Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

[bonnie]

SOCIETYCOMMENTARY

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

Ryan T. Anderson 

October 18, 2014  

•  

Photo: Ned Frisk/Blend Images/Newscom

COMMENTARY BY

Ryan T. Anderson@RyanT_Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory.Read his research.

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.

Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

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.

Government Coercion

The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”

But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion.

Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association, free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage.

The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989. Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their beliefs.

After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. They should not be forced to choose between strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.

What Can Be Done

At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

Government should not now force ordained ministers to shut down or violate their beliefs.

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.

States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.

Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government proves that such a burden advances a compelling government interest that has been pursued through the least restrictive means possible.

Protecting Religious Liberty

It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.

States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motionarguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process, and equal protection.”

Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

A review of the facts in this case show that much more is involved than lies on the surface.  Before I get to the facts of this case, I will comment on the foundational law.

 

1) The 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution is the foundational basis for the issues involved here.  That clause to the Constitution, grants specific freedoms to religion as a group and to that group of people in the practice of their religion.  It does not ipso facto grant generalized freedoms to individuals outside of the practice of their religion.  I shall illustrate:

   a) Under the law it would be illegal for the government to force a Church and its clergy to perform a wedding.

      However, if that same clergy person were to accept the civil government position of Justice of the Peace, that clergyperson could not claim that ordination protected refusal to perform a wedding as a Justice of the Peace.

   c)  In a position of Justice of the Peace, that clergyperson would be required o perform the wedding of a duly licensed couple who requested to be married.

 

2) The facts of this case are that the Wedding Chapel was established as a public business open to all who desired a Christian wedding.   It was not restricted to Christians.  It was not restricted to people who were members of the denomination that ordained the clergy who performed the weddings.  It was not restricted to members of any specific congregation.

 

3)  Once a clergyperson establishes a public business, that clergy person must serve the public at large.  IOW, If I manufacture bicycles, I cannot refuse to sell bicycles to Jewish women.

 

4)  While I do not consider this to be determinative, it is of interest to note that the involved wedding chapel provide their services to the public with a Justice of the Peace.  It was only after the law was changed and the position of Justice of the Peace was abolished that the services were provided by ordained clergy.  IOW, the history of that Wedding chapel indicates that it was a public business and not and agency of a religious denomination.

 

5)  On this basis, I believe that it should be required to provide services to the public at large and not discriminate against any section of that legally authorized public.

[bonnie]

It was a public business served by Justice of the Peace. It was purchased and is owned,free of government financial support to provide "traditional/ christian wedding ceremonies.

It does say traditional christian wedding ceremonies contrary to this statement....  It was not restricted to Christian

[Gregory Matthews]

typo:  I meant to write Christians.

[bonnie]

A review of the facts in this case show that much more is involved than lies on the surface.  Before I get to the facts of this case, I will comment on the foundational law.

 

 

 

 

The clergy in this case is not in a position of Justice of the Peace. It sounds like they purchased the property outright to perform traditional,christian wedding ceremonies.

 

 

 

It states plainly traditional christian ceremonies.

 

 

 

 

 

It was ,past tense a public service by a Justice of the Peace. The services are  not  now provided by the state or government or the building owned by state or local government.  We have a group locally that purchased a former Bar and Grill and are converting it to a SDA chruch..The history of that building is one section served alcohol and had happy hour.The history indicates it was a public business and not an agency of a religious denomination. Should that have any bearing on what the building is used for now?

 

 

[Bill Cork]

This was a manufactured crisis. The chapel was never threatened. It was never sued.  The ACLU said it fell under the religious exemption. The operators registered it as a religious organization before it hit the headlines.  Emotions are being manipulated in these cases by organizations that are eager to raise money off of hysterical press releases.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2014/oct/23/aclu-hitching-post-falls-under-religious-exemption-no-challenge-planned/

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/entire_hitching_post_controversy_is_false_aclu_says_chapel_falls_under_religious_exemption

[Gregory Matthews]

Bill, thank you for your additional comment.

 

If the ACLU tells us that it is covered by the 1st Amendment, one can consider that to be true. 

 

The bottom line is that the 1st Amendment provides protection.  What it does not provide protection for is a commercial business that operates in the public sphere.  IOW, if I operate a restaurant that serves the public at large  (not just on Sunday to people who attend Sunday services) I can not refuse to serve Jewish people.  Of course,  I can serve pork if  I wish.

 

Also, the 1st Amendment does not allow a public official to refuse to provide services to people authorized those services on the basis of a personal religious belief of the elected official.  IOW, a Justice of the Peace can not refuse to provide services to Jewish people simply because the personal beliefs of that official don't think that a Jewish person should have that service.