Ministers threatened with arrest

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Fuck that "I not only have the right to be a bigoted asshole, but I have the right to take my bigotry out on people by not serving them." bullshit. Fuck it right in the ear. You want to live like that, you go ahead and invent a time machine to take you back to the early to mid 20th century, where you can see "No Coloreds Allowed" signs posted as far as the eye can see down South. Hell, even up North you knew which places would serve you, and which ones would quietly ignore you until you left in embarrassment. The rest of us? We'll hang out in the 21st century, where you have the right to feel however you want about anyone, but you don't have the right to deny them a public accommodation that you would provide to anyone else for a set fee.

have you ever heard of something called freedom of contract and property rights?

why shouldn't someone have complete control over his own labor, investment, time, and property establishment? why shouldn't they have the right in a free society to choose who they want to engage in a mutually beneficial economic transaction with and who they don't want to have that relation with?

why should there be forced labor in a modern economic context? Because that's what this amounts to. You're talking about forcing sellers to perform against their individual will with the threat of state-sanctioned lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment.

People don't get to do that, because it historically turns entire swaths of other people into second class citizens based upon inherent characteristics or matters of personal conscience.

If you don't see how this is a significantly greater evil than racist pricks having to serve black people at the lunch counter, then we have nothing further to discuss

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If it were a church, I'd understand their position, but since it's a business, I don't think they're in the right from preventing same sex couples to marry. It's like not wanting to perform interracial marriage. Or not allowing someone to go in due to them being black or Latino.

It's a business and it provides a service. Leave moralizing to church.

Exactly. If they were a church, I'd be on the other side of this issue.

[Infected Mushroom]

if they wanted to go down that route and only sell that particularly defined type of services, then they should be allowed to.

No thanks. We already moved past that as a society after realizing that it's really fucking stupid.

Oh, and they DO have the option to do that. They're entirely allowed to do it. They just have to stop being a public accommodation.

public accommodations operated by private individuals should retain the individual rights of ownership and control over one's own labor, time, and investment. And that means the right to choose customers.

The current distinction between forcing someone to incorporate as a public accommodation (where you are forced to service absolutely everyone) or as a club (where you can only service a clearly defined category or list of members) is clunky and unworkable for a truly free society.

A truly free society should either have a third category (which would operate like a public accommodation but would allow the owners to retain their individual and property-related rights to choose customers), or else entirely re-define ''public accommodation'' so that the standard form allows you to retain the right to choose customers.

[Mavorpen]

No thanks. We already moved past that as a society after realizing that it's really fucking stupid.

Oh, and they DO have the option to do that. They're entirely allowed to do it. They just have to stop being a public accommodation.

public accommodations operated by private individuals should retain the individual rights of ownership and control over one's own labor, time, and investment. And that means the right to choose customers.

No, sorry, companies don't get to explicitly lie to customers like that. Your whole "FREEEDUM!" bullshit is inherently silly because they have an option to be as exclusive as they want to be. They choose to not take it. Get over it.

[Infected Mushroom]

public accommodations operated by private individuals should retain the individual rights of ownership and control over one's own labor, time, and investment. And that means the right to choose customers.

No, sorry, companies don't get to explicitly lie to customers like that.

they didn't lie in this case

they said very clearly what they were selling. ''One man one woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.''

Any other form of marriage is not on the counter for sale. It was clear from the get go. There can't be a claim of misrepresentation.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If it were a church, I'd understand their position, but since it's a business, I don't think they're in the right from preventing same sex couples to marry. It's like not wanting to perform interracial marriage. Or not allowing someone to go in due to them being black or Latino.

It's a business and it provides a service. Leave moralizing to church.

Exactly. If they were a church, I'd be on the other side of this issue.

Same here. But it isn't so yeah, I can see why it follows that they're facing arrest and or fines in this matter. And I agree they should face this if they do not get their act together.

[Mavorpen]

No, sorry, companies don't get to explicitly lie to customers like that.

they didn't lie in this case

Yes they did. They're a public accommodation pretending to not be one.

That's lying.

[Infected Mushroom]

they didn't lie in this case

Yes they did. They're a public accommodation pretending to not be one.

That's lying.

If they were allowed to, they would have incorporated as a third category (what I suggested the law should allow for) or incorporated with a different type of incorporation contract that allows for a public accommodation that retains certain fundamental property rights.

In this case though, I think they acted legally within the limits of the law (the limits irk me but... oh well).

They are a public accommodation that specializes in ''one man one woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible'' and has incorporated with the purpose of providing the above.

That's what they were selling and the plaintiffs were asking for something they never set out to sell and never claimed to be able to sell.

That's how I would reconcile it.

[Mavorpen]

Yes they did. They're a public accommodation pretending to not be one.

That's lying.

If they were allowed to, they would have incorporated as a third category (what I suggested the law should allow for) or incorporated with a different type of incorporation contract that allows for a public accommodation that retains certain fundamental property rights.

In other words you want them to be public accommodations while not being public accommodations. No thanks. I'm done here. I can only listen to your vapid and asinine ideas for so long.

[Infected Mushroom]

If they were allowed to, they would have incorporated as a third category (what I suggested the law should allow for) or incorporated with a different type of incorporation contract that allows for a public accommodation that retains certain fundamental property rights.

In other words you want them to be public accommodations while not being public accommodations. No thanks. I'm done here. I can only listen to your vapid and asinine ideas for so long.

Under the new regime, a public accommodation would be a business that sells services or goods openly to the public, but retains the right to refuse service as it sees fit, where such service would be interpreted by the individual owner as being contrary to his economic interests or contrary to his personal or religious convictions.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes they did. They're a public accommodation pretending to not be one.

That's lying.

If they were allowed to, they would have incorporated as a third category (what I suggested the law should allow for) or incorporated with a different type of incorporation contract that allows for a public accommodation that retains certain fundamental property rights.

In this case though, I think they acted legally within the limits of the law (the limits irk me but... oh well).

They are a public accommodation that specializes in ''one man one woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible'' and has incorporated with the purpose of providing the above.

That's what they were selling and the plaintiffs were asking for something they never set out to sell and never claimed to be able to sell.

That's how I would reconcile it.

I get it that you have no clue as to how the world works. I get it. I've seen it in your call to ban dogs, in your cry against suits and how oppressive they are and in your desire to prosecute gov't agents for obtaining information illegally. Really, I get it but honestly how hard it is for you to understand that what these business owners did is not ok?

Is it ok for me to own a McDonald's franchise and ban blacks or Asians from seeking the service my establishment provides? Which is food selling.

[Infected Mushroom]

If they were allowed to, they would have incorporated as a third category (what I suggested the law should allow for) or incorporated with a different type of incorporation contract that allows for a public accommodation that retains certain fundamental property rights.

In this case though, I think they acted legally within the limits of the law (the limits irk me but... oh well).

They are a public accommodation that specializes in ''one man one woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible'' and has incorporated with the purpose of providing the above.

That's what they were selling and the plaintiffs were asking for something they never set out to sell and never claimed to be able to sell.

That's how I would reconcile it.

I get it that you have no clue as to how the world works. I get it. I've seen it in your call to ban dogs, in your cry against suits and how oppressive they are and in your desire to prosecute gov't agents for obtaining information illegally. Really, I get it but honestly how hard it is for you to understand that what these business owners did is not ok?

Is it ok for me to own a McDonald's franchise and ban blacks or Asians from seeking the service my establishment provides? Which is food selling.

Well your example is a situation where it is clearly illegal under the current statutory regime. But it doesn't map on to this situation.

Your store sells burgers, its not selling ''burgers that can only be consumed by non-blacks and non-Asians'' because it can't purport to sell a category that simply doesn't exist. There is no such thing as such a burger, all humans can eat a burger unless they have a specific medical condition.

In the OP's scenario, they are selling a product that exists ''one man one woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.'' This is something that is understood by society to exist.

In your scenario, people are turned away REGARDLESS of what they seek to buy. This is why it WOULD violate the letter of the law. A black person or an Asian person wouldn't be turned away because they were asking for a product the store ISN'T selling, they would just be turned away period. That's not allowed under the letter of the law.

But in THIS scenario, gays aren't just being turned away. They are only turned away if they ASK for a product the store simply doesn't sell, a non-conventional, non-Christian marriage as defined in its incorporation terms. Its not about the actual characteristic of the customer. It doesn't matter if its a straight or a gay person asking for a service, if the store can provide it it WILL provide it (''one man one woman marriage as defined by the Holy Bible'').

In your example, you can't construe it that way. A black or Asian person will ALWAYS be turned away as a consequence of the additional bylaw. And the bylaw has nothing to do with what is being sold.

A one man one woman marriage as defined by the Holy Bible is a distinct product from a secular marriage, or a marriage carried with Christian rituals but according to the rules of another denomination that allows for gay marriages. There are different types of marriages; the fact that different types of people may seek different types of marriages is irrelevant though it may result in incidental construed discrimination. The issue at heart is... are the customers asking for something the store sells, has sold in the past, was incorporated with the express purpose to sell.

This is the key.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I get it that you have no clue as to how the world works. I get it. I've seen it in your call to ban dogs, in your cry against suits and how oppressive they are and in your desire to prosecute gov't agents for obtaining information illegally. Really, I get it but honestly how hard it is for you to understand that what these business owners did is not ok?

Is it ok for me to own a McDonald's franchise and ban blacks or Asians from seeking the service my establishment provides? Which is food selling.

Well your example is a situation where it is clearly illegal under the current statutory regime. But it doesn't map on to this situation.

Your store sells burgers, its not selling ''burgers that can only be consumed by non-blacks and non-Asians'' because it can't purport to sell a category that simply doesn't exist. There is no such thing as such a burger, all humans can eat a burger unless they have a specific medical condition.

In the OP's scenario, they are selling a product that exists ''one man one woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.'' This is something that is understood by society to exist.

In your scenario, people are turned away REGARDLESS of what they seek to buy. This is why it WOULD violate the letter of the law. A black person or an Asian person wouldn't be turned away because they were asking for a product the store ISN'T selling, they would just be turned away period. That's not allowed under the letter of the law.

But in THIS scenario, gays aren't just being turned away. They are only turned away if they ASK for a product the store simply doesn't sell, a non-conventional, non-Christian marriage as defined in its incorporation terms. Its not about the actual characteristic of the customer. It doesn't matter if its a straight or a gay person asking for a service, if the store can provide it it WILL provide it (''one man one woman marriage as defined by the Holy Bible'').

In your example, you can't construe it that way. A black or Asian person will ALWAYS be turned away as a consequence of the additional bylaw. And the bylaw has nothing to do with what is being sold.

A one man one woman marriage as defined by the Holy Bible is a distinct product from a secular marriage, or a marriage carried with Christian rituals but according to the rules of another denomination that allows for gay marriages. There are different types of marriages; the fact that different types of people may seek different types of marriages is irrelevant though it may result in incidental construed discrimination. The issue at heart is... are the customers asking for something the store sells, has sold in the past, was incorporated with the express purpose to sell.

This is the key.

You can't have it both ways, Kefka.

You can't say that something is a sacred religious rite and simultaneously say that it is a commodity to be sold. That just doesn't work.

[Dyakovo]

The Hobby Lobby case (which, for the record, I take issue with due to it deriving from the terribly flawed Citizens United case) differs from this situation in that people, unlike medical treatments, are entitled to equal treatment. Additionally, Hobby Lobby was acting as a wholly private business, while the company here was acting as an extension of the state, which means it must, when acting in an official capacity, comply with restrictions that the government would have to comply with, such as non-discrimination laws.

A Christian wedding service is NOT an extension of the state. It is a religious ceremony that happens to be recognized by the government, because people would be really pissed if they had to go to some court to get their marriage recognized before the law after they'd already been married. If you're gay, you go to a Christian church that recognizes gay marriage, or you get a secular ceremony, it's that bloody simple.

Again, this case has nothing to do with any church.

[Myrensis]

Does it seem to anyone else that running a for-profit run and gun marriage shop called...*sigh*, The Hitching Post, is far more detrimental to the profound sanctity of marriage than the gays getting married?

Anyway, if you want to turn a quick buck selling the sacred bond of marriage to random passersby, guess what, you are bound by the same laws as any other business.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Does it seem to anyone else that running a for-profit run and gun marriage shop called...*sigh*, The Hitching Post, is far more detrimental to the profound sanctity of marriage than the gays getting married?

Anyway, if you want to turn a quick buck selling the sacred bond of marriage to random passersby, guess what, you are bound by the same laws as any other business.

Yeah, I was going to stay with a strictly legal and Constitutional take, but it hasn't escaped my notice that these folks come across far more as the moneychangers in the temple than they do the guy who was beating them with a whip and turning over their tables.

[Dyakovo]

If it were a church, I'd understand their position, but since it's a business, I don't think they're in the right from preventing same sex couples to marry. It's like not wanting to perform interracial marriage. Or not allowing someone to go in due to them being black or Latino.

It's a business and it provides a service. Leave moralizing to church.

Exactly. If they were a church, I'd be on the other side of this issue.

As would I... I'd still view the ministers as despicable bigots, but my opinion of the legality of their actions would be the opposite...

[-Ebola-]

Exactly. If they were a church, I'd be on the other side of this issue.

As would I... I'd still view the ministers as despicable bigots, but my opinion of the legality of their actions would be the opposite...

Same here.

[Geanna]

Source:

1. http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8184357
2. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to $1,000 in daily fines, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, two ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” attorney Jeremy Tedesco told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

The wedding chapel is registered as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

What say you?

I mulled over this for awhile, taking a few things into consideration, and I've concluded that I'll agree so far as to say that the arrests were undeserved. However, I do agree with the fine - I don't believe religious institutions should find themselves exempt from taxation or be subject to special treatment just because it's a place of worship. (Excuse me while I declare my home an Atheist Establishment) - Churches should be subject to the same anti-discriminatory laws as any other business. You do not need a church to pray, it is your right to attend said institution but it is still physical property regardless of its use. If I saw McDonald's refuse to serve someone because they were Asian, I'd expect the law to step in and handle the situation for discrimination - I'd expect the same treatment to be applied here as well.

Now, this goes into religious freedom bla bla bla. It's a face off between property rights and civil rights, and the role the Government plays. You can try to bend and paraphrase wording, but regardless of what you want it to say - it doesn't. There is a separation of Church and State, it'd be hypocritical of the founding fathers to have escaped religious persecution only to enact it in the New World. That is what they wanted to avoid, and specifically why they set up that clause - and under the Treatise of Government, that is legally binding law. That clause was further defined to say that the United States government and the nation should not be founded on or for any specific religion. By the time of 1776, you already had several different religious communities in the colonies, colonies were drawn to some extent by these boundaries - it'd be wrong to favour one over the other. As such, I can say that favouring religious institutions by not expecting them to adhere to the same laws as any other property that offers a service should be held accountable for thus breaking the law.

EDIT: Fixed a few spelling mistakes and grammar. 3am gah

[Australian rePublic]

What would hqppen if it were a mosque that refused the wedding?

[Myrensis]

What would hqppen if it were a mosque that refused the wedding?

Nobody would care, because it's a Mosque. Just like nobody would care if this were a Church.

If it were a Muslim owned 'Allah's E-Z Weddings' business, people would be saying the same thing.

[Old Tyrannia]

Does it seem to anyone else that running a for-profit run and gun marriage shop called...*sigh*, The Hitching Post, is far more detrimental to the profound sanctity of marriage than the gays getting married?

Anyway, if you want to turn a quick buck selling the sacred bond of marriage to random passersby, guess what, you are bound by the same laws as any other business.

Agreed 100%. Frankly the fact that these people are treating something as serious and sacred as marriage as a service to be bought and sold for profit and yet have the temerity to turn around and play the devout Christians offends me deeply.

[The divided]

The fact that they are a for-profit entity makes me tilt ever so lightly against giving them a pass.

BUT

It doesn't really matter at all because the Hobby Lobby decision wraps this one up.

[Ethel mermania]

What would hqppen if it were a mosque that refused the wedding?

A mosque is a religious institution, they don't have to do the wedding. This is about a private business that is owned by ministers.

I don't think you should be able to force the ministers, in their role as ministers officiate the wedding. That said, I c,an see forcing the business to offer officiants to provide same sex marriages, or rent the space to same sex couples

[Murkwood]

Mankind is one in equality, but this is not the way to go about teaching that.