Perform Same-Sex Marriage Or Go To Jail !!!!!!

[robrecht]

FYI - on Fox last night: it looks like the City is backing off. And if the Knapps register as a "religious corporation," which they are doing, they will be protected by Idaho state law going forward. A good thing...

How is that the city backing off? If you assume their objective was too force gay marriage upon churches, then that interpretation would make sense. Is there any indication that this was their intention? Has the city tried to force any other churches to perform gay marriages?

[seer]

How is that the city backing off? If you assume their objective was too force gay marriage upon churches, then that interpretation would make sense. Is there any indication that this was their intention? Has the city tried to force any other churches to perform gay marriages?

No, they were trying to force these ministers to perform gay marriages, under the threat of fines and jail time. The City corporate counsel was on Fox last night and said they are dropping the case. A win for religious freedom - don't you agree?

[robrecht]

No, they were trying to force these ministers to perform gay marriages, under the threat of fines and jail time. The City corporate counsel was on Fox last night and said they are dropping the case. A win for religious freedom - don't you agree?

Dropping the case because the Knapps are registering as a religious corporation? Sounds like the Knapps are availing themselves of religious freedoms that were already available to them but which they had previously not claimed. Any idea why? Is there a reason why they had not previously considered themselves a religious corporation?

[seer]

Dropping the case because the Knapps are registering as a religious corporation? Sounds like the Knapps are availing themselves of religious freedoms that were already available to them but which they had previously not claimed. Any idea why? Is there a reason why they had not previously considered themselves a religious corporation?

No, the case wasn't dropped because of that - incorporation will come later. And I suspect that they never thought they would need the protection of religious incorporation in the past. In any case I'm happy for this small victory - aren't you?

[robrecht]

No, the case wasn't dropped because of that - incorporation will come later. And I suspect that they never thought they would need the protection of religious incorporation in the past.

But note that in the past they advertized that they performed traditional Christian ceremonies or wedding ceremonies of other faiths or civil ceremonies. Do you see the difference?

[seer]

But note that in the past they advertized that they performed traditional Christian ceremonies or wedding ceremonies of other faiths or civil ceremonies. Do you see the difference?

No, I don't see the difference - it is still the state trying to force them to violate their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And I will ask again robrecht: In any case I'm happy for this small victory - aren't you?

[robrecht]

No, I don't see the difference - it is still the state trying to force them to violate their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And I will ask again robrecht: In any case I'm happy for this small victory - aren't you?

I'm happy that these people will now avail themselves of their God given and state sanctioned religious freedoms, sure, absolutely, but from what I can see the state was never trying to prohibit them, by force or otherwise, from availing themselves of their rights to religious freedom.

[seer]

I'm happy that these people will now avail themselves of their God given and state sanctioned religious freedoms, sure, absolutely, but from what I can see the state was never trying to prohibit them, by force or otherwise, from availing themselves of their rights to religious freedom.

What are you talking about? If you compel a man by law to be involved in something he finds deeply immoral (i.e. officiate a homosexual marriage) how is that not the state forcing them to do something?

[robrecht]

What are you talking about? If you compel a man by law to be involved in something he finds deeply immoral (i.e. officiate a homosexual marriage) how is that not the state forcing them to do something?

But the state never forced them to offer civil services and non-Christian religious services for a fee.

[seer]

But the state never forced them to offer civil services and non-Christian religious services for a fee.

And what is your point? The state is attempting to force them to marry homosexual couples.That is not morally acceptable to them. And that it violates the Knapp's religious beliefs and I quote “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.” No matter how you cut it, it is the state trying to compel this couple to violate their beliefs.

[phank]

And what is your point? The state is attempting to force them to marry homosexual couples.That is not morally acceptable to them. And that it violates the Knapp's religious beliefs and I quote “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.” No matter how you cut it, it is the state trying to compel this couple to violate their beliefs.

I think the point is that in opening this business and offering to marry people however they wanted, they were undertaking the known risk that they might have to perform a ceremony uncongenial to their religion. Commercial (for-profit) marriage mills can't be any more choosy about their customers than WalMart.

[seer]

I think the point is that in opening this business and offering to marry people however they wanted, they were undertaking the known risk that they might have to perform a ceremony uncongenial to their religion. Commercial (for-profit) marriage mills can't be any more choosy about their customers than WalMart.

Well no, it was NOT a known risk because state law prohibited homosexual marriage until the courts recently over turned it. And yes, they actually can refuse to marry homosexual couples if they file as a "religious corporation." Which they are in the process of doing.

[One Bad Pig]

But note that in the past they advertized that they performed traditional Christian ceremonies or wedding ceremonies of other faiths or civil ceremonies. Do you see the difference?

If they've been willing to perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths, then that changes things a bit. You can't just arbitrarily disregard religious differences on one hand and use them as a shield to stand behind on the other.

[Sparko]

I think the point is that in opening this business and offering to marry people however they wanted, they were undertaking the known risk that they might have to perform a ceremony uncongenial to their religion. Commercial (for-profit) marriage mills can't be any more choosy about their customers than WalMart.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about a religious institution or business being non-profit only. A church usually takes advantage of the government's allowance for being non-profit by becoming a 501(c) corporation, but nothing says it has to. It can run as a for profit business if it wants. In fact my church has said that if it ever came down to the government threatening to take away their 501(c) status because of their stance on certain issues (like marriage or abortion) - they would gladly give it up and keep preaching the same message.

[seer]

If they've been willing to perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths, then that changes things a bit. You can't just arbitrarily disregard religious differences on one hand and use them as a shield to stand behind on the other.

Yes, but they see those other marriages as legitimate, according to the biblical model of one man and one woman.