[TheWastelander]

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/govern...g-go-jail/

Quote:

For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.

The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.

There's more at the link above.

The brilliant law professor Eugene Volokh, owner of The Volokh Conspiracy blog, weighs in below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-weddings/

Quote:

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. 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.)

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

I was very pleased to have the officiants I had for my wedding. But if I had instead asked a rabbi, and he told me that he didn’t want to preside over a wedding between my wife (who isn’t ethnically Jewish) and me, I can’t see how that sort of ethnic discrimination would create a harm that justifies trumping the rabbi’s religious freedom rights and free speech rights. Perhaps some might feel offended by such a statement of religious rejection, but I don’t think there can be a compelling government interest in shielding people from such rejections when it comes to the performance of ceremonies. The same, I think, is true when officiants refuse to perform ceremonies for interfaith couples, couples remarrying after a divorce (notwithstanding state laws that ban marital status discrimination), intercaste couples, or interracial couples — or same-sex couples.

It's not enough to legalize gay marriage, apparently. Now all around the country the LGBT crowd is using anti-discrimination ordinances as legal weapons to force people who disagree with it to accommodate and do business with them.

The mask is off, gentlemen. All those 'crazy' right-wingers who were worried about this sort of thing occurring but haughtily dismissed have been proven right.

[Basil Ransom]

Yes, this was obvious from the beginning. The push to eliminate discrimination is a fundamentally totalitarian drive, and it will never stop at a "reasonable" point. It is like a boulder going down a hill, once it gets rolling, it's no trivial matter to halt it.

I recall Larry Auster, who is now dead, citing the case of a Catholic adoption agency being forced to close in the UK, as it was ordered to give babies to gay parents, that it would get far worse, and mutate into cases like this Idaho one.

Expect to see a lot more of this. How will most people respond? Some will celebrate it, as they despise Christianity and traditional Judaism. Others will say, "well, I guess that's only fair" and just kowtow to whatever the government shoves down their throat.

[The Beast1]

Someone somewhere is going to piss off the wrong group of people and this will morph into a church vs state argument.

Lots of angry Christians around, i'd be careful.

[lskdfjldsf]

That couple could get married at a number of places, yet they persist at the one chapel that won't accommodate.
Like Atheists© from the northeast filing lawsuits in Texas, these people go out looking for fights.

[Akula]

Unfuckingbelievable. It just gets more Orwellian in the US and West every day.

I hope all those people who were ok with gay marriage because it "doesn't hurt anybody" will take a long hard look at what's happening now.

Sinking ship fo sho.

I wish I could say its going to get better but I for one think it's only going to get worse.

[etshella]

Just like the couple in Oregon facing a $150k fine all because they didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Unless you are politically correct, you are no longer free.

What's also disturbing is that this is taking place in Idaho, not California or New York.

[Alpha]

This makes me want to refuse service to gay clients just to be an asshole right back, you know?

#FightWithSpite

[Dusty]

Notice how they never force Muslims to accommodate gay shit.

[TheWastelander]

(10-20-2014 11:53 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

Notice how they never force Muslims to accommodate gay shit.

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/02/...ump-whose/

[Alpha]

(10-20-2014 12:02 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:53 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

Notice how they never force Muslims to accommodate gay shit.

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/02/...ump-whose/

This progressive left / Gay rights movement crowd is full of nothing but cowards.

[Slim Shady]

The only true power is violence

[Wutang]

Next step: demanding that Jewish kosher delis serve bacon sandwiches on the Sabbath.

[TigerMandingo]

(10-20-2014 01:25 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Next step: demanding that Jewish kosher delis serve bacon sandwiches on the Sabbath.

Jews and Muslims get a pass from progressives. It's Christians they're after.

[Alpha]

(10-20-2014 01:34 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 01:25 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Next step: demanding that Jewish kosher delis serve bacon sandwiches on the Sabbath.

Jews and Muslims get a pass from progressives. It's Christians they're after.

Because we don't hit back.

[Feisbook Control]

The most absurd part to me is the escalating prison sentences. Refusing to comply with this for three months is a 45 year sentence. That's about the same as murder, right? So refusing to marry two gays for three months is the same as murder?



This is what it's come down to, though it's only just the tip of the iceberg. It's going to get a lot worse. Anyone who doesn't at least have some plan to leave the West within the next five to ten years is seriously playing with fire. SJWs want to completely take over the culture and purge wrongthink. We are all in their cross hairs now.

Previously, I used to think that it didn't matter if gays were allowed to marry, that that decision should be up to them. The real turning point in all of this for me came a couple of years ago when I saw two liberals discuss this on another forum. One is Irish, and although he is liberal, there is still some latent conservatism there from his culture. He made the point that although he doesn't agree with the anti-gay marriage position, he could understand why some people felt like their culture was under threat. Another liberal who is pretty far left then jumped right down his throat over that. Seeing the way SJWs were willing to go after those supposedly on their own side (remember, the Irish guy wasn't agreeing with the anti-gay marriage position), was really eyeopening (of course, the other guy couched his whole argument in being anti-intolerance, etc., which was kind of ironic). Sure, I had always known at some level that many on the left were like this, but actually seeing it blew my mind, and actually started the process of me becoming extremely anti-gay marriage.

[TheWastelander]

Reason has a good article on this and, as always, the comments are comedy gold.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/20/why-no...tes-you-to

Quote:

Hyperion|10.20.14 @ 11:04AM|#
So, what if a gay couple wants to be married in a mosque? Are the Muslims forced to do the wedding?

Pro Libertate|10.20.14 @ 11:06AM|#
Really, why aren't these zealots pursuing precisely this course of action?

antisocial-ist|10.20.14 @ 11:09AM|#
For the same reason that PETA doesn't go around spray painting the leather jackets of biker gangs.

Quote:

Pro Libertate|10.20.14 @ 11:20AM|#
And do you, hell-bound sinner, condemned by God, take this other hell-bound sinner, condemned by God, to have and to hold for all eternity in hateful sodomy hell?

Pro Libertate|10.20.14 @ 11:25AM|#
If there is anyone here--other than the Almighty Himself, who doth curseth this unnatural union--who objects to this sodomoneous venture, speak now and show your contempt for the sin. And keep thusly speaking, for thine curses are thrice blessed in the eyes of Jesus.

Scruffy Nerfherder|10.20.14 @ 11:29AM|#
At what point in the ceremony would they bring out the ceremonial pillar of salt?

Pro Libertate|10.20.14 @ 11:32AM|#
And lo, as God Himself did smite Sodom and Gomorrah with His divine wrath, so shall he smite this abomination and the community that allowed it.

[RawGod]

God has granted me a vision of the eventual conservative pushback in the USA

[speakeasy]

This issue is dead. The gays won. Pandora is out of the box now and there's no reversing it. I don't really even talk about gay marriage anymore as it's futile and it's pretty much a done deal. It's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court strikes down any state bans. That will happen within the next few years. They won.

[Mage]

Welcome to the Kali Yuga

[The Reactionary Tree]

This has always been the goal. The gay political agenda is not about love or equality. It is about the destruction of Christian traditions and the subversion of the church. I knew it wouldn't be long before they starting mandating gay marriages in the churches.

It is not a slippery slope fallacy if we are indeed progressively getting worse. These things incrementally build upon themselves. First, the feminists. Then the gays. Now the trannies. What's next? The pedos? the horse fuckers? the furries? It will only get worse.

[Alpha]

Quote:

What's next? The pedos? the horse fuckers? the furries?

Yes, and in that order (seriously).

[Dr. Howard]

(10-21-2014 01:26 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

This issue is dead. The gays won. Pandora is out of the box now and there's no reversing it. I don't really even talk about gay marriage anymore as it's futile and it's pretty much a done deal. It's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court strikes down any state bans. That will happen within the next few years. They won.

I'll agree with you when they get the first martyr and nothing happens. I don't mean "self immolating" martyr, but I mean the first preacher that is thrown in jail kind of martyr. If that happens and there is no revolt then it is over.

[Krusyos]

Legalize gay marriage, but don't force people to marry gays. Is it really that fucking difficult of a concept?

[The Reactionary Tree]

(10-21-2014 07:14 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  

Legalize gay marriage, but don't force people to marry gays. Is it really that fucking difficult of a concept?

Yea progressives dont care about that last part. So dont legalize gay marriage because it has never been a thing ever in the history of the world...ever. It is a made up movement to destroy religious tradition by subverting it.

-"I'm a Christian but I support gay marriage and abortion"

-Well you aren't much of a "Christian" then, are you?

Alternative lifestyles should not be given the time of day. Feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism, pederasty, furrydom, incest, polyamory, bestiality, etc. are all forms of individualism run amok. muh freedumbs, muh rights! "If I want to have a 3way with my sister and a horse I should be allowed because muh liberties!" It is not the problem that they merely exist but that they are being propagated as healthy alternatives to traditional living. They are taught on our campuses, they are defended by politicians, and they are enforced by every corporate diversity council in the world. To criticize any of them is "hate" speech. What is hate speech? It is speech that progressives hate.

Have you ever met a feminist, gay, or tranny that wasn't completely fucked in the head? These people should be institutionalized because they are mentally ill.

This is all meant to create a society of broken people who need to be coddled from cradle to grave because they are too psychologically broken and pathetic to take care of themselves. So in comes big daddy government to lend his helping hand.

Only a "bigot" would stand in the way of this "progress."

I now understand why the church used to burn heretics at the stake.

[heavy]

I can't imagine that holds up in court. But the problem is the entire premise. That people can cry "discrimination" when a man simply makes a choice to do or not do something.

Regardless of the jail time, this man is tarred and feathered, has to defend himself in public, for simply choosing to not marry two people of the same sex out of religious conviction. The fact that this man has to defend himself for a simple conviction...

...well, if you aren't concerned about tyranny in the US at this point, our country is a lost cause. Hopefully what frenchie said, "lots of angry Christians around, I'd be careful"