Slateman Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Legal issues aside, what self-respecting gay couple would want those particular ministers officiating their ceremony anyway? The ones that know they'll get turned down and want to sue to bring attention to the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Says it right in the book. His word is clear. Too bad your understanding of it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 someone supposedly did ask the threat of fines/jail existing isn't oppressive?....especially since the authorities seem to disagree with your interpretation My mistake. I misread the article. I still believe it extraordinarily unlikely that any minister will ever be required to preside over a wedding that violates his or her religious beliefs. ZGuy28 need not worry about that. How one defines a "business" vis a vis this particular "hitching post" might be a closer call according to this one city attorney, but I suspect that if this goes to court, the final result more likely than not will be no gay weddings there either. But it's probably all going to be mooted simply by giving them and businesses like them a more clear exemption from the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 someone supposedly did ask the threat of fines/jail existing isn't oppressive?....especially since the authorities seem to disagree with your interpretation Observing that, far as I'm aware, every single person who sued over being denied gay marriage, had to be denied, before they could sue. Although, I don't think Hobby Lobby had to be fined, before they could sue. The ones that know they'll get turned down and want to sue to bring attention to the issue. Admiring the notion that the people being discriminated against are the ones who are doing something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 How one defines a "business" vis a vis this particular "hitching post" might be a closer call according to this one city attorney, but I suspect that if this goes to court, the final result more likely than not will be no gay weddings there either. But it's probably all going to be mooted simply by giving them and businesses like them a more clear exemption from the law. The issue I see with these types of business is that "religious" businesses are typically exempt from non-discrimination laws except when the position in question is more profit driven that religiously driven. From what I can tell, Christian bookstores are still the classic grey area. I think that if the store is associated with a church, it's exempt. I'm not so sure if it's associated with a mall. A for-profit business called the Hitching Post doesn't strike me as terribly religious. I would like to see a breakdown of its ceremonies, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 A for-profit business called the Hitching Post doesn't strike me as terribly religious. I would like to see a breakdown of its ceremonies, I guess. how can it not be closely associated since the church issues and controls the ordination that allows them to perform marriage? they are church officials operating under church control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 The issue I see with these types of business is that "religious" businesses are typically exempt from non-discrimination laws except when the position in question is more profit driven that religiously driven. From what I can tell, Christian bookstores are still the classic grey area. I think that if the store is associated with a church, it's exempt. I'm not so sure if it's associated with a mall. A for-profit business called the Hitching Post doesn't strike me as terribly religious. I would like to see a breakdown of its ceremonies, I guess. From what little I've read, I've gathered that it is distinctly Christian. They give out Christian marriage materials and books to newlyweds. Some quotes here: http://hitchingpostweddings.com/advice/ I recognized instantly the love and respect quote from a book by Emerson Eggerich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 "ordained ministers" and "For profit business" just sounds dirty. Usually, I'll side with a church in this matter. But F these guys. For profit church? KMA. It's not a church, it's a business. "Hitching Shack" lol, not like they hold Sunday service there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 Admiring the notion that the people being discriminated against are the ones who are doing something wrong. Well isn't that the inevitable result of radically redefining the essence of something sacred in its traditional sense? It's not a church, it's a business. "Hitching Shack" lol, not like they hold Sunday service there. Question. is a church: 1. A building/meeting place? 2. A non-personal organization? 3. An assembly of people doing ministry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 You can't deny the minister's right to follow his religion. He should not have to marry that couple and should be allowed to kill them. He wouldn't have to if he wasn't running a for profit business. He has two choices, marry everyone, gay couples included or not marry gay couples and pay fines. I think it would be hilarious for every gay couple in Idaho that wants to get married to go to his business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Well isn't that the inevitable result of radically redefining the essence of something sacred in its traditional sense? Question. is a church: 1. A building/meeting place? 2. A non-personal organization? 3. An assembly of people doing ministry? Churches are not For Profit establishments, this is. So, by legal definitions it is not a church. My understanding of the article is that if he was just an ordained minister and asked to conduct a gay wedding, he could refuse without any legal ramifications. Because he is running a for profit business, the right of refusal a church has does not apply. Therefore, making it a case of discrimination, which is illegal. Think of it like this, at my job, we are a business (for profit organization) and anyone that discriminates against any employees, customers, etc. for being homosexual will be subject to their employment being terminated. And to answer what is a church, my thoughts are once it's an official for profit business, everything else is out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Too bad your understanding of it isn't.Please tell me how I'm misunderstanding this."And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Perhaps I missed it...Why would a gay couple WANT to get married at this particular place ? Ugh. I certainly would never hold a party at a place that didn't wan't my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 He has two choices He obviously has a third choice and a fourth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Perhaps the same reason that other para-church ministries are also formed such as orphanages, youth groups, and such. But they are generally non-profit. Still the nearest comparison is any other minister in the world. Regular ministers (like me, a baptist preacher), are self-employed (from gov't POV). Again, does that mean since I officiate weddings outside the church building for a fee, that I will be compelled to offer officiating to gay couples for a fee because technically I'm a one man business? My guess would be no, because I assume you are doing this on the side and not claiming a self-employed for profit business in addition to your employment/services at the church, correct? If a gay couple approached you to marry them and you told them no, there is not really much they can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Just a observation to the folks pointing at "for profit business": I will observe that, while I can see that that's a really convenient place to draw a bright line, I also observe that this doesn't automatically mean that profit is the primary motivation for the chapel. It could simply indicate that they chose to incorporate under the rules that had the simplest paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Perhaps I missed it...Why would a gay couple WANT to get married at this particular place ? Ugh. I certainly would never hold a party at a place that didn't wan't my business. Exactly. People that most likely don't have to worry about anything get too worked up. It's a law, he can sue all he wants, he won't win (imo). If anything, he got his name in the news that he doesn't support gay marriage and doesn't want to marry gay couples so I'd be willing to bet that with this publicity, any gay couple reading this is most likely not going to visit the Hitching Shack in sunny Idaho anytime soon lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 My guess would be no, because I assume you are doing this on the side and not claiming a self-employed for profit business in addition to your employment/services at the church, correct? If a gay couple approached you to marry them and you told them no, there is not really much they can do. Most people don't realize this, but pastors (at least all the one's I know) work for themselves, not churches (from a legal standpoint, we obviously work for the church from a motivational view). We file taxes as self-employed people. Now the IRS does ask if its for clergy work. But you still pay income tax and SS etc. out of pocket. The church pays you, but its like contracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Ding, ding, ding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Exactly. People that most likely don't have to worry about anything get too worked up. It's a law, he can sue all he wants, he won't win (imo). We've already had the SC rule that Hobby Lobby is entitled to be exempt from laws because of it's corporate religion. You want to predict that the courts will find this place to be less religious than Hobby Lobby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Just a observation to the folks pointing at "for profit business": I will observe that, while I can see that that's a really convenient place to draw a bright line, I also observe that this doesn't automatically mean that profit is the primary motivation for the chapel. It could simply indicate that they chose to incorporate under the rules that had the simplest paperwork. Well, that's their own fault if that's the case. I'm no legal expert though, but I don't think they could have filed any paperwork and established themselves as a true church (whatever that paperwork is) and then operated it as a business. Not unless they had additional paperwork to be a for profit business in addition to a church, which would mean that the business side (say Monday through Saturday) would be subject to the law and the church side (Sundays) would not. That example just made me think of Frugal Macdoogal's in SC, which is a beer and liquor store. In SC, you can't sell liquor in the same stores as beer and wine. So they have the business split in two, with walls between both sides, separate registers, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Exactly. People that most likely don't have to worry about anything get too worked up. It's a law, he can sue all he wants, he won't win (imo). If anything, he got his name in the news that he doesn't support gay marriage and doesn't want to marry gay couples so I'd be willing to bet that with this publicity, any gay couple reading this is most likely not going to visit the Hitching Shack in sunny Idaho anytime soon lol. Or perhaps they did it because they were warned by local law that they would go to jail for refusing to marry gay folks and they didn't think that was right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Most people don't realize this, but pastors (at least all the one's I know) work for themselves, not churches (from a legal standpoint, we obviously work for the church from a motivational view). We file taxes as self-employed people. Now the IRS does ask if its for clergy work. But you still pay income tax and SS etc. out of pocket. The church pays you, but its like contracting. Right, but are the weddings you perform under the table? You're not out there running a business of performing weddings right? So I don't think there is any legal ramification if you were to turn down an offer to marry two gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 We've already had the SC rule that Hobby Lobby is entitled to be exempt from laws because of it's corporate religion. You want to predict that the courts will find this place to be less religious than Hobby Lobby? If I'm not mistaken, the Hobby Lobby issue was refusal to cover birth control under their prescription drug formulary based on religious beliefs. Down a similar path, but still different considering it would be a business not providing services to a gay couple, which would be discrimination. This doesn't involve employees of their business, but potential customers/clients of the services they offer. I'd think that would be the way it's viewed in court which would favor the potential consumer, not business. But you did bring up an interesting point. Completely forgot all about the Hobby Lobby stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Or perhaps they did it because they were warned by local law that they would go to jail for refusing to marry gay folks and they didn't think that was right? Could be Z, pure speculation on my part. Everyone has their own stance on what's right and what's wrong, and I'm not going to judge others on their beliefs. I mean, who am I to judge? Looking at it from a legal standpoint vs religious standpoint, I don't they will win their lawsuit. Simply because it is a business that, should a gay couple attempt to use the services provided, and get refused said services, would be a clear cut case of discrimination in the eyes of the law (basing this on my view and the wedding cake incident). Now, are there ways to reclassify their business where refusing services based on their religious beliefs is legal. I don't think there is, but I'm not a legal expert so there could be loop holes. Larry brought out an excellent point on the Hobby Lobby case. But again, that's dealing with what benefits they offer their employees, not refusing services offered to the general public (which would include gay couples in this case). Me and you have had our disputes in the past over this topic, so you know where I stand on it. But again, not trying to go down that path and while I don't share the same beliefs as others on this topic, I respect the fact that everyone is free to believe whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.