Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

  1. #11
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I tried a different news source.
    Thanks.

    well, as long as they only perform religious ceremonies, looks like their problem is solved.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  2. #12
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    [QUOTE=Deuce;1063914982]
    Can I wear a brown jacket? Leather jackets are stylish in my industry.[
    /QUOTE]



    One of my favorite jackets is made of brown leather.

    I don't wear brown pants with it.

  3. #13
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I think the city and the members of the "task force" whose idea this ordinance appears to be tried to bully the owners with it, and when a powerful law group that defends cases like this took up the owners' cause and immediately sued in federal court, the locals gulped, reconsidered things, and reached what you call the "rightful ruling." As soon as they saw they were up against a formidable opponent, they had no heart for fighting.

    As I said earlier, I think this ordinance raises a free speech issue that is not affected at all by whether the owners are Christians, or whether they serve the public, or whether they do it for profit. The issue is whether a law unconstitutionally violates the freedom of speech, if it has the effect of compelling a private person, whether in business or not, to let other persons come on his property to foster or sponsor a message he disagrees with.

    I think the answer is yes. I also think the comments I quoted earlier by Justice Lewis Powell in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins are right to this point. In that case, the Supreme Court of the U.S. upheld a California Supreme Court decision that said the owner of a large shopping mall could not prevent people from handing out pamphlets on his property against the mall owner's claim that it unconstitutionally compelled him to endorse the message of the pamphlets. (First Amendment protected speech includes all sorts of expressive behavior, e.g. topless dancing; and the constitutional protection includes the right not to speak.)

    Powell concurred with the decision--but he discussed several reasons why the result probably would be different in a case involving only a single small business, rather than a giant mall. He also noted that a law that compelled private persons to let other persons use their property to promote viewpoints they disagreed with might well also violate the general right to personal privacy the Court has found the Constitution to imply.
    How could they have tried to bully anyone when there had not even been a formal complaint?

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I think the city and the members of the "task force" whose idea this ordinance appears to be tried to bully the owners with it
    How?

    No one filed a complaint against the owners, there's been no evidence anyone contacted the owners on behalf of the city, there's no indication the ordinance was done with the owners business in mind.

    The owners are the ones that initiated legal action. They didn't need to be "defended" against legal action against them because there was no legal action against them.

  5. #15
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Pretty much what I expected. The city attorney and the jerks who cooked up that ordinance saw the people they were bullying had help in the form of lawyers who did not hesitate to sue in federal court, and lost their nerve. May the same happen to more supporters of the homosexual agenda. Down with leftist brownshirts everywhere.
    No. The Hitichn post transitioned to a religious LLC.


    Filings with the Idaho Secretary of State show the Hitching Post became a limited liability company on September 12. Court documents in the Knapps’ federal lawsuit show they signed a business operating agreement on October 6 that lists the following as the purpose of their LLC:

    “The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers..."
    The HP will only do religious weddings. Just like a Church.


  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    How?

    No one filed a complaint against the owners, there's been no evidence anyone contacted the owners on behalf of the city, there's no indication the ordinance was done with the owners business in mind.

    The owners are the ones that initiated legal action. They didn't need to be "defended" against legal action against them because there was no legal action against them.
    The ordinance is objectionable just by its existence, and if it wasn't used on these owners, it will be used on someone else. It was apparently dreamed up by some "task force" and is meant to coerce private persons into accommodating homosexuals. I don't claim to know Idaho law, but I assume a municipal ordinance like this would have no purpose except to require something more than the state public accommodation law does.

    This affair reminds me of what happened in Colorado in the 1990's, when several cities, apparently responding to political pressure from rich and well-connected homosexuals, adopted ordinances extending special rights to homosexuals. The people of the state responded by amending the Colorado constitution to prohibit local governments from making ordinances that outran state laws. (Municipal governments are creatures of their states and derive their authority from state enabling laws.)

    The people of Colorado voted for the amendment by about a 70% majority, but the action was challenged as unconstitutional. The case of Romer v. Evans went to the Supreme Court, becoming the Court's second major "gay" decision in 1996. Writing for the majority in Romer v. Evans, Justice Kennedy sustained the challenge. The majority found (by intuition, I guess) that the amendment was inspired solely by animosity--"animus," in Court-ese--toward homosexuals. And therefore, because a law that has no purpose except to persecute certain people serves no legitimate government purpose, the amendment did not even survive rational basis review.

    I believe Romer was an example of several members of the Court who have signed onto the homosexual agenda substituting their personal moral views for the views of a majority--in this case quite a large majority--of the people in a state. If and when the Court pulls another Roe and concocts a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage, I expect it will use similar arguments. Lawrence v. Texas, the Court's next major "gay" decision, also authored by Kennedy, also held that a state sodomy law did not even meet its rational basis review standard.
    Last edited by matchlight; 10-27-14 at 05:27 PM.

  7. #17
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,206

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I think the city and the members of the "task force" whose idea this ordinance appears to be tried to bully the owners with it, and when a powerful law group that defends cases like this took up the owners' cause and immediately sued in federal court, the locals gulped, reconsidered things, and reached what you call the "rightful ruling." As soon as they saw they were up against a formidable opponent, they had no heart for fighting.

    As I said earlier, I think this ordinance raises a free speech issue that is not affected at all by whether the owners are Christians, or whether they serve the public, or whether they do it for profit. The issue is whether a law unconstitutionally violates the freedom of speech, if it has the effect of compelling a private person, whether in business or not, to let other persons come on his property to foster or sponsor a message he disagrees with.

    I think the answer is yes. I also think the comments I quoted earlier by Justice Lewis Powell in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins are right to this point. In that case, the Supreme Court of the U.S. upheld a California Supreme Court decision that said the owner of a large shopping mall could not prevent people from handing out pamphlets on his property against the mall owner's claim that it unconstitutionally compelled him to endorse the message of the pamphlets. (First Amendment protected speech includes all sorts of expressive behavior, e.g. topless dancing; and the constitutional protection includes the right not to speak.)

    Powell concurred with the decision--but he discussed several reasons why the result probably would be different in a case involving only a single small business, rather than a giant mall. He also noted that a law that compelled private persons to let other persons use their property to promote viewpoints they disagreed with might well also violate the general right to personal privacy the Court has found the Constitution to imply.
    Tl Dr
    It's okay to be white

  8. #18
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The ordinance is objectionable just by its existence, and if it wasn't used on these owners, it will be used on someone else. It was apparently dreamed up by some "task force" and is meant to coerce private persons into accommodating homosexuals. I don't claim to know Idaho law, but I assume a municipal ordinance like this would have no purpose except to require something more than the state public accommodation law does.

    This affair reminds me of what happened in Colorado in the 1990's, when several cities, apparently responding to political pressure from rich and well-connected homosexuals, adopted ordinances extending special rights to homosexuals. The people of the state responded by amending the Colorado constitution to prohibit local governments from making ordinances that outran state laws. (Municipal governments are creatures of their states and derive their authority from state enabling laws.)

    The people of Colorado voted for the amendment by about a 70% majority, but the action was challenged as unconstitutional. The case of Romer v. Evans went to the Supreme Court, becoming the Court's second major "gay" decision in 1996. Writing for the majority in Romer v. Evans, Justice Kennedy sustained the challenge. The majority found (by intuition, I guess) that the amendment was inspired solely by animosity--"animus," in Court-ese--toward homosexuals. And therefore, because a law that has no purpose except to persecute certain people serves no legitimate government purpose, the amendment did not even survive rational basis review.

    I believe Romer was an example of several members of the Court who have signed onto the homosexual agenda substituting their personal moral views for the views of a majority--in this case quite a large majority--of the people in a state. If and when the Court pulls another Roe and concocts a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage, I expect it will use similar arguments. Lawrence v. Texas, the Court's next major "gay" decision, also authored by Kennedy, also held that a state sodomy law did not even meet its rational basis review standard.
    Meh, irrelevant. The city did not threaten them and no evidence has been pout forth to indicate otherwise. There may be a free speech case on a sexual orientation antidiscrimination ordinance but this is not it.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    Tl Dr
    I don't know what your cryptic abbreviations mean. If you have something to say to me, say it plainly.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Meh, irrelevant. The city did not threaten them and no evidence has been pout forth to indicate otherwise. There may be a free speech case on a sexual orientation antidiscrimination ordinance but this is not it.
    Can you explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened them for them to challenge the ordinance in court?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •