Christian Chapel Owners Threatened With Jail For Refusing to Marry Gays

[Dos Equis]

Holy smokes.  The Gestapo.

Christian Chapel Owners Were Reportedly Threatened With Jail Time and Fines For Refusing to Marry Gays — and Now They’re Fighting Back
Oct. 20, 2014    
Billy Hallowell

Two ordained ministers have filed a federal lawsuit and are seeking a restraining order that would prevent local officials from forcing them to marry same-sex couples after claiming that they have been threatened with fines and possible jail time over their refusal.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, after claiming that city officials told them that they are required under a non-discrimination ordinance to marry gays.

If they do not, the Knapps say that they could “face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines,” according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom. The firm says they could reportedly face up to 180 days in jail or $1,000 in fines for each day they refuse.


Donald and Evelyn Knapp (Alliance Defending Freedom)

“Each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties,” reads the official complaint. “Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000.”

An apparent refusal reportedly came last Friday when a man called the chapel just two days after gay marriage was legalized in Idaho to inquire about a same-sex ceremony. The couple declined performing the wedding, essentially placing them in violation of the ordinance; they subsequently filed the lawsuit.

While some might be wondering why ordained ministers are purportedly being forced to marry gay couples, consider that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, which opened in 1989, is a for-profit business, which means that it is not exempt from local non-discrimination regulations.

That said, the Alliance Defending Freedom claims that Donald and Evelyn Knapp perform religious ceremonies, which include references to God and Bible scripture.

Considering that they are Christian ministers and that their ceremonies are faith-themed, there’s a clear conflict between protecting religious conscience and advancing gay rights.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is fighting back against the reported government mandate, claiming that the couple should not be coerced to take actions that violate their faith.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said Alliance Defending Freedom attorney 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 couple has been clear in the past that they would rather close up shop than perform same-sex ceremonies.

“I think the Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is not his way, and therefore I cannot unite people in a way that I believe would conflict with what the Bible teaches,” Donald Knapp told KXLY-TV back in May.

Read the Knapps’ complaint here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/20/ordained-ministers-who-refuse-to-marry-gay-couples-in-their-chapel-are-fighting-back-after-reportedly-being-threatened-with-fines-and-jail-time/

[Straw Man]

yeah, just like the Gestapo 

They are not a church

They are a for profit business

[Kazan]

yeah, just like the Gestapo 

They are not a church

They are a for profit business

So what? Is this the only place in Idaho that performs weddings? The fact that some local .gov thinks they can threated people into to doing things is bullshit.

[Straw Man]

So what? Is this the only place in Idaho that performs weddings? The fact that some local .gov thinks they can threated people into to doing things is bullshit.

They are no different than a restaurant or a bakery, etc...

They are not a church

[Kazan]

They are no different than a restaurant or a bakery, etc...

They are not a church

Really can your local baker legally marry you?

[Straw Man]

Really can your local baker legally marry you?

Yes.  Were you not aware of that?

Do you truly not understand that this is a for profit business?

[Kazan]

Yes.  Were you not aware of that?

Do you truly not understand that this is a for profit business?

Who gives a fuck, every time some assclown doesn't get their way get .gov to put the screws to them. Unlike you fucking cry babies if a place doesn't want my business I go somewhere that does.

[Al Doggity]

Holy smokes.  The Gestapo.

Nowhere in this article does it say the owners have been threatened with jail or even a fine. It says that they refused to do a gay wedding and then filed a lawsuit.  The article claims that  county officials told them it was a violation not to perform gay weddings, but the only references to fines or jailtime are the theoretical ones from their lawyer's press release.  

[avxo]

Yes.  Were you not aware of that?

Do you truly not understand that this is a for profit business?

What does it matter if they are a for-profit business or not?

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Holy smokes.  The Gestapo.

Christian Chapel Owners Were Reportedly Threatened With Jail Time and Fines For Refusing to Marry Gays — and Now They’re Fighting Back
Oct. 20, 2014    
Billy Hallowell

Two ordained ministers have filed a federal lawsuit and are seeking a restraining order that would prevent local officials from forcing them to marry same-sex couples after claiming that they have been threatened with fines and possible jail time over their refusal.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, after claiming that city officials told them that they are required under a non-discrimination ordinance to marry gays.

If they do not, the Knapps say that they could “face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines,” according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom. The firm says they could reportedly face up to 180 days in jail or $1,000 in fines for each day they refuse.


Donald and Evelyn Knapp (Alliance Defending Freedom)

“Each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties,” reads the official complaint. “Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000.”

An apparent refusal reportedly came last Friday when a man called the chapel just two days after gay marriage was legalized in Idaho to inquire about a same-sex ceremony. The couple declined performing the wedding, essentially placing them in violation of the ordinance; they subsequently filed the lawsuit.

While some might be wondering why ordained ministers are purportedly being forced to marry gay couples, consider that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, which opened in 1989, is a for-profit business, which means that it is not exempt from local non-discrimination regulations.

That said, the Alliance Defending Freedom claims that Donald and Evelyn Knapp perform religious ceremonies, which include references to God and Bible scripture.

Considering that they are Christian ministers and that their ceremonies are faith-themed, there’s a clear conflict between protecting religious conscience and advancing gay rights.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is fighting back against the reported government mandate, claiming that the couple should not be coerced to take actions that violate their faith.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said Alliance Defending Freedom attorney 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 couple has been clear in the past that they would rather close up shop than perform same-sex ceremonies.

“I think the Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is not his way, and therefore I cannot unite people in a way that I believe would conflict with what the Bible teaches,” Donald Knapp told KXLY-TV back in May.

Read the Knapps’ complaint here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/20/ordained-ministers-who-refuse-to-marry-gay-couples-in-their-chapel-are-fighting-back-after-reportedly-being-threatened-with-fines-and-jail-time/

A wedding chapel is a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS....same as a restaurant or bakery.  Churches are exempt because they are a religious institution.  My advice for them would be to just become a full fledged church and the problem is solved. 

[Dos Equis]

Nowhere in this article does it say the owners have been threatened with jail or even a fine. It says that they refused to do a gay wedding and then filed a lawsuit.  The article claims that  county officials told them it was a violation not to perform gay weddings, but the only references to fines or jailtime are the theoretical ones from their lawyer's press release.  

Ok?  And?  Are you saying they are lying?

If they do not, the Knapps say that they could “face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines,” according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom. The firm says they could reportedly face up to 180 days in jail or $1,000 in fines for each day they refuse.

[Al Doggity]

Ok?  And?  Are you saying they are lying?

If they do not, the Knapps say that they could “face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines,” according to a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom. The firm says they could reportedly face up to 180 days in jail or $1,000 in fines for each day they refuse.

I think they probably are. They filed a lawsuit and aligned themselves with a political lawyer. Everything about this sounds like an activist lawsuit. Even in that little blurb you posted, it says that that is the maximum they punishment they believe they could receive, not that they've already been threatened with punishment.

[Dos Equis]

I think they probably are. They filed a lawsuit and aligned themselves with a political lawyer. Everything about this sounds like an activist lawsuit. Even in that little blurb you posted, it says that that is the maximum they punishment they believe they could receive, not that they've already been threatened with punishment.

If violation of the ordinance carries a possible jail sentence, then it's perfectly appropriate to say they are being threatened with possible fines/jail, or whatever the maximum punishment is. 

[Al Doggity]

If violation of the ordinance carries a possible jail sentence, then it's perfectly appropriate to say they are being threatened with possible fines/jail, or whatever the maximum punishment is. 

Not if they are not being threatened with it.

[Dos Equis]

Not if they are not being threatened with it.

If you are being accused of violating a law that carries a criminal penalty, then of course you're being threatened with whatever consequences are associated with violating that law.   

[Al Doggity]

If you are being accused of violating a law that carries a criminal penalty, then of course you're being threatened with whatever consequences are associated with violating that law.   

They are not being accused of anything.

[Dos Equis]

They are not being accused of anything.

They are being accused of violating the Idaho ordinance that has the following penalty:

9.56.060: PENALTY:

A. A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in title 1, chapter 1.28 of this code.

B. A prosecutor may reduce the violation to an infraction, payable by a one hundred dollar ($100.00) fine, if the defendant engages in corrective actions, which may include, but are not limited to, the following: sensitivity training for the defendant and/or the defendant's employees; the defendant's agreement to adopt and pursue a policy of nondiscrimination in its practices; and the defendant's agreement to not engage in discriminatory practices in the future. The charge shall be filed as a misdemeanor violation and may only be reduced upon motion of the prosecutor. There shall be no right to a trial by jury for an infraction citation or complaint.

C. Any person who falsely reports a violation of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 3466, 2013)

http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?section_id=894070#s894075

[Straw Man]

What does it matter if they are a for-profit business or not?

are you serious?

[Al Doggity]

They are being accused of violating the Idaho ordinance that has the following penalty:

9.56.060: PENALTY:

A. A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in title 1, chapter 1.28 of this code.

B. A prosecutor may reduce the violation to an infraction, payable by a one hundred dollar ($100.00) fine, if the defendant engages in corrective actions, which may include, but are not limited to, the following: sensitivity training for the defendant and/or the defendant's employees; the defendant's agreement to adopt and pursue a policy of nondiscrimination in its practices; and the defendant's agreement to not engage in discriminatory practices in the future. The charge shall be filed as a misdemeanor violation and may only be reduced upon motion of the prosecutor. There shall be no right to a trial by jury for an infraction citation or complaint.

C. Any person who falsely reports a violation of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 3466, 2013)

http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?section_id=894070#s894075

Who is accusing them?

[Dos Equis]

Who is accusing them?

The City.  From the complaint they filed:

12. This past summer, after the Idaho district court enjoined Idaho’s marriage laws, City officials told Mr. Knapp twice that Ordinance §9.56 required him to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies if same-sex marriage became legal. Deputy City Attorney Warren Wilson then publicly declared the City’s position when a journalist asked him about the Hitching Post: “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... 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.”

13. Because the Knapps and Hitching Post, LLC are currently violating Ordinance §9.56, they are subject to pay fines up to $1,000 and suffer jail time of up to 180 days for every day they violate the ordinance. See City Ordinance §§9.56.060 and 1.28.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/KnappComplaint.pdf

[avxo]

are you serious?

I realize that you think that anyone who doesn't share your opinion isn't serious, but I assure you that yes, I am serious. In fact, I am very serious.

Tell me, why should it matter whether they are doing it for profit of not?

I generally don't think that the government should dictate how businesses ought to do business. I'll give you an example: if a business wants to offer a service where they conduct StarTrek themed weddings, I don't think that it's reasonable that the government should be able to force it to also provide StarWars themed weddings.

I believe in the free market and I believe in letting it run its course. People are uniquely positioned to punish the business in question without the need for government intervention if they think it needs to be punished.

With that said, I agree that under the current system, the local government can require, as a condition of licensing, that the business operate within a regulatory framework which may prohibit them from refusing to marry gays. But it boils down to this: I don't think that's right.

[Straw Man]

I realize that you think that anyone who doesn't share your opinion isn't serious, but I assure you that yes, I am serious. In fact, I am very serious.

Tell me, why should it matter whether they are doing it for profit of not?

I generally don't think that the government should dictate how businesses ought to do business. I'll give you an example: if a business wants to offer a service where they conduct StarTrek themed weddings, I don't think that it's reasonable that the government should be able to force it to also provide StarWars themed weddings.

I believe in the free market and I believe in letting it run its course. People are uniquely positioned to punish the business in question without the need for government intervention if they think it needs to be punished.

With that said, I agree that under the current system, the local government can require, as a condition of licensing, that the business operate within a regulatory framework which may prohibit them from refusing to marry gays. But it boils down to this: I don't think that's right.

Are businesses allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc..?

I wasn't aware that was allowed but maybe you have some information to the contrary

[Al Doggity]

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.”

Informing someone that they could THEORETICALLY violate a law BEFORE they've violated it is not the same thing as accusing them of violating a law.

It's slightly less oppressive than Gestapo tactics. Slightly.

[avxo]

Are businesses allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc..?

I wasn't aware that was allowed but maybe you have some information to the contrary

You obviously didn't bother to read my post - which shouldn't surprise me I guess. I am going to try one more time; if you continue to refuse to read what I write, then I simply won't bother responding to you anyone; it's counterproductive for me to engage into debate with people who refuse to read what I write or which act like idiots.

In the sense that businesses usually have to be licensed, the licensing authority can impose whatever restrictions they want. However, as I said, I don't think that's right. If the Knapps want to have "The Knapps No-Homo Wedding Chapel" they should be able to - nobody should be forced to provide a service to others - and deal with the fallout from their customers. The government shouldn't be in the business of twisting people's arms into being tolerant.

[Al Doggity]

I believe in the free market and I believe in letting it run its course. People are uniquely positioned to punish the business in question without the need for government intervention if they think it needs to be punished.

The  reason for these civil rights statutes is precisely because the people they are most likely to affect are the least likely to be "uniquely positioned" to punish businesses.