• 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!

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

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Last edited:



KUOW News and Information

Pretty much what I expected. As long as they are only doing religious services they are exempt from the law.

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.
 
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.

Meh. I dunno many bullies who run to defend the very people they are being accused of bullying...

The group that helped create Coeur d'Alene's anti-discrimination ordinance says the Hitching Post shouldn't have to perform same-sex marriages. The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations says in a letter to the mayor and city council that the Knapps fall under the religious exemption in the law.

But do not let the facts interfere in your little persecution narrative. You Godwinned a thread in less than 5 posts. Impressive.
 
Last edited:



KUOW News and Information

Pretty much what I expected. As long as they are only doing religious services they are exempt from the law.

A quick look at their site seems to show they no longer are advertising that they do civil services, non-traditional services, or servies for other religions.

If all they're offering is traditional christian ceremonies, even if some may be in a non-traditional location (like on a roller coaster), then I think this is the rightful ruling.

If they start advertising that they're doing NON-Religious, or non-christian more specifically, ceremonies again then homosexual couples should be able to partake in those services without being denied due to their orientation because that "service" is not religious in nature.
 
A quick look at their site seems to show they no longer are advertising that they do civil services, non-traditional services, or servies for other religions.

If all they're offering is traditional christian ceremonies, even if some may be in a non-traditional location (like on a roller coaster), then I think this is the rightful ruling.

If they start advertising that they're doing NON-Religious, or non-christian more specifically, ceremonies again then homosexual couples should be able to partake in those services without being denied due to their orientation because that "service" is not religious in nature.



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.
 
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.



Down with all brownshirts, leftists,rightists and middle-of-the-roadists.
 
Down with all brownshirts, leftists,rightists and middle-of-the-roadists.

True, classical liberals, who are usually called "conservatives" today, are strongly opposed to the kind of collectivist coercion fake "liberals" love so well. Calling us brownshirts would be silly, because we believe in the same personal liberties as the men who founded this country. It is statists who have contempt for those rights and for the Constitution that protects them. That's why they love ever more centralized government control, with ever more laws and regulations to push people around. Some of these people are promoting the homosexual agenda, and in doing that they put their intolerant bullying on full display. It looks like they may have gotten a splash of cold water in the face in this case. If leftist dim bulbs want to fight, they will get all the fight they ever wanted.
 
Down with all brownshirts, leftists,rightists and middle-of-the-roadists.

Can I wear a brown jacket? Leather jackets are stylish in my industry.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?feature=player_embedded&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 "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 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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom