Idaho's city ordinance tells people to marry gays or go to jail

[Christian Liberty]

Anybody see this? This is disgusting:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

[Kotin]

this is what I was afraid of after this ruling.. this is a first amendment violation as plain as day.. being able to force individuals to do something that runs counter to their religious beliefs cannot stand.

[Christian Liberty]

this is what I was afraid of after this ruling.. this is a first amendment violation as plain as day.. being able to force individuals to do something that runs counter to their religious beliefs cannot stand.

And we knew it would happen (I just checked the date and its actually October 2014... this will only spread.)

[William Tell]

this is what I was afraid of after this ruling.. this is a first amendment violation as plain as day.. being able to force individuals to do something that runs counter to their religious beliefs cannot stand.

It's about tolerance they said, no one will force it on you, they said.

[Kotin]

And we knew it would happen (I just checked the date and its actually October 2014... this will only spread.)

well but is this something that is happening a lot after the latest ruling??

[Christian Liberty]

well but is this something that is happening a lot after the latest ruling??

Not sure, but I know that it will......

[Sonny Tufts]

Old news.

It seems that right before this flap arose, this for-profit wedding business advertised that it conducted other denominational marriages and civil marriages in addition to Christian marriages. It subsequently deleted references to civil and other-denominational marriages.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp (the reference in the last paragraph of the snopes article mistakenly refers to Iowa law; presumably it meant Idaho law)

It also appears that the City has never threatened the business, which has reorganized to qualify for an exemption for "religious organizations".

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/23/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-for-profit-idah/201288

[tod evans]

Remember these are the same folks who scream for "wars" on other groups of citizens....

Now the cludgeon of "The Law" has been given to the ***** and they're sniveling because they're being beaten by the same force they've been welding for decades against stoners..

It's really difficult for me not to turn my back and snub them like they've done to the countless thousands imprisoned on their behest...

I seriously hope some of these people are perceptive enough to be able to draw the correlation......

[paleocon1]

Charge them a $100K fee (cash in advance), require 1000 hours of pre-wedding counseling regarding the sin involved and promise a five hour sermon at the wedding describing their eternity in the lake of fire........

[Sola_Fide]

This is just the beginning.

Somebody chided me the other day for saying this experiment in liberty is over. It is over. Done. This is just the beginning.

[Tywysog Cymru]

This is the law of merited impossibility: (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-eternal-*****-revolution/)


For a few years now, I have used a concept I’ve dubbed the Law of Merited Impossibility to characterize the doublespeak many LGBT activists and their allies have used to advance the cause. Here’s the Law: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.

[euphemia]

This is old news, and it is not about pastors being forced to do something in their own churches. It is about people who run a for-profit wedding chapel refusing to host same-sex weddings or perform the ceremonies. If it was a church, it would never have been an issue.

[Brett85]

This is old news, and it is not about pastors being forced to do something in their own churches. It is about people who run a for-profit wedding chapel refusing to host same-sex weddings or perform the ceremonies. If it was a church, it would never have been an issue.

For profit, not for profit, should make no difference. You don't lose your liberty because you decide you want to make a profit and make a living.

[euphemia]

But their wedding chapel is not a church. There is no membership, nor is there a statement of faith required for people to be married there, and as far as I know there is no moral requirement for people to use the facility. This is the same as the cake and photos. It is a venue. City ordinance prohibits discrimination.

[Brett85]

But their wedding chapel is not a church. There is no membership, nor is there a statement of faith required for people to be married there, and as far as I know there is no moral requirement for people to use the facility. This is the same as the cake and photos. It is a venue. City ordinance prohibits discrimination.

Right, but these city ordinances are anti liberty. They violate private property rights, freedom of association, and religious liberty rights.

[tod evans]

Right, but these city ordinances are anti liberty. They violate private property rights, freedom of association, and religious liberty rights.

ALL ordinances do.

Now what?

[euphemia]

Right, but these city ordinances are anti liberty. They violate private property rights, freedom of association, and religious liberty rights.

This case is not a religious liberty issue. I'm a Christian who believes in constitutional rights. This is not a religious liberty issue. I talked about this when it first came up. If the people themselves did not want to perform the ceremonies, they could have someone on call who would perform them. Their venue available for rent to people who want to have weddings. It's an dated, frumpy little place, and is probably a crime against good taste, but there is nothing in the agreement or on the web site that says anything about faith, except that their proprietors are ordained ministers, along with the fee schedule and photos of the place.

[euphemia]

From what I understand, any pastor in the US can turn down a request to perform a wedding in his/her church. The facility in question is not a church. It is a for-profit wedding venue.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

For profit, not for profit, should make no difference. You don't lose your liberty because you decide you want to make a profit and make a living.
go ahead and try to repeal the civil rights act. Turning down gays is the equivalent of turning down blacks

[Sola_Fide]

This case is not a religious liberty issue. I'm a Christian who believes in constitutional rights. This is not a religious liberty issue. I talked about this when it first came up. If the people themselves did not want to perform the ceremonies, they could have someone on call who would perform them. Their venue available for rent to people who want to have weddings. It's an dated, frumpy little place, and is probably a crime against good taste, but there is nothing in the agreement or on the web site that says anything about faith, except that their proprietors are ordained ministers, along with the fee schedule and photos of the place.

Even if it is more of an issue of private property rights as opposed to an issue of conscience, it would still be wrong. But I don't know how one could prove it was not an issue of conscience.

[William Tell]

From what I understand, any pastor in the US can turn down a request to perform a wedding in his/her church. The facility in question is not a church. It is a for-profit wedding venue.

So what? Nobody has a right to use a for profit place on his own conditions. No shirt, no shoes, no business etc. This is just like the baker issue, just because you own a business doesn't mean you have given up your property and freedom of conscience rights.

I wouldn't let them use my for profit wedding place if I had one.

[William Tell]

This case is not a religious liberty issue. I'm a Christian who believes in constitutional rights. This is not a religious liberty issue. I talked about this when it first came up. If the people themselves did not want to perform the ceremonies, they could have someone on call who would perform them. Their venue available for rent to people who want to have weddings. It's an dated, frumpy little place, and is probably a crime against good taste, but there is nothing in the agreement or on the web site that says anything about faith, except that their proprietors are ordained ministers, along with the fee schedule and photos of the place.

I really don't get your point, if you had a building, and some group of college kids wanted to reserve it for drunken orgies, are you saying you should just have a manager without your morals arrange it?

Anything in your business that you perceive to have a moral side to it is a religious liberty issue.

[euphemia]

Shirts and shoes are part of most health regulations.

If people own businesses that are open to the public, they must serve anyone who comes in. This is not a religious liberty issue.

[Brett85]

go ahead and try to repeal the civil rights act. Turning down gays is the equivalent of turning down blacks

No it's not. One is skin color, the way people are born. The other is a sinful action that some people decide to take.

[Brett85]

If people own businesses that are open to the public, they must serve anyone who comes in. This is not a religious liberty issue.

Then you've just admitted that you're a staunch opponent of liberty.

[euphemia]

I really don't get your point, if you had a building, and some group of college kids wanted to reserve it for drunken orgies, are you saying you should just have a manager without your morals arrange it?

We are not talking about drunken orgies. We are talking about a public wedding venue called The Hitching Post. It's not a church. They charge money to host and perform weddings. When I first looked it up, there was nothing on the web site about being anything other than a place to have weddings. There is no moral qualifier on the site for people to be able to be married there. Walk in, pay the money, get married. Use the room for the given amount of time, then leave.

To address your issues, a property owner would also be subject to local ordinances and would be required to carry insurance against damage done to the facility or people getting hurt there. They would be required by their insurance company to manage the facility in such a way as to minimize risk. This is a financial and safety concern. It does not involve the faith or morals of anyone.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

We are not talking about drunken orgies. We are talking about a public wedding venue called The Hitching Post. It's not a church. They charge money to host and perform weddings. When I first looked it up, there was nothing on the web site about being anything other than a place to have weddings. There is no moral qualifier on the site for people to be able to be married there. Walk in, pay the money, get married. Use the room for the given amount of time, then leave.

To address your issues, a property owner would also be subject to local ordinances and would be required to carry insurance against damage done to the facility or people getting hurt there. They would be required by their insurance company to manage the facility in such a way as to minimize risk. This is a financial and safety concern. It does not involve the faith or morals of anyone.

I don't think gay people do anything different other than being gay when getting gay married. The only loophole I could see them doing to get out of it is calling it a christian wedding venue, or something. You don't see Christians demanding to be wedded in Jewish temples, ever, do you? And at that point why even bother. Money is money.

[euphemia]

And that's kind of the point. There is nothing on the site about the ceremonies being religious ceremonies except that the owners are both ordained ministers.

[Sola_Fide]

Shirts and shoes are part of most health regulations.

If people own businesses that are open to the public, they must serve anyone who comes in. This is not a religious liberty issue.

I know where you are coming from, but....why?

[Kotin]

Shirts and shoes are part of most health regulations.

If people own businesses that are open to the public, they must serve anyone who comes in. This is not a religious liberty issue.

right its a private property issue.. "the right to refuse service to anyone" is very common and totally protected.. why is it any different when the business specifically states the reason lol

[Sola_Fide]

And that's kind of the point. There is nothing on the site about the ceremonies being religious ceremonies except that the owners are both ordained ministers.

Could it be their conscience then?

[Brett85]

And that's kind of the point. There is nothing on the site about the ceremonies being religious ceremonies except that the owners are both ordained ministers.

It doesn't matter. People should be allowed to be free.

[euphemia]

I didn't write the laws. I'm just telling you that there is no statement on the site that they require their customers to do anything except pay and leave the room on time.

How come I seem to be the only one who has bothered to look up the actual place and see what their site says? Look it up. Unless something has changed very recently, they perform weddings. Full stop. It is not a church. The owners are not representing their denomination. They represent themselves and are authorized by the state of Idaho to perform weddings.

[William Tell]

We are not talking about drunken orgies.
We are now, you said business owners have to serve anyone who demands to be served.

Shirts and shoes are part of most health regulations.

If people own businesses that are open to the public, they must serve anyone who comes in. This is not a religious liberty issue.



We are talking about a public wedding venue called The Hitching Post. It's not a church. They charge money to host and perform weddings. When I first looked it up, there was nothing on the web site about being anything other than a place to have weddings. There is no moral qualifier on the site for people to be able to be married there. Walk in, pay the money, get married. Use the room for the given amount of time, then leave.
It doesn't matter if its labeled a church or not, I have worshiped in many buildings that were not church buildings. Church buildings don't matter in the least, religious liberty individuals is what matters. A Baptist has the same liberties in his machine shop as his Church on Sunday. This notion that you are obligated to serve everyone because your website doesn't say otherwise is silly.


To address your issues, a property owner would also be subject to local ordinances and would be required to carry insurance against damage done to the facility or people getting hurt there. They would be required by their insurance company to manage the facility in such a way as to minimize risk. This is a financial and safety concern. It does not involve the faith or morals of anyone.

I'm not sure what concerns of mine you are trying to address here. If the guy who owns the wedding business says it is a religious issue, then it is, period.

[William Tell]

I didn't write the laws. I'm just telling you that there is no statement on the site that they require their customers to do anything except pay and leave the room on time.

How come I seem to be the only one who has bothered to look up the actual place and see what their site says? Look it up. Unless something has changed very recently, they perform weddings. Full stop. It is not a church. The owners are not representing their denomination. They represent themselves and are authorized by the state of Idaho to perform weddings.
Saying I perform weddings doesn't mean I perform any and all weddings. I mean good grief, the plumber isn't the slave of everyone who calls him, sometimes he's busy, sometimes he wants to go on vacation. He can say no, for any and all reasons, even though his website and business cards don't bother to say that.

Same thing with a car repair shop, try going in there and demand they fix your car.

[euphemia]

They now have a statement on their web site saying they will only do traditional weddings. This was not the case when they were first cited. Many churches have rules about who may be married in their church, and pastors can decline any couple who asks to be married. This is not a church, and they charge a fee ($80-102 depending on which package you get).

I'm done talking about this. I think Christians need to pick their battles. Everything is not a religious liberty issue. Back when we were home schooling, several families were cited for not meeting state requirements that the parent have a Bachelor's degree. They tried to make it about religious liberty, but there is nothing in anyone's faith that prohibits them getting a degree. It's a parent's rights issue.

If the owners had taken the position that it was a private property issue, this would not have gotten nearly as much attention as they have. In my opinion, Christians are not always as wise as they should be. There are a million ways to graciously decline to perform a wedding.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If I opened up a gay marriage service and refused service to traditional couples, would I be breaking the law?
If I opened up a gay bar and refused service to straight people, would I be breaking the law?
If I opened up a club for gays, and I refused to allow straight people to join, would I be breaking the law?

[Slave Mentality]

I tend to agree with the bible beaters on this one. Let the real free market decide their fates for being intolerant, not the thought police.

"We have the right to refuse service to anyone" is good enough for me. We do have the power of the purse folks.

[Danke]

If I opened up a gay marriage service and refused service to traditional couples, would I be breaking the law?
If I opened up a gay bar and refused service to straight people, would I be breaking the law?
If I opened up a club for gays, and I refused to allow straight people to join, would I be breaking the law?

Not sure about the first one, but I think the answer is yes for the last two.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Not sure about the first one, but I think the answer is yes for the last two.


What if I made publicly available a scholarship designed exclusively for blacks, women, etc, and I refuse an applicant for no other reason than they are white, or male, is that illegal discrimination?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Danke]

What if I made publicly available a scholarship designed exclusively for blacks, women, etc, and I refuse an applicant for no other reason than they are white, or male, is that illegal discrimination?

No, go watch Alice in Wonerland again.

[acptulsa]

What if I made publicly available a scholarship designed exclusively for blacks, women, etc, and I refuse an applicant for no other reason than they are white, or male, is that illegal discrimination?

No, of course not.

That's affirmative discrimination.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[PierzStyx]

Shirts and shoes are part of most health regulations.

If people own businesses that are open to the public, they must serve anyone who comes in. This is not a religious liberty issue.

No, it is a property rights issue. No one has a right to my body, service or product, therefore I don't have to serve anyone. I can be as discerning as I choose. Except when the government puts a gun to my head.

[paleocon1]

This is just the beginning.

Somebody chided me the other day for saying this experiment in liberty is over. It is over. Done. This is just the beginning. Unless those who love liberty are prepared to resist with force. My gut feel is that the generic tranzi prog is most disadvantaged if things come to open war. They win ONLY because we are 24X7 brainwashed that we must follow to the letter rules devised by them which they in turn are allowed to alter at will.