Will Churches Be Compelled To Perform/recognize Same-Sex Marriages?

[smac97]

Now that same-sex marriage is increasingly becoming the law of the land, will religions and religious ministers be forced/coerced by government to perform and/or recognize same-sex marriages?
 
I hope not, but take a look at this (emphases added):
 

Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines
Officials threaten to punish senior citizen couple – both ordained pastors – if they decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies
Saturday, October 18, 2014

COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

“The government exists to protect and respect our freedoms, not attack them,” Tedesco added. “The city cannot erase these fundamental freedoms and replace them with government coercion and intolerance.”

The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is across the street from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office, which issues marriage licenses. The Knapps, both in their 60s and who themselves have been married for 47 years, began operating the wedding chapel in 1989 as a ministry. They perform religious wedding ceremonies, which include references to God, the invocation of God’s blessing on the union, brief remarks drawn from the Bible designed to encourage the couple and help them to have a successful marriage, and more. They also provide each couple they marry with a CD that includes two sermons about marriage, and they recommend numerous Christian books on the subject. The Knapps charge a small fee for their services.

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

Virginia McNulty Robinson, one of nearly 2,500 private attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel on behalf of the Knapps in Knapp v. City of Coeur d’Alene, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Some trenchant observations on this story here:
 

It is one of the tenets of the current movement toward gay marriage. They get to get married, Christians are forced to provide goods and services if they demand it, but — and this is the key caveat of it all — but Christian ministers will not be forced to wed gays because of their religious concerns.

That was last week. This is this week where the government of Coeur D’Alene, Idaho is forcing two Christians pastors to marry gays.
...
For the rest of us, the Knapps are Christians. They run their Hitching Post as a ministry and their weddings are religious affairs with quotes from scripture, etc.

That does not matter.

According to the state, the Knapp’s must provide gay marriages if they are to marry anyone at all.

You will be made to care. The Knapp’s will be made to care. And all the people who said this would never happen will move the goal posts.

So what do you think? Are we headed down that road? If so, how will this play out? Will "public accommodations" laws be used to compel religious groups to violate the tenets of their belief systems? Will tax exxemptions be threatened for religious groups who resist demands that they recognize/perform same-sex marriages? Will religious groups be denied access to public facilities unless they knuckle under on this issue?

And how would this play out specifically for the LDS Church? Unlike most other Christian ministers, Latter-day Saints who are authorized to perform marriages (sealers, bishops, etc.) do not, indeed cannot, charge for their services. This might end up being a significant think, since the Knapps in the story above are being targeted specifically because they provide a service in exchange for a fee, which triggers public accommodation laws.

 

Thoughts?

 

-Smac

[Daniel2]

Thoughts....?


Ok, Smac.

My thoughts: as a lawyer who knows better, this scare-mongering is really very beneath you.

Shame on you.

 

You're out of the thread, Daniel.

[smac97]

Thoughts....?

Ok, Smac.

My thoughts: as a lawyer who knows better, this scare-mongering is really very beneath you.

Shame on you.

What do you mean? Are you denying the factual statements in the article? Are you suggesting that Donald and Evelyn Knapp are not being threatened with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages?

Thanks,

-Smac

[6EQUJ5]

Thoughts....?

Ok, Smac.

My thoughts: as a lawyer who knows better, this scare-mongering is really very beneath you.

Shame on you.

 

No kidding.

 

There is a clear difference between a for-profit marriage chapel and the marriage duties performed by a local minister -- especially a lay minister in the LDS Church.  Will the LDS Church be forced to perform gay marriages?  No.  Clearly and unequivocally.  We need look no further than the 1970's when the Church WAS NOT forced to marry blacks in the temple or perform black/.... interracial marriages.  As you say, this is nothing more than scare-mongering nonsense.

 

But perhaps there is no difference between an Elvis-impersonator ordained minister at a drive-through Las Vegas wedding chapel and lay sealers at the Las Vegas temple.  Yeah.  Completely the same thing.

[6EQUJ5]

What do you mean? Are you denying the factual statements in the article? Are you suggesting that Donald and Evelyn Knapp are not being threatened with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

They run a business, Smac.  They are ordained ministers in the same way John Dehlin is an ordained minister.  Don't play like you don't see the difference.

[smac97]

No kidding.

 

There is a clear difference between a for-profit marriage chapel and the marriage duties performed by a local minister -- especially a lay minister in the LDS Church.

What is that difference? It is my understanding that most Christian ministers charge a fee for their services.

Will the LDS Church be forced to perform gay marriages?  No.  Clearly and unequivocally.  We need look no further than the 1970's when the Church WAS NOT forced to marry blacks in the temple or perform black/.... interracial marriages.  As you say, this is nothing more than scare-mongering nonsense.

 

But perhaps there is no difference between an Elvis-impersonator ordained minister at a drive-through Las Vegas wedding chapel and lay sealers at the Las Vegas temple.  Yeah.  Completely the same thing.

So because Donald and Evelyn Knapp charge a fee to perform wedding services, they can be compelled by the state, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs, is that correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

They run a business, Smac.  They are ordained ministers in the same way John Dehlin is an ordained minister.  Don't play like you don't see the difference.

I'm not playing. I am genuinely trying to understand your position. Are you saying that for-profit entities which charge a fee to perform wedding services can be compelled by the state, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs, but that non-profit entities cannot be so compelled?

So whether individuals can be compelled by the state, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs depends on . . . their status with the IRS?

Thanks,

-Smac

[WysteriaBlue]

I don't believe for one minute that ordained ministers of churches that have taken the ordination vows that prohibit them marrying SS couples will be forced by law to perform such marriages.

 

There are plenty of for hire ministers and Justices of the Peace who by law will indeed probably have to perform them and want the choice to do so..

 

There are already two UMC ministers in the DFW metroplex that have been "defrocked" for going against the council's ban on SSM..

 

There are some churches that do not ban their ordained ministers from performing SSM and I'm sure they will be available as well..

 

This is just inflammatory and prejudicial in the extreme to start such an argument.

[smac97]

I don't believe for one minute that ordained ministers of churches that have taken the ordination vows that prohibit them marrying SS couples will be forced by law to perform such marriages.

I hope you are right.

 

There are plenty of for hire ministers and Justices of the Peace who by law will indeed probably have to perform them and want the choice to do so..

I do not fully understand this statement. What do you mean "and want the choice to do so?"

 

There are already two UMC ministers in the DFW metroplex that have been "defrocked" for going against the council's ban on SSM..

That is a separate question from the state coercing, through threats of fine and imprisonment, ministers who refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

 

There are some churches that do not ban their ordained ministers from performing SSM and I'm sure they will be available as well..

Again, this thread is not about religious groups who do or do not prohibit their clergy from performing same-sex marriages. This thread is about whether the state can coerce, through threats of fine and imprisonment, ministers who refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The answer appears to be "Yes, the state can coerce, through threats of fine and imprisonment, ministers into performing same-sex marriages in some circumstances." Is that a fair statement?

 

This is just inflammatory and prejudicial in the extreme to start such an argument.

Then feel free to withdraw from the thread.

Hmm. Four responsive posts, all pretty much saying "tut tut, how dare you even talk about such a thing!", but not addressing the substance of the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2014 by smac97

[3DOP]

Now that same-sex marriage is increasingly becoming the law of the land, will religions and religious ministers be forced/coerced by government to perform and/or recognize same-sex marriages?

 

I hope not, but take a look at this (emphases added):

 

Some trenchant observations on this story here:

 

So what do you think? Are we headed down that road? If so, how will this play out? Will "public accommodations" laws be used to compel religious groups to violate the tenets of their belief systems? Will tax exxemptions be threatened for religious groups who resist demands that they recognize/perform same-sex marriages? Will religious groups be denied access to public facilities unless they knuckle under on this issue?

And how would this play out specifically for the LDS Church? Unlike most other Christian ministers, Latter-day Saints who are authorized to perform marriages (sealers, bishops, etc.) do not, indeed cannot, charge for their services. This might end up being a significant think, since the Knapps in the story above are being targeted specifically because they provide a service in exchange for a fee, which triggers public accommodation laws.

 

Thoughts?

 

-Smac

 

Ten years ago same sex marriage was unimaginable. Even as early as President Obama's first term, when  it was beginning to be discussed, Obama came out against. Now? Who could have foreseen such a transformation in the way the people are thinking? Considering the blitzkrieg victory of the homosexual agenda, yes, I am afraid I tend to see religious objection being denied by the law as a reason to be uncooperative with same sex marriage

[EllenMaksoud]

Now that same-sex marriage is increasingly becoming the law of the land, will religions and religious ministers be forced/coerced by government to perform and/or recognize same-sex marriages?

 

I hope not, but take a look at this (emphases added):

 

Some trenchant observations on this story here:

 

So what do you think? Are we headed down that road? If so, how will this play out? Will "public accommodations" laws be used to compel religious groups to violate the tenets of their belief systems? Will tax exxemptions be threatened for religious groups who resist demands that they recognize/perform same-sex marriages? Will religious groups be denied access to public facilities unless they knuckle under on this issue?

And how would this play out specifically for the LDS Church? Unlike most other Christian ministers, Latter-day Saints who are authorized to perform marriages (sealers, bishops, etc.) do not, indeed cannot, charge for their services. This might end up being a significant think, since the Knapps in the story above are being targeted specifically because they provide a service in exchange for a fee, which triggers public accommodation laws.

 

Thoughts?

 

-Smac

OK, what about the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution? I can see a distinction between a church and a pseudo Justice of the peace. It is not a religion. The rest of this business I am staying out of.

[Daniel2]

And based on smac's answers, I have lost all respect for his "legal expertize."

Sad to see religious loyalty win over academic professionalism.

[smac97]

They run a business, Smac.  They are ordained ministers in the same way John Dehlin is an ordained minister.  Don't play like you don't see the difference.

 

I don't see a legally significant difference.  And neither, apparently, does Eugene Volokh (a non-Mormon law professor at UCLA):

Donald and Evelyn Knapp are apparently ordained ministers who run The Hitching Post, a chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, at which they conduct weddings. (This strikes me as quite similar to many ministers’ practice of charging to officiate weddings when they are invited to do so at other venues.)

Note his parenthetical remark.

Coeur d’Alene has an ordinance banning discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.

...

Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion.

This was my preliminary assessment.

Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)

What are your thoughts on Prof. Volokh's analysis, particularly his invocation of Wooley and his parenthetical remark about the Establishment Clause?

I think the Knapps are also entitled to an exemption under the Idaho RFRA.

RFRA = Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Knapps allege that “sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman”; I know of no reason to think they’re lying about their beliefs. Requiring them to violate their beliefs (or close their business) is a substantial burden on their religious practice.

And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don’t see how there would be a “compelling” government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.

What are your thoughts on Volokh's application of the RFRA to this matter?

Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply there, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well. And the logic of any rejection of the Knapp’s Free Speech Clause claims and Idaho RFRA claims would apply just as much to the itinerant officiant as to the one who has his own chapel.

Hmm. It sounds like the "clear difference between a for-profit marriage chapel and the marriage duties performed by a local minister" referenced by 6EQUJ5 are not so "clear" after all.

Also, I can't help but think that 6EQUJ5 approves of, or at least is indifferent to, Donald and Evelyn Knapp being threatened with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. 6EQUJ5, can you weigh in? What is your position? Do you think the state can coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs? Do you think the state should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

And based on smac's answers, I have lost all respect for his "legal expertize."

Sad to see religious loyalty win over academic professionalism.

First, it's "expertise."

Second, I have not presented much in the way of "expertise" in this thread. I did not present it based on my status as an attorney. It is you who are injecting my profession into this thread, apparently attempting to poison the well, or something.

Third, see my post quoting Eugene Volokh's analysis. But I suppose you can summarily dismiss his thoughts as well. He's only a constitutional law professor at UCLA. And a Jew. He must be spewing nonsense due to his "religious loyalty" (except that he supports same-sex marriage...).

Fourth, the Volokh quotes are from the Washington Post. Is the WaPo guilty of scaremongering too?

I am still waiting for substantive analysis from you. You have offered nothing so far except for personal swipes against me. Please cut it out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2014 by smac97

[Daniel2]

First, it's "expertise."

Second, I have not presented much in the way of "expertise" in this thread. I did not present it based on my status as an attorney. It is you who are injecting my profession into this thread, apparently attempting to poison the well, or something.

Third, see my post quoting Eugene Volokh's analysis. But I suppose you can summarily dismiss his thoughts as well. He's only a constitutional law professor at UCLA. And a Jew. He must be spewing nonsense due to his "religious loyalty" (except that he supports same-sex marriage...).

Fourth, the Volokh quotes are from the Washington Post. Is the WaPo guilty of scaremongering too?

I am still waiting for substantive analysis from you. You have offered nothing so far except for personal swipes against me. Please cut it out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Spelling corrections....? Ha!

Personal swipes are all that's warranted against the legal drivel of this thread.

And you know it.

[smac97]

Spelling corrections....? Ha!

Personal swipes are all that's warranted against the legal drivel of this thread.

And you know it.

Fine. Then please leave the thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[6EQUJ5]

What are your thoughts on Prof. Volokh's analysis, particularly his invocation of Wooley and his parenthetical remark about the Establishment Clause?

 

Nonsense.

 

What are your thoughts on Volokh's application of the RFRA to this matter?

 

Nonsense.

 

Hmm. It sounds like the "clear difference between a for-profit marriage chapel and the marriage duties performed by a local minister" referenced by 6EQUJ5 are not so "clear" after all.

 

 

Actually, it's quite clear to one not seeking to substitute rhetoric for substance.

 

Also, I can't help but think that 6EQUJ5 approves of, or at least is indifferent to, Donald and Evelyn Knapp being threatened with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. 6EQUJ5, can you weigh in? What is your position? Do you think the state can coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs? Do you think the state should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs?

 

 

What does my personal opinion have to do with the substance of your nonsensical fear-mongering?  What matters is the law.  The Constitution of the United States.  Civil rights laws are justified under the interstate commerce clause.  Commerce.

 

At no point in the history of the United States has the government compelled a religion to perform an act.  Restricted acts?  Sure.  But never compulsion except, perhaps, in the case of a minor and pressing medical questions.

 

If the US was in the business of telling religions what to do, what to believe, and how to behave, why are there still racist white-only Churches in Louisiana?  Why can private golf clubs remain men only?  Because these are private institutions not entering into commercial activities. 

[smac97]

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Well, that's . . . illuminating. I guess.

 

What does my personal opinion have to do with the substance of your nonsensical fear-mongering?

So you refuse to answer the question and tell us whether you think the state can or should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs. That's . . . illuminating as well.

Your position seemed implicit in your previous posts: It appears that you approve of, or at least are indifferent to, Donald and Evelyn Knapp being threatened with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. I can see why you wouldn't want to go on record by honestly responding to my questions about this. The manifest repugnance of the corner your ideological position has pushed you into must be hard to bear, let alone admit.

But let's try it again: 6EQUJ5, what is your position? Do you think the state can coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs? Do you think the state should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs?

Oh, and I'll be upfront with my view: No, I do not think the state can or should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs.

 

What matters is the law. The Constitution of the United States. Civil rights laws are justified under the interstate commerce clause. Commerce.

At no point in the history of the United States has the government compelled a religion to perform an act.

But that's not exactly the point at issue, is it? We are speaking of the state compelling individuals to perform an act that violates their religious beliefs. Are you okay with that?

In any event, what is the difference between the state coercing a religion versus coercing an individual to perform an act that violates the religion's beliefs or the individual's religious beliefs?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2014 by smac97

[Storm Rider]

When I read about these actions in Idaho and the outrageous subpoenas by the mayor of Houston for copies of all sermons and communications regarding homosexuality and related topics I don't see how there will not be a concerted effort to force freedom of religion to take a secondary position to the demands of this new right being created.  

 

This will become a lot more confusing and there will be more outrageous actions by both sides until it gets sorted out.  We have reaped the whirlwind and will now pay the price.  

[6EQUJ5]

So you refuse to answer the question and tell us whether you think the state can or should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs. That's . . . illuminating as well.

 

 

Ooooohhh!!!  This is a fun game!  I'll answer your question as soon as you can explain how it is relevant to the legal question at hand.

 

Your position seemed implicit in your previous posts: It appears that you approve of, or at least are indifferent to, Donald and Evelyn Knapp being threatened with fines and imprisonment if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. I can see why you wouldn't want to go on record by honestly responding to my questions about this. The manifest repugnance of the corner your ideological position has pushed you into must be hard to bear, let alone admit.

 

 

It's so exciting when you get all cross-examiny, Smac!  Again, I'm happy to answer your questions and provide you with incredible detail on my innermost personal thoughts on this matter.  Once you have explained how my answer is relevant to the legal question at hand and your efforts to create fear and anxiety where there is no justification for such.

 

But let's try it again: 6EQUJ5, what is your position? Do you think the state can coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs? Do you think the state should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs?

 

 

I am happy to answer that question once you have explained how the answer is relevant to the legal question at hand.

 

But again, I think the US Constitution is fairly clear on this point.  Add to that case law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and apocolyptic scenario you posit is shown to be fantasy.

 

Oh, and I'll be upfront with my view: No, I do not think the state can or should coerce, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the Knapps to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs.

 

 Great.  But I don't really understand what your personal opinion has to do with anything when considering the legal question at hand.

 

But that's not exactly the point at issue, is it? We are speaking of the state compelling individuals to perform an act that violates their religious beliefs. Are you okay with that?

 

 

Are you OK with the state compelling individuals to rent out their hotel rooms to people regardless of race?

 

Are you OK with the state compelling private instititutions to open membership to women and blacks?  Oh what.  That doesn't happen.

 

In any event, what is the difference between the state coercing a religion versus coercing an individual to perform an act that violates the religion's beliefs or the individual's religious beliefs?

 

Commerce. 

[Bernard Gui]

I believe the Church will soon be pressured to recognize and perform same-sex marriages first by activist members, then by the mainstream and social media, then by public opinion, and finally by political and legal authorities. The Church will stop performing marriages in and out of the temples, and resort to sealing same-sex couples after civil marriages.

Smac, I admire your self-restraint.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Bernard Gui