• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/rational?

Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/rational?


  • Total voters
    75
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

BTW - Personally I don't think the case will see the inside of a Federal Court for a couple of reasons:

1. The City already acknowledged that with the incorporation of The Hitching Post in September and it's ending removing the offerings of Civil Marriges from it's site that the law no longer applies since the business is operating as a religious corporation.

2. No complaint was filed in the May/June time frame when the owners asked the City about their status, no harm came to the business so there are no damages to correct.



If the complaint isn't withdrawn by mutual agreement, my opinion is that it is likely to be dismissed for lack of merit.


>>>>

You can't "act as" a religious corporation, you either are one, set up from the get-go legally, or you are not one. You don't get to switch back and forth at your whim.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

Forty years ago, no one believed gay marriage would ever be legal in the USA.



Things change.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

You can't "act as" a religious corporation, you either are one, set up from the get-go legally, or you are not one. You don't get to switch back and forth at your whim.

That shouldn't even be relevant.

Nothing in the First Amendment allows the rights affirmed therein to be dependent on whether or not one is engaging in any kind of commerce, nor which particular form of permission one may have sought from government to do so.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

You can't "act as" a religious corporation, you either are one, set up from the get-go legally, or you are not one. You don't get to switch back and forth at your whim.



The Knapps reincorporated from an S Corp to an LLC in September, didn't say it was "at a whim". At that time they also stopped performing Civil Marriages and only now provide religious services.

Not that much different really than the Baker in Colorado. To not provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples he changed his business model to not selling wedding cakes at all.

>>>>
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

1. Could you provide a link that shows the City communicated with The Hitching Post between the after the 17th and before the 23rd when they communicated that as a religious corporation The Hitching Post is exempt from the law under the paragraph previously cited? It should be interesting to see since the ADF complaint was filed on the 17th so it wouldn't have included the information you claim.

2. The communication where the "threat" (and I use the term loosely) occurred in the May/June time frame and it wasn't the city going to The Hitching Post and making a "threat". It was the owner that contacted the city to ask a question.

>>>>

Nope, but assuming the filed complaint is telling the truth, it's logically implicit.
Ordinance §9.56 went into effect on the 15th, and the Knapps refused a SSM the 17th, filing the complaint the same day.
As of the 17th when the complaint was filed, it said: "According to the City, the Knapps violated and still violate Ordinance §9.56".
If they are "still" violating it after it, there must have been some form of contact after §9.56 went into effect.

BTW - Personally I don't think the case will see the inside of a Federal Court for a couple of reasons:
1. The City already acknowledged that with the incorporation of The Hitching Post in September and it's ending removing the offerings of Civil Marriges from it's site that the law no longer applies since the business is operating as a religious corporation.
2. No complaint was filed in the May/June time frame when the owners asked the City about their status, no harm came to the business so there are no damages to correct.

If the complaint isn't withdrawn by mutual agreement, my opinion is that it is likely to be dismissed for lack of merit.

As I understand it, the city didn't start issuing SSM licenses until the 15th of October, so anyone filing a complaint before that would have been unlikely. Given the dates, it seems the couple were taking preemptive action.
Even if the city has decided they are exempt, it would still be interesting to see what a federal Court has to say on the matter. It might draw the line between business and religion differently than the city.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

so far

44 (86%) no, for obvious reasons
4 (8%) yes though NONE of them can provide any rational reasons based on legality or even logic why
3 (6%) others
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

They claimed they received a phone call from someone asking about them performing a same sex wedding. No complaint was ever filed against them, which is the only reason any city official would initiate contact with them and there is no record or evidence any city official ever contacted them.

They filed the suit for their fear that they could possibly face penalty for refusing even though there was never a complaint made against them, which is required before the city could take action if they were going to.

See reply to Worldwatcher above.
Given the dates involved, such a complaint must have been unlikely.

I don't expect news articles to go into detail, but what all the sources I've read seem to agree on is that the Knapps were concerned about the penalty aspects of the new ordinance and contacted the city about it. They were worried about what they learned, so they contacted an attorney, who urged them to file a restraining order against the city taking action aganst them. Given that they could have been bankrupted or sent to prison even if later found innocent, the preemptory nature of their suit doesn't seem unreasonable.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

No. I do however get a kick out people that think forcing people to commence in commerce is good, but not if what we are talking about is a church. As if slavery is ok as long as its churches not being made into slaves. Oh and btw, the first amendment applies to people in and outside of church.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

See reply to Worldwatcher above.
Given the dates involved, such a complaint must have been unlikely.

I don't expect news articles to go into detail, but what all the sources I've read seem to agree on is that the Knapps were concerned about the penalty aspects of the new ordinance and contacted the city about it. They were worried about what they learned, so they contacted an attorney, who urged them to file a restraining order against the city taking action aganst them. Given that they could have been bankrupted or sent to prison even if later found innocent, the preemptory nature of their suit doesn't seem unreasonable.

Being "concerned" that something might happen in the future is not legal grounds for a lawsuit. Not one that you will win anyway.

Plus they would have fines in all likelihood not even jail let alone prison. Something there was little chance of happening given their change in business model that happened prior to their suit being filed. They caused their problems, which is especially true if they end up complaining about how much this suit costs them in lawyer and any other fees.

Plus for all those unaware, there is a difference between prison and jail that has to do with length of time being served. They faced at the very, very most jail time, not prison time, and that was highly unlikely to happen in any reasonable case, even if the law applied to them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

Nope, but assuming the filed complaint is telling the truth, it's logically implicit.
Ordinance §9.56 went into effect on the 15th, and the Knapps refused a SSM the 17th, filing the complaint the same day.
As of the 17th when the complaint was filed, it said: "According to the City, the Knapps violated and still violate Ordinance §9.56".
If they are "still" violating it after it, there must have been some form of contact after §9.56 went into effect.

The ordinance had been in effect since June 4th, 2013. It didn't go in to effect on October 15th. On the 23rd, after the filing is when the city contacted The Hitching Post to inform them that as a religious corporation they were exempt. Same-sex Civil Marriage went into effect on the 15th statewide, that wasn't a date that had anything to do with the city.

As to "must have been some form of contact after §9.56 went into effect" there is no evidence in the complaint, and the ADF lawyers were very complete in establishing a background and timeline for the case, funny that with such a thorough filing they failed to mention any contact between The Hitching Post, LLC, or the ADF made by the city pertaining to the matter. They didn't so one can only assume that you made that up.


As I understand it, the city didn't start issuing SSM licenses until the 15th of October,...

There you are wrong again, the city doesn't issue marriage licenses - the issuing entity in this case is the Kootenai County Recorder.

...so anyone filing a complaint before that would have been unlikely. Given the dates, it seems the couple were taking preemptive action.

Exactly, it is the The Hitching Post, LLC acting in conjunction with the ADF that are trying to make a story. The never "threatened" them - answer a question when asked is not a "threat", nor had any complaint been filed where the city had initiated or planned action.


Even if the city has decided they are exempt, it would still be interesting to see what a federal Court has to say on the matter. It might draw the line between business and religion differently than the city.


Possible, but I don't think it will ever see the inside of a Federal court because the city didn't do anything, nor did they ever threaten anything, and even prior to the filing The Hitching Post restructured their business from an S corp to an LLC and stopped performing Civil Marriages making the case moot. My bet would be that if the ADF doesn't pull the case it will be dismissed on summary judgement.


>>>>
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

thank you for posting that link as it supports me 100%
there was ZERO force of any baker to service homosexual weddings in violation of their conscience.


True. No person of faith was "forced" to participate in services for same sex marriages against their conscience. They can always just get sued or be forced to close their business.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

1.)True. No person of faith was "forced" to participate in services for same sex marriages against their conscience.
2.) They can always just get sued or be forced to close their business.

1.) correct
2.) again there would be no FORCE and that would only be successful if they CHOOSE to break the law, become criminals and violate people rights like that bakery did

laws are laws and rights are rights

saying they are forced is like saying rap laws could force people to be virgins, its simply disingenuous

no business has been forced to participate in a gay marriage
VERY easy solution, dont choose to break the law and be a criminal and one wont face the consequences
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

The ordinance had been in effect since June 4th, 2013. It didn't go in to effect on October 15th. On the 23rd, after the filing is when the city contacted The Hitching Post to inform them that as a religious corporation they were exempt. Same-sex Civil Marriage went into effect on the 15th statewide, that wasn't a date that had anything to do with the city. As to "must have been some form of contact after §9.56 went into effect" there is no evidence in the complaint, and the ADF lawyers were very complete in establishing a background and timeline for the case, funny that with such a thorough filing they failed to mention any contact between The Hitching Post, LLC, or the ADF made by the city pertaining to the matter. They didn't so one can only assume that you made that up

June 4th is irrelevant. The city ordinance only became applicable to the Knapps as per October 15th.

The suit states that "According to the City, the Knapps violated and still violate Ordinance §9.56". This was filed October 17th.
You may be right, but that would mean the attorney lied when he filed the suit. I'm not disposed to believe that is the case until I see something a bit more convincing.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning October 23rd in relation to the suit, as any events on that day could not have influenced the Knapps in filing it.

Exactly, it is the The Hitching Post, LLC acting in conjunction with the ADF that are trying to make a story. The never "threatened" them - answer a question when asked is not a "threat", nor had any complaint been filed where the city had initiated or planned action.
The Knapps obviously disagreed since they filed a suit claiming so.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

Being "concerned" that something might happen in the future is not legal grounds for a lawsuit. Not one that you will win anyway.

The suit was not for damages, it was a request for a restraining order against enforcing §9.56 against the couple who filed it. I'm no legal expert, but it would surprise me if restraining orders in the US could not be filed preemptively.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

True. No person of faith was "forced" to participate in services for same sex marriages against their conscience. They can always just get sued or be forced to close their business.

If they can't handle backlash from the public for their discriminatory business decisions, they deserve to go out of business and it has absolutely nothing to do with legal action. So far not a single antigay business owner has been put out of business due to legal action against them for discriminatory practices. They have either faced strong negative public reaction, bringing down their sales dramatically or chose to change their business. The one business, SweetCakes by Melissa hasn't even been handed down a fine/judgment yet and still claim they went out of business (storefront) due to the legal action. Even most if not all of their legal fees were covered by someone else, some other group. You cannot force people to buy something from a business they do not agree with.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

The suit was not for damages, it was a request for a restraining order against enforcing §9.56 against the couple who filed it. I'm no legal expert, but it would surprise me if restraining orders in the US could not be filed preemptively.

Which is not the purpose of restraining orders. Either the law applies to them, in which the restraining order could not be used to prevent legitimate legal action against them, or it doesn't, in which the restraining order is completely pointless. They are wasting the courts time, which they should pay for.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

Which is not the purpose of restraining orders. Either the law applies to them, in which the restraining order could not be used to prevent legitimate legal action against them, or it doesn't, in which the restraining order is completely pointless. They are wasting the courts time, which they should pay for.

It sounds to me like you're saying that if a court sentences someone according to a law and a higher court later retroactively decides that the law was inapplicable, no damage could have been incurred by the defendants in the meantime.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

The suit states that "According to the City, the Knapps violated and still violate Ordinance §9.56". This was filed October 17th.
You may be right, but that would mean the attorney lied when he filed the suit.

No it doesn't mean they "lied", it means they were reacting to a reply to an inquiry by The Hitching Post (S Corp) from the May/June time frame. Since the complaint was filed on the 17th, it would of course had no mention of the City memo dated October 23rd - after the filing.

I'm not disposed to believe that is the case until I see something a bit more convincing.

You are of course free to believe as you wish, but the fact is that the City has notified the owners of The Hitching Post (LLC) that they qualify as a religious corporation and are not subject to the law.

Hitching Post exempt - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning October 23rd in relation to the suit, as any events on that day could not have influenced the Knapps in filing it.

Correct, however the 23rd is when the City told The Hitching Post that they are not subject to the law.


The Knapps obviously disagreed since they filed a suit claiming so.

They are free to disagree, dosen't change the facts of the timeline.


>>>>
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

It sounds to me like you're saying that if a court sentences someone according to a law and a higher court later retroactively decides that the law was inapplicable, no damage could have been incurred by the defendants in the meantime.

That has nothing to do with this case. If a judge decided that the law applies to them, then that decision is overturned later, the restraining order wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't change how much damages they incurred whether they had the restraining order or not.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

I don't believe they will be compelled to perform ceremonies. They have gone years with the ability to deny marriage rites for a variety of reasons. Getting married in a church is not the only means of legalizing a marriage, and as long as that is the case I see no likelihood of churches being mandated to perform any/all ceremonies requested of them.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

I don't think it's "rational," per se.

However, I certainly do believe that there are a number of people out there would like to see something along those lines happen.
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

I don't think it's "rational," per se.

However, I certainly do believe that there are a number of people out there would like to see something along those lines happen.

theres a number of people out there that thinks the terroristic act of blowing up abortion clinics is justified that doesnt mean much :shrug:
pointing out that those people are extremist is the point lol
 
Re: Do you believe the idea of churches being forced to marry people is likely/ration

No it doesn't mean they "lied", it means they were reacting to a reply to an inquiry by The Hitching Post (S Corp) from the May/June time frame. Since the complaint was filed on the 17th, it would of course had no mention of the City memo dated October 23rd - after the filing.

"Still". Adverb. - Happening or existing before now and continuing into the present.
A small deviation would seem natural, but we are talking 5 months. I would at the very least call that a misrepresentation of fact.

Correct, however the 23rd is when the City told The Hitching Post that they are not subject to the law.
And since that is not in dispute, nor relevant to the suit at the time it was filed, I fail to see why you keep mentioning it.
I did agree with you that the suit is now pretty much irrelevant a few posts back, you know.

They are free to disagree, dosen't change the facts of the timeline.
If that was an appeal to authority, it wasn't a very convincing one. The merits of any case are up to the judge or jury to decide.
We are starting to go over ground we've covered already, so unless you have something new to add...
 
Back
Top Bottom