically Jewish) and me, I can’t see how that sort of ethnic discrimination would create a harm that justifies trumping the rabbi’s religious freedom rights and free speech rights. Perhaps some might feel offended by such a statement of religious rejection, but I don’t think there can be a compelling government interest in shielding people from such rejections when it comes to the performance of ceremonies. The same, I think, is true when officiants refuse to perform ceremonies for interfaith couples, couples remarrying after a divorce (notwithstanding state laws that ban marital status discrimination), intercaste couples, or interracial couples — or same-sex couples.
Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply there, 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. And the logic of any rejection of the Knapp’s Free Speech Clause claims and Idaho RFRA claims would apply just as much to the itinerant officiant as to the one who has his own chapel.
Easy solution. Let the government be in the business of governing civil unions, and let marriage be under the jurisdiction of the church.
The idea that ministers should be forced to marry homos against their conscience is abominable.
I've given this thread some thought and here are my views. I believe homosexuals should have full rights like everyone else. However a church is a private institution (although they do receive tax breaks from the gov't). Therefore, if a member of the clergy stands in front of his flock and deems homosexuality a sin, says they're going to hell, etc he should be able to do so without fear of arrest or harassment. Of course if he advocates killing homosexuals he should face charges. So for me it's a matter of degrees. The mayor is going too far.
A question for others who are further to the right. Should landlords have the same discriminatory rights as clergy? A hypothetical -- Let's say a landlord places an ad for an apartment. He interviews applications by 5 families, all white and let's them know he'll have a decision when he's done studying all the applications. Through his research he finds one promising candidate. The husband and wife make a combined 40K a year, have credit scores around 700 and one child. But he's still not sure. His last appointment of the day shows up. It's a Black couple with one child. Unbeknownst to our landlord they earn a combined 125K a year, and both have credit scores in the 800s. He opens his office door, sees the couple and says, "I'm sorry but I just rented the apartment."
Should this be lawful?
A question for others who are further to the right. Should landlords have the same discriminatory rights as clergy? A hypothetical -- Let's say a landlord places an ad for an apartment. He interviews applications by 5 families, all white and let's them know he'll have a decision when he's done studying all the applications. Through his research he finds one promising candidate. The husband and wife make a combined 40K a year, have credit scores around 700 and one child. But he's still not sure. His last appointment of the day shows up. It's a Black couple with one child. Unbeknownst to our landlord they earn a combined 125K a year, and both have credit scores in the 800s. He opens his office door, sees the couple and says, "I'm sorry but I just rented the apartment."
Should this be lawful?
Yes, landlords should be able to discriminate.
The free market is all about about mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. If someone refuses to take your money there's probably a good reason. Why then would you want a third party to intervene? That's asking for trouble.
Modern left wing "discrimination laws" violate natural law and are a direct affront to natural law and the experiment of human freedom.
The free market is all about about mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. If someone refuses to take your money there's probably a good reason. Why then would you want a third party to intervene? That's asking for trouble.
Modern left wing "discrimination laws" violate natural law and are a direct affront to natural law and the experiment of human freedom.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That just about covers it IMO.
Suppose the tables were turned, and a group of Neo Nazi skinheads demanded that a Jewish caterer serve food at their next rally. Is the business owner obligated to honor that request?
Businesses can't turn down business from everyone, or they wouldn't last very long. If they want to turn away potential customers for whatever reason, that's their decision...and they can suffer the consequences of lost revenue.
