Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

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

  1. #21
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Can you explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened them for them to challenge the ordinance in court?

    In my understanding is the city never "threatened" anyone.

    My reading on the case from various sources seems to make the following timeline (this is from memory) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong factually:

    1. Prior status: The Hitiching Post existed as an S Corporation. A form of corporation used for closely held businesses where the business does not pay federal income taxes but profits or losses are the direct responsibility of the shareholders. In other words if the business has a major loss (like losing a lawsuit) then it is the owners who are personally responsible for paying for the loss.

    2. May 2014, Idaho's ban on same-sex Civil Marriage is found to be unconstitutional in Federal District court.

    3. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.

    4. During this timeframe history, May ruling and during the stay period The Hitching Post performed and advertised for "traditional and civil marriages". (This is important.)

    5. In May a reporter talked to the Knapps about the District Court ruling and that Idaho's law had been ruled unconstitutional.

    6. Still in May and only days after the District Court ruling the city attorney (Warren Wilson) was asked about The Hitching Post as a Public Accommodation and said the below (from the ADF lawsuit). Now if you look in the news report were this comes from (https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=s19VX8KVSp4), he's standing outside the building so obviously it was a walkup, outside interview and we have no idea the level of preparation - if any. There is no "threat" there, simply pointing out that under the ordinance businesses in the wedding business would fall under the law.

    “I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding)
    activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said. Similar laws have applied to florists,
    bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in
    other states, Wilson noted. “Those have all been addressed in various states and
    run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the
    Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation
    that would be subject to the ordinance.” In Washington, no clergy person is
    required to marry a couple if doing so would violate the dictates of their faith
    tradition. Idaho does not have a similar exemption in place, but religious entities
    are exempt from the Coeur d’Alene ordinance, so pastors in the city are not
    obligated to perform same-sex weddings. But any nonreligious business that hosts
    civil ceremonies would fall under the city law, Wilson said."

    7. Between May and October The Hitiching post continues to advertise for Civil Marriages.

    8. Still in May, the Knapps contacted the City Attorney and asked him what would happen if their business refused to provide same-sex marriages under the ordinance. The attorney responded with what the law said - a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.

    9. September 2014 The Hitching Post changes it's legal status from an S Corp to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) which provides a hirer degree of insulation for the owners personal assets in the event of a major loss by the LLC.

    10. October 7th Idaho's ban being found unconstitutional is upheld by the 9th Circuit.

    11. Sometime shortly after the ban the website for The Hitching Post purged references to Civil Marriages and emphasized that they would only perform traditional Christian weddings.

    11. October, SCOTUS rejects stay request.

    12. October 15th SSCM's start.

    13. October 23rd the City sent a letter to the Knapps that said "[I]t is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by Hitching Post Weddings LLC is exempt from the requirements of the ordinance and would not be subject to prosecution under the ordinance if a complaint was received by the city."
    9. October 6th The Hitching Post files file documents showing the intent to operate a religious organization.



    *******************************************

    1. The business "The Hitching Post, S Corp" probably would have run afould of the Public Accommodation ordinance because the business advertised for and performed civil weddings in addition to the religous services they performed.

    2. The business reorganized into "The Hitching Post, LLC" and removed civil weddings from it's business model and now advertises only for traditional Christian weddings (a religious ceremony) and not civil marriages.

    3. Telling someone that asks what the penealities are for breaking the law is not a "threat". If I call the local DA's office and ask what then penalty for murder is in my state and he tells me life in prison or with unusual circumstances death, that is not the DA threatening me with life in prison or death. It's answering the question that I asked.



    >>>>

  2. #22
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    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.
    The truth, the Hitching Post ran scared and stopped doing non-religious marriages and now their profits will go down as a result.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #23
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Can you explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened them for them to challenge the ordinance in court?
    Asking distracting questions doesn't change the fact that you lied when you claimed the city tried to bully the Hitching Post.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #24
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,208

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I don't know what your cryptic abbreviations mean. If you have something to say to me, say it plainly.
    Google is your friend.
    It's okay to be white

  5. #25
    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
    Google is your friend.
    To hell with Google. If you've got something to say to me, then say it.

  6. #26
    Advisor 29A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    450

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I don't know what your cryptic abbreviations mean. If you have something to say to me, say it plainly.
    Usually tl;dr - too long; didn't read.

  7. #27
    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 WorldWatcher View Post
    In my understanding is the city never "threatened" anyone.

    My reading on the case from various sources seems to make the following timeline (this is from memory) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong factually:

    1. Prior status: The Hitiching Post existed as an S Corporation. A form of corporation used for closely held businesses where the business does not pay federal income taxes but profits or losses are the direct responsibility of the shareholders. In other words if the business has a major loss (like losing a lawsuit) then it is the owners who are personally responsible for paying for the loss.

    2. May 2014, Idaho's ban on same-sex Civil Marriage is found to be unconstitutional in Federal District court.

    3. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.

    4. During this timeframe history, May ruling and during the stay period The Hitching Post performed and advertised for "traditional and civil marriages". (This is important.)

    5. In May a reporter talked to the Knapps about the District Court ruling and that Idaho's law had been ruled unconstitutional.

    6. Still in May and only days after the District Court ruling the city attorney (Warren Wilson) was asked about The Hitching Post as a Public Accommodation and said the below (from the ADF lawsuit). Now if you look in the news report were this comes from (https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=s19VX8KVSp4), he's standing outside the building so obviously it was a walkup, outside interview and we have no idea the level of preparation - if any. There is no "threat" there, simply pointing out that under the ordinance businesses in the wedding business would fall under the law.

    “I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding)
    activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said. Similar laws have applied to florists,
    bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in
    other states, Wilson noted. “Those have all been addressed in various states and
    run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the
    Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation
    that would be subject to the ordinance.” In Washington, no clergy person is
    required to marry a couple if doing so would violate the dictates of their faith
    tradition. Idaho does not have a similar exemption in place, but religious entities
    are exempt from the Coeur d’Alene ordinance, so pastors in the city are not
    obligated to perform same-sex weddings. But any nonreligious business that hosts
    civil ceremonies would fall under the city law, Wilson said."

    7. Between May and October The Hitiching post continues to advertise for Civil Marriages.

    8. Still in May, the Knapps contacted the City Attorney and asked him what would happen if their business refused to provide same-sex marriages under the ordinance. The attorney responded with what the law said - a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.

    9. September 2014 The Hitching Post changes it's legal status from an S Corp to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) which provides a hirer degree of insulation for the owners personal assets in the event of a major loss by the LLC.

    10. October 7th Idaho's ban being found unconstitutional is upheld by the 9th Circuit.

    11. Sometime shortly after the ban the website for The Hitching Post purged references to Civil Marriages and emphasized that they would only perform traditional Christian weddings.

    11. October, SCOTUS rejects stay request.

    12. October 15th SSCM's start.

    13. October 23rd the City sent a letter to the Knapps that said "[I]t is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by Hitching Post Weddings LLC is exempt from the requirements of the ordinance and would not be subject to prosecution under the ordinance if a complaint was received by the city."
    9. October 6th The Hitching Post files file documents showing the intent to operate a religious organization.



    *******************************************

    1. The business "The Hitching Post, S Corp" probably would have run afould of the Public Accommodation ordinance because the business advertised for and performed civil weddings in addition to the religous services they performed.

    2. The business reorganized into "The Hitching Post, LLC" and removed civil weddings from it's business model and now advertises only for traditional Christian weddings (a religious ceremony) and not civil marriages.

    3. Telling someone that asks what the penealities are for breaking the law is not a "threat". If I call the local DA's office and ask what then penalty for murder is in my state and he tells me life in prison or with unusual circumstances death, that is not the DA threatening me with life in prison or death. It's answering the question that I asked.



    >>>>
    I asked you to explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened the owners of the Hitching Post for them to challenge the ordinance in court. You posted a detailed history of the events, but you never answered my question.

  8. #28
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Can you explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened them for them to challenge the ordinance in court?
    In my understanding is the city never "threatened" anyone.

    My reading on the case from various sources seems to make the following timeline (this is from memory) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong factually:

    1. Prior status: The Hitiching Post existed as an S Corporation. A form of corporation used for closely held businesses where the business does not pay federal income taxes but profits or losses are the direct responsibility of the shareholders. In other words if the business has a major loss (like losing a lawsuit) then it is the owners who are personally responsible for paying for the loss.

    2. May 2014, Idaho's ban on same-sex Civil Marriage is found to be unconstitutional in Federal District court.

    3. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.

    4. During this timeframe history, May ruling and during the stay period The Hitching Post performed and advertised for "traditional and civil marriages". (This is important.)

    5. In May a reporter talked to the Knapps about the District Court ruling and that Idaho's law had been ruled unconstitutional.

    6. Still in May and only days after the District Court ruling the city attorney (Warren Wilson) was asked about The Hitching Post as a Public Accommodation and said the below (from the ADF lawsuit). Now if you look in the news report were this comes from (https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=s19VX8KVSp4), he's standing outside the building so obviously it was a walkup, outside interview and we have no idea the level of preparation - if any. There is no "threat" there, simply pointing out that under the ordinance businesses in the wedding business would fall under the law.

    “I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding)
    activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said. Similar laws have applied to florists,
    bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in
    other states, Wilson noted. “Those have all been addressed in various states and
    run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the
    Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation
    that would be subject to the ordinance.” In Washington, no clergy person is
    required to marry a couple if doing so would violate the dictates of their faith
    tradition. Idaho does not have a similar exemption in place, but religious entities
    are exempt from the Coeur d’Alene ordinance, so pastors in the city are not
    obligated to perform same-sex weddings. But any nonreligious business that hosts
    civil ceremonies would fall under the city law, Wilson said."

    7. Between May and October The Hitiching post continues to advertise for Civil Marriages.

    8. Still in May, the Knapps contacted the City Attorney and asked him what would happen if their business refused to provide same-sex marriages under the ordinance. The attorney responded with what the law said - a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.

    9. September 2014 The Hitching Post changes it's legal status from an S Corp to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) which provides a hirer degree of insulation for the owners personal assets in the event of a major loss by the LLC.

    10. October 7th Idaho's ban being found unconstitutional is upheld by the 9th Circuit.

    11. Sometime shortly after the ban the website for The Hitching Post purged references to Civil Marriages and emphasized that they would only perform traditional Christian weddings.

    11. October, SCOTUS rejects stay request.

    12. October 15th SSCM's start.

    13. October 23rd the City sent a letter to the Knapps that said "[I]t is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by Hitching Post Weddings LLC is exempt from the requirements of the ordinance and would not be subject to prosecution under the ordinance if a complaint was received by the city."
    9. October 6th The Hitching Post files file documents showing the intent to operate a religious organization.



    *******************************************

    1. The business "The Hitching Post, S Corp" probably would have run afould of the Public Accommodation ordinance because the business advertised for and performed civil weddings in addition to the religous services they performed.

    2. The business reorganized into "The Hitching Post, LLC" and removed civil weddings from it's business model and now advertises only for traditional Christian weddings (a religious ceremony) and not civil marriages.

    3. Telling someone that asks what the penealities are for breaking the law is not a "threat". If I call the local DA's office and ask what then penalty for murder is in my state and he tells me life in prison or with unusual circumstances death, that is not the DA threatening me with life in prison or death. It's answering the question that I asked.



    >>>>
    I asked you to explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened the owners of the Hitching Post for them to challenge the ordinance in court. You posted a detailed history of the events, but you never answered my question.

    I don't agree with your premise that the city "threatened" the Knapps to begin with. As shown with the emphasized text above.



    To understand why I disagree you have to understand the timeline of events.

    1. During the time that "The Hitiching Post" was a S Corp, they accepted and advertised for the performance of Civil Marriages (a non-religious ceremony). During this time there were two conditions that existed: (a) The Hitching Post only performed marriages with Marriage Licenses, and (b) Same-sex Civil Marriage licenses weren't issued by Idaho. The Hitching Post then had no same-sex civil marriages (SSCMs) to perform.

    2. During that time frame, and because they advertised for nonreligious ceremonies, they would have fallen under the Public Accommodation law for the performance of nonreligoius activities.

    3. **THEY ASKED** the city what (a) if they fell under the law and two what the penalties would be for violation. Answering a question with what the law states is not a threat.

    4. Shortly before SSCMs became legal in Idaho they (a) changed their business model, (b) committed to performing only religious ceremonies, and (c) updated their advertising to eliminate civil ceremonies. With the reorganization of the business, they then qualified for the exemption of a religious organization and the city acknowledged that.


    I disagreed with your premise and showed you **WHY** the premise was wrong.

    Does that clear it up for you?

    If I call the DA and ask if I would be held accountable under the law for knowingly writing bad checks and ask what the penalty is and the DA explains that yes it is illegal to knowingly write bad checks and then I ask what the punishment is for check fraud and (s)he explains that - is that a threat?


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 11-01-14 at 08:22 PM.

  9. #29
    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 29A View Post
    Usually tl;dr - too long; didn't read.
    Thank you. I came to this site hoping to get more intelligent debate, and in general, I have. But there are exceptions. Some people have trouble understanding anything that's not in a comic book. And many of them are so close-minded that they refuse even to try--thinking gives them a headache.

  10. #30
    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 WorldWatcher View Post
    I don't agree with your premise that the city "threatened" the Knapps to begin with. As shown with the emphasized text above.



    To understand why I disagree you have to understand the timeline of events.

    1. During the time that "The Hitiching Post" was a S Corp, they accepted and advertised for the performance of Civil Marriages (a non-religious ceremony). During this time there were two conditions that existed: (a) The Hitching Post only performed marriages with Marriage Licenses, and (b) Same-sex Civil Marriage licenses weren't issued by Idaho. The Hitching Post then had no same-sex civil marriages (SSCMs) to perform.

    2. During that time frame, and because they advertised for nonreligious ceremonies, they would have fallen under the Public Accommodation law for the performance of nonreligoius activities.

    3. **THEY ASKED** the city what (a) if they fell under the law and two what the penalties would be for violation. Answering a question with what the law states is not a threat.

    4. Shortly before SSCMs became legal in Idaho they (a) changed their business model, (b) committed to performing only religious ceremonies, and (c) updated their advertising to eliminate civil ceremonies. With the reorganization of the business, they then qualified for the exemption of a religious organization and the city acknowledged that.


    I disagreed with your premise and showed you **WHY** the premise was wrong.

    Does that clear it up for you?

    If I call the DA and ask if I would be held accountable under the law for knowingly writing bad checks and ask what the penalty is and the DA explains that yes it is illegal to knowingly write bad checks and then I ask what the punishment is for check fraud and (s)he explains that - is that a threat?


    >>>>
    All right, assume the city did not threaten the Knapps. I don't care if they did or not, nor am I interested in the sequence of events. I asked you to explain why some open threat by the city was needed before the Knapps could file a suit challenging the ordinance. You still have not done that. Tell me what you know that the constitutional lawyers in the public law firm that is working with the Knapps did not know. Why are they such fools as to have filed a federal suit no court could recognize?

Page 3 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
  •