City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings
By Todd Starnes
• Published October 20, 2014 • FoxNews.comFacebook0 Twitter0 livefyre475 Email Print Now Playing
Ministers told to perform same-sex weddings

Never autoplay videos 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 a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

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

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

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

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail.”
- Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Jeremy Tedesco

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

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION!

City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review in May that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

“I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,” he said.

He also told television station KXLY that any wedding chapel that turns away a gay couple would in theory be violating the law, “and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”

Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings.

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

And if he refused to perform the ceremonies, Wilson reportedly told the minister that he could be fined up to $1,000 and sentenced to up to 180 days in jail.

Now all of that was a moot point because, until last week, gay marriage was not legal in Idaho.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on May 13 allowing same-sex marriages to commence in Idaho on Oct. 15. Two days later, the folks at the Hitching Post received a telephone call.

A man had called to inquire about a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Hitching Post declined, putting it in violation of the law.

City officials did not respond to my requests for an interview, nor did they respond to requests from local news outlets.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” Tedesco said.

“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.”

Alliance Defending Freedom also filed a temporary restraining order to stop the city from enforcing the ordinance.

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail,” Tedesco told me.

It’s hard to believe this could happen in the United States. But as the lawsuit states, the Knapps are in a “constant state of fear that they may have to go to jail, pay substantial fines, or both, resulting in them losing the business that God has called them to operate and which they have faithfully operated for 25 years.”

The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.

What in heaven’s name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage.

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me it’s “open season on Americans who refuse to bow to the government’s redefinition of marriage.”

“Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of the other 98 percent of Americans,” Perkins said.

Why should evangelical Christian ministers be forced to perform and celebrate any marriage that conflicts with their beliefs?

“This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions – where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs,” Perkins told me.

As I write in my new book, “God Less America,” we are living in a day when those who support traditional marriage are coming under fierce attack.

The incidents in Houston and now in Coeur d’Alene are the just the latest examples of a disturbing trend in the culture war – direct attacks on clergy.

“Government officials are making clear they will use their government power to punish those who oppose the advances of homosexual activists,” Perkins said.

I’m afraid Mr. Perkins is absolutely right.

No one should be discriminated against but have you noticed that any time a city passes a “nondiscrimination” ordinance, it’s the Christians who wind up being discriminated against?


Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is "God Less America."

 Frazzled wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

.................................................

What in heaven’s name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage.

I'm actually onside of the city for the reasons cited.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,”

but the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, that whole "tax registration" thing is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it?

I feel a privately owned business vs. a publicly owned business is what should be more of a determination than for profit or not for profit.

If you're a publicly held (e.g. shares) company, I think that should be more of an "you have to service everybody, because you can be owned by anybody" .

 KingCracker wrote:
How is this any different than having the right to refuse business to another person? I'm sorry but this is stupid, threatening lawsuit because an ordained minister doesn't want to marry a gay couple is just ridiculous.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


An Asian owned restaurant refuses a white couple service merely for the couple being white. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

A female owned hair salon refuses to serve a male client on the grounds that he is male. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The question still remains: why would a gay couple go to a conservative christian business and demand to be married?

Should a gay person go to ChristianMingle.com to try and find a gay partner to hook up with?

Should a straight man go to gaydar.com and demand to be matched with a heterosexual female?

Those businesses are specifically geared toward a certain type of population: Christian singles and Gay singles.

Using your argument:
--- a straight man/woman should be able to file a lawsuit against Gaydar or PinkCupid because they don't offer them the chance to find some heterosexual company.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I'm a bit on the fence...but I'm leaning toward backing the business.

First, I feel that there is a bit of under-handed deception here.

Other than sensationalism, why would a gay couple want to go to a publicized "one woman, one man" Christian-specific wedding chapel?

They could get married anywhere else. Outside. In a hotel. In a shack. They could get married anywhere else, but they purposely chose a very conservative place for a specific purpose.

I back marriage equality....but I also back business' rights to refuse service to anybody--with no explanation necessary.

Here's my thoughts....

This is a perfect opportunity for Gay-oriented wedding chapels to rise up, to be established, and to fill the "gap" that conservative wedding chapels leave by not wanting to perform gay ceremonies.

That's why I'm leaning with the business....in this instance.

I do also back this statement:

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,”

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


An Asian owned restaurant refuses a white couple service merely for the couple being white. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

A female owned hair salon refuses to serve a male client on the grounds that he is male. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

DarkTraveler777 wrote:

It isn't the act of refusal that is the problem, it is the reasoning behind the refusal that is the issue.

Zebio wrote:
Do any of those works offer a legal, public service like marriage?

cincy wrote:I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The question still remains: why would a gay couple go to a conservative christian business and demand to be married?

Should a gay person go to ChristianMingle.com to try and find a gay partner to hook up with?

Should a straight man go to gaydar.com and demand to be matched with a heterosexual female?

Those businesses are specifically geared toward a certain type of population: Christian singles and Gay singles.

Using your argument:
--- a straight man/woman should be able to file a lawsuit against Gaydar or PinkCupid because they don't offer them the chance to find some heterosexual company.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

but the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship

That's the most important piece of information.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We shouldn't have to live in a world where we have to worry whether or not the owner of the store will discriminate against us just by walking through the door.

It's pretty sickening that in 2014 I have to raise my kids in country that has it's head still stuck up its 1950s ass.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

PhantomViper wrote:
They are a business and as such should be regulated by the same laws as every other business.

I also find it hilarious that a "Conservative Christian" "church" makes a profit out of selling one of the sacred sacraments... I could have sworn that I read something in the bible about Jesus opening a can of whoopass on people just like that.

Selling the blessing of God for profit = good conservative Christians, apparently.

 d-usa wrote:
Can we just turn the usual "get rid of marriage" argument around and take away the ability to officiate a state sanctioned marriage ceremony from all clergy unless they swear to officiate ALL wedding ceremonies?

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies at whatever church they want and between whoever they want, but the couples that unlicensed clergy officiate over would not be legally married.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Considering that the US was founded on religious freedom

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We shouldn't have to live in a world where we have to worry whether or not the owner of the store will discriminate against us just by walking through the door.

It's pretty sickening that in 2014 I have to raise my kids in country that has it's head still stuck up its 1950s ass.

If that were the case, if you walked into the wrong store, later that night you would be hanged and your house burned down.

Kids these days, full of hyperbole without having actually lived it.