Idaho chapel sues city to prevent enforcement of ordinance

The owners of the Hitching Post wedding chapel filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Coeur d’Alene Friday, claiming that the city is unconstitutionally forcing them to violate their religious beliefs by performing same-sex marriages.

Owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp say in the lawsuit that they believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

“Performing same-sex wedding ceremonies would thus force the Knapps to condone, promote and even consecrate something forbidden by their religious beliefs and ordination vows,” the suit reads


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/ministers-who-refuse-gay-weddings-face-fines-jail/#OuccduSC0bWdXwyD.99


And so it begins. The soft mask of "tolerance" and "equality" is falling off to expose the hideous face of some kind of FASCISM. Welcome to Obama`s "fundamentally transformed" America

 

I had no Idea Obama was in the Idaho legislature...damn that dude seriously gets around. Between creating mutations of the Ebola virus, sending out invites to Central American kids, Killing Grandmas and destroying our economy....It's a wonder he had time to create ISIS at all.

 

I think its a shame that it had to come to this. The chapel should not be forced to go against their conscience and since their services are not life-threatening, medical, etc., they should be allowed to discriminate as that is their right as a private business.

 

This has nothing to do with tolerance or equality. The simple question at hand here is; Should the religous have the right to ignore any law they disagree with?

Is your answer "yes" or "no"?

 

No, it is does a business have the right to refuse business. And the answer is yes.

 

But their objection isn't on that basis. For a (any) business to have that right, the whole equal rights laws in relation to private business would need to be struck down. The defence being presented in this case is that the law should stand but where business owners have religious objections to individual implementations of it, they should be exempt. A business owner with an equally strong personal moral objection to homosexuality but who wasn't a member of a recognised religious group would not be able to claim the same legal exemption.

If you want to argue for all businesses to be free to discriminate on all grounds you should do so. Using the First Amendment won't achieve that though (if anything it makes it more difficult).