Is a wedding chapel “a place of public accommodation” that can’t turn away same-sex couples wanting to wed? What if the chapel is run by two ordained ministers, like the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho? Eugene Volokh writes:
“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 if the wedding chapel originally advertised it performed civil as well as religious ceremonies? But now states “ordained ministers will marry you using a traditional, religious ceremony”?
LGBT activists of a progressive bent are making much of the fact that the Hitching Post changed its services following the legalization of same-sex marriage in Idaho. To my way of thinking, it makes no difference. People should be free to marry, including same-sex couples, and the government should not be forcing businesses owners, whether they be ministers or not, to perform services for same-sex weddings. But I’d add with Volokh, “especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.”
More. An evangelical gay man on why he’s raising money for the defense of Portland-based Christian bakery owners who refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding. I don’t share his view that, in this case, “a pastry is not moral approval of a religious ceremony.” Would requiring an anesthesiologist to perform his services at an abortion be ok because he’s not actually killing the fetus? (No, abortions and weddings are not the same thing, but the principle of not compelling behavior that violates religious faith is).
However, raising the defense money as an act of love is a nice gesture.
Furthermore. Walter Olson shares his take at Overlawyered.com. It’s a tangled web with much mischief on the right in an effort to create religious-liberty panic. But some on the left would have no qualms with forcing the ministers to perform their marriage (a shotgun wedding, perhaps?), so no side is looking especially good in all this.
Another Update. Resolution:
The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, said a for-profit wedding chapel owned by two ministers doesn’t have to perform same-sex marriages. … Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d’Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt. But Gridley said after further review, he determined the ordinance doesn’t specify non-profit or for-profit.
If this looks like a “win” for the anti-gay rightists, it’s only because of over-reach by the city on behalf of its anti-discrimination statute. Deciding to force conservative evangelicals (especially, you know, ordained ministers) to engage in behavior supporting same-sex marriage (especially, you know, performing marriage ceremonies) makes supporters of LGBT legal equality look like modern-day Robespierres.
But you can see the thinking motivating the city and LGBT activists: If we can force religiously conservative bakers and photographers to service gay weddings or be put out of business, why not?
More still. Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo, the lesbian owners of BMP T-shirts, are speaking up on behalf of a conservative Christian t-shirt maker who ran afoul of the state (and progressive LGBT activists) when he declined to print shirts for a gay pride festival that he believed compromised his religious values. DiGeloromo said:
“We feel this really isn’t a gay or straight issue. This is a human issue. No one really should be forced to do something against what they believe in. It’s as simple as that, and we feel likewise. If we were approached by an organization such as the Westboro Baptist Church, I highly doubt we would be doing business with them.”
Seems simple enough.
47 Comments for “The Hitching Post Controversy”
posted by clayton on
Given that they have an established Practice of performing civil ceremonies, suddenly playing the faith card sseems a bit disingenuous. That said, I cant imagine why anyone, straight or gay, would want to be married by an officiant who objected to the marriage.
posted by Mark Peterson on
Legally, the shift in the language is very important–before it was a secular business, now it seems to be a religious ministry. I realize that Stephen’s position is that public accommodations laws shouldn’t apply to sexual orientation, but for people who do favor the laws the difference between the two types of organizations matters a great deal. Ministries get exemptions that for-profit secular businesses don’t. It’s also a little un-Christian (something about bearing false witness) to change the policy without telling anyone, and to file a suit based on the city’s response to the earlier policy, not the current one.
It’s interesting that ADF and Stephen seem now to be in the business of creating victims. No one filed a complaint against this former-business-now-ministry. If this is the worst the ADF can do in the red states that have marriage, they’ll need to find a better way to raise money.
posted by craig123 on
Stephen seem now to be in the business of creating victims.
Because your ideological opponents can’t possibly have civil rights that should be defended?
posted by Houndentenor on
The Hitching Post is a for-profit business, not a church. Why anyone would want to get married at some place called the Hitching Post is beyond me, but to pretend that this establishment is a house of worship is absurd. But more than anything I find it odd that people who have gone to such lengths to deny rights to others (in this case marriage) would now play the victim is a sick joke. If they want their rights respected then perhaps they should start by extended that courtesy to others.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Why anyone would want to get married at some place called the Hitching Post is beyond me …
Simple. The Liberace Wedding Chapel is booked through 2057, so people have to get married someplace. And the Hitching Post would be a great venue for the first human-horse nuptials.
posted by Houndentenor on
There was a recent story about a Las Vegas wedding chapel that wasn’t going to marry gay couples, because a place where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator wouldn’t want to lower their standards!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Liberace Wedding Chapel maintains the highest possible standards at all times.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A few thoughts along the way to man-horse marriages:
Stephen: LGBT activists of a progressive bent are making much of the fact that the Hitching Post changed its services following the legalization of same-sex marriage in Idaho. To my way of thinking, it makes no difference.
I agree. In legal terms, the new corporation created by the ADF to own and operate the Hitching Post under a new charter creates a de novo business entity. The practices and the policies of the old corporation are not legally relevant to the matter. I suspect that the reason that “LGBT activists of a progressive bent” (aka “The Evil Ones”) are commenting about the fact is that this is so transparently yet another conservative Christian scam.
I say that because the new corporation is already signaling that it will operate outside its legal charter, which is to provide “traditional Christian wedding ceremony” services, presumably to Christians alone, since few (if any) adherents of other religions would be interested. But hidden away in the company’s Employee Policy is the fine print:
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It may be that there is more to the muck than immediately meets the eye:
The entire saga has the feel of a set up, and that’s a fact.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Exactly. Create a victim narrative that pushes the right-wing outrage buttons and their meme of “Left-wing Progressive Christian Persecution 2.0 ™” that certain homocon bloggers have bought into.
This is part and parcel of the ADF’s strategy of bolstering the Hobby Lobby decision and “religious liberty” to not be bound by laws and regulations that they don’t like (e.g., anything pro-LGBT equality or pro-women’s reproductive rights) — hence the Hitching Post is now a closely held religious corporation, not a church.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Hitching Post Update:
The ADF can’t win in court, so they manufacture outrage (in Idaho and in Houston). Even though it’s been completely debunked, the AFA is screaming out against Christian Persecution ™ … because, that’s what they do… which gives Stephen another chance to compare selling baked goods to abortions.
http://www.afa.net/action-alerts/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-for-refusing-to-marry-gays/#.VEZia20YfWY.twitter
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… which gives Stephen another chance to compare selling baked goods to abortions …
The odd blurring between important and unimportant echoes a characteristic of fundamentalist, Bible-based conservative Christian thinking. I’ve learned over the years that it is almost impossible to have a scriptural conversation with adherents of that branch of Christianity because to them every passage of scripture is of equal importance and none are placed in context.
posted by Francis on
Yet, they will happily disregard the passages regarding mercy (e.g. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”), humility (“O Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” or “He who would be first shall be last and the last first”), and just about anything that prevents them lording their self-evident righteousness above everyone else. Definitive proof that they have swallowed the leaven of the Pharisees whole.
posted by Don on
I guess where I have a problem is the belief that providing a cake or flowers violates religious conscience. It seems much more akin to a lunch counter than anesthesia at an abortion. The reason being there is a very clear argument of conscience against abortion. One may or may not buy it. But I don’t think a reasonable person can say they cannot see the viewpoint as a valid one, even if they disagree.
And there is only one message that can be sent by denying a cake or denying to marry someone: I disapprove of you and think you should be ashamed of yourself. I feel compelled, by my faith, to shame and marginalize you in hopes that you will go away or at least quit being gay because your religion says this is so.
I’ve tried, but I can’t get behind this belief of where the law should be. It is legalized shaming because of a religious belief. And I would guess that the wedding industry will be freaked out for a year or two about it, but then anyone and everyone will be baking cakes for anyone who walks through their doors.
However, the Hitching Post, as so thoroughly explained above, is a faux controversy most probably to gin up publicity, then sympathy, and [eventually] a reality show most likely involving ducks and snowmobiling.
posted by JohnInCA on
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Hitching Post the case where the chapel is suing the city preemptively?
That is to say… while yes, a lot of people are pointing out their sudden about-face on civil ceremonies is highly suspect and a shitty move, no one (that I’ve heard of) has tried to force them to do anything. They are, quite simply, a test case for the ADF to preemptively attack the city’s laws. It’s entirely manufactured, right down to their new incorporation just to put them on stronger footing.
That it to say… whatever you have to say about this story, LGBT groups have only commented about it, they have no actual role.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We had a very interesting District Court decision in Puerto Rico yesterday. The decision upheld Puerto Rico’s ban on marriage equality, holding the both the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker and the First Circuit’s decision in Massachusetts v HHS (which involved questions similar to those in Windsor) recognized Baker as binding precedent. In short, Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez concluded that his hands were tied.
Discussing the cases and his conclusion that Baker was binding, Judge Perez-Gimenez noted:
The decision tosses the issue squarely into the lap of the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire), which has not heretofore been directly involved in marriage equality cases. It will be up to the First Circuit to distinguish Baker in light of Windsor and other similar cases (the “doctrinal developments” argument used by other District Courts and Circuits). If it does, the case will be remanded back to Judge Perez-Gimenez for reconsideration. If it does not, then a split in Circuits will have developed, triggering Supreme Court review.
Judge Perez-Gimenez was not, however, reluctant to reach the ruling, as is evidenced by this segment of the opinion, among several other segments that suggest a clear hostility to “judicial activism”:
The case also seems to involve questions concerning Puerto Rico’s semi-autonomous form of constitutional self-government (which I don’t pretend to fully understand), but those questions did not drive the ruling, so I think that it is unlikely that those questions will be a factor going forward..
In other developments yesterday, Montana formally filed its notice of non-appeal, and marriage equality came to Wyoming. Good on Jack and Ennis. I think that we are not at 32 equality states.
posted by Fritz Keppler on
I’ve been looking for a news report about Montana not appealing, so far without success. Do you have a link?
So far, given three states in the circuits affected by the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago waiting for equality, the count of states permitting same-sex marriage seems to be at 32.
Because of that decision, my partner and I were able to get married here in Virginia on the 9th.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Here’s the SCOTUSblog account.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
A judge in Puerto Rico upheld their gay marriage ban based on the 1972 US Supreme Court ruling. While not a State, they are bound by US law.
As for the wedding chapel…sounds like manufactured controversy. If they (a for profit business) advertised doing both civil and religious marriage ceremonies, don’t prospective customers have a expectation of honesty in advertising……Or should we assume that all advertising is total and utter BS?
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I’m thinking Stephen needs to do a bit more research before he posts these ‘I’m with those who want to discriminate against gays’ articles and comments.
Re: the gay evangelical who wants to pay the fine for the bakers in Oregon. I’m pulling this info from the bilerico.com article on this issue, but per that source, and any additional reporting I’ve found:
1. there is no actual fine yet. The $150,000 mentioned by the gay evangelical is the maximum fine per law. But that fine is only in the “potential” stage.
2. Matt Stolhandske – the gay evangelical – is a ‘leading figure’ on the Rally.org site.
From bilerico.com comments, re: Stolhandske:
“He’s attempting to raise the money through “Evangelicals for Gay Marriage,” which is a for-profit subsidiary of Liberty Education Forum, which in turn is a subsidiary of Log Cabin Republicans.
For the mechanics of raising the money, Stolhandske is using Rally.Org, which gets 5% of the money collected.
Stolhandske is a leading figure at Rally.Org..”
So, Stolhandske is raising money on a site (in which he is financially invested) – for a “fine” that has not been actually levied – to benefit a couple which have refused any mediation on the issue.
And, oh yes, this couple continue to state that the legal issue is re: marriage. When actually the fine would be for violation of the state’s non-discrimination law.
I didn’t vote for him, but Ross was right when he noted that “the devil is in the details”.
posted by Houndentenor on
Thank you for clarifying the $150k amount bandied about so often. That seemed excessive to me as the damages couldn’t possibly be that high in this instance.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Strange bedfellows indeed. I just went to Joe.My.God and found Joe posting Bryan Fischer’s take on the Hitching Post.
Here’s Bryan’s tweet re: the Hitching Post:
“Let’s not forget: Couer D’Alene is STILL determined to lock up politically incorrect pastors for 180 days.”
Joe notes the actual facts of the matter, though:
– Hitching Post is not a ministry. Hitching Post does not minister to any flock. (note: as of Oct. 6, the Hitching Post changed its corporate status – as noted in previous comments.)
– No one has ordered them to do anything.
– No one has threatened jail or fines.
– No same sex couple has asked to be married at Hitching Post.
– No gay couple has filed any legal complaints.
– “We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind” Couer D’Alene spokesman Keith Erickson.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2jgph-ZfK5k/VEe7U6I3RVI/AAAAAAADLwQ/39xXagjVt3k/s1600/HitchingPostFactCheck.jpg
Stephen’s new motto: ‘If you can’t find a victim, make one…’
posted by craig123 on
Joe Jervis (Joe.My.God), in a tweet on the Hitching Post affair, referred to “anti-gay lawyer Walter Olson.” Walter is an openly gay libertarian policy analyst (and occasional CultureWatch contributor) who is not a lawyer. But what matter facts when you’re on the LGBT left (all that matters is the narrative, as they say).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s a tangled web with much mischief on the right in an effort to create religious-liberty panic. But some on the left would have no qualms with forcing the ministers to perform their marriage (a shotgun wedding, perhaps?), so no side is looking especially good in all this.
I came into this thinking that — perhaps — the Knapps were conservative Christians making an honest, if legally clumsy, attempt to limit the scope of the services offered by their business so the Knapps were no longer in the business of offering any services to the public-at-large — that is, the Knapps were offering a limited service (“traditional Christian wedding ceremonies” to a defined and limited customer base (Christians).
When I thought that might be the case, I thought that this was an interesting attempt to do the right thing, and a possible route toward accommodation.
The more facts I learn, the more I am becoming convinced that the Knapps are party to a calculated, dishonest, ADF-driven, manufactured controversy created for the sole purpose of frightening intelligent, reasonable conservatives who are not anti-gay ideologues into supporting the so-called “religious freedom” exemption to public accommodation laws currently being proposed, which are nothing more or less than exemptions permitting discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone, for the benefit of conservative Christians, and conservative Christians alone.
On a related front, I’ve been trying to puzzle out why libertarian-minded writers like Olson, who are otherwise intelligent and reasonably discerning, are supporting such exemptions.
I don’t pretend to know, but I suspect that this is a situation akin to the position taken by those libertarians who oppose marriage equality — that the evil of civil marriage is so great that we cannot afford expand its reach to gays and lesbians even though to deny marriage equality is to offend the libertarian principle that marriage laws, to the extent that such laws are in place, should apply equally across the board.
Perhaps this situation is similar — that the evil of public accommodations laws is so great that any opportunity to limit their scope, however misguided and selectively discriminatory, must be supported.
I understand the logic of both positions, but I disagree. I think that libertarians like Olson view the relative evils upside down. To my mind, the evil of government-sanctioned discrimination without rational basis is far greater than the evil of public accommodations laws.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I have some friends who are ‘libertarian’ (and there’s a range within that label). When the sturm-und-drang of marriage equality was raging a couple of years ago, they would comment that they had such mixed feelings re: marriage. i.e., they were not really in support of marriage equality – because they really weren’t supportive of ‘marriage’ as a governmental institution.
What struck me as problematic with this ‘principled’ stand was that it was never voiced prior to our community’s battle. These hetero libertarians would attend their hetero friends’ weddings. They would congratulate friends, family, etc… who were getting married.
However, when the subject of marriage equality was introduced, there was a suddenly voiced indignation with marriage itself. As if our push for equality was somehow the straw on the camel’s back.
Perhaps they felt that the expansion of civil marriage for same sex couples was a move in the wrong direction, and thus their immediate antipathy to the ’cause.
But I was never able to shake the sense that there just might be a bit of bigotry somewhere in the background. These libertarians were all hetero, white males, btw.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What struck me as problematic with this ‘principled’ stand was that it was never voiced prior to our community’s battle. These hetero libertarians would attend their hetero friends’ weddings. They would congratulate friends, family, etc… who were getting married.
I’m similarly bothered by the failure of libertarian-minded writers like Walter Olson to embrace “religious freedom” exemptions to forms of marriage other than same-sex marriages.
While the number of conservative Christian business owners who would refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings on religious grounds is no doubt small, there certainly must be some conservative Christians who would object to providing services to adulterous remarriage after divorce, or to interfaith marriages in which the children will be raised Jewish or Muslim or Mormon, or to other forms of marriage that violate Christian sensitivities.
Do we hear anyone among the libertarian right suggesting that these Christians might be entitled to “religious freedom” from being forced by the heavy hand of government to provide services to such weddings?
In a word, no. The closest we get to that position from libertarians are broad statements to the effect that no business owners should be forced to serve anyone, for any reason.
Okay, if that is what libertarians want, then why aren’t they pushing for that?
For all the talk about “religious liberty”, libertarians are not supporting broad-scope religious liberty. Libertarians are supporting government sanctioned, narrow band discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone. Call them on it, and they get all huffy about it. That’s been my experience, anyway.
posted by Houndentenor on
I hear this “we should just get government out of marriage” argument all the time and it just reveals an ignorance of what legal marriage is and what legal advantages there are to being married. If any married couples feel that way then they should get divorced and just take their chances if one of them gets sick or dies and see just how important it is to have a legally recognized relationship. On a day to day basis it probably doesn’t make that much difference but in a medical or other extreme crisis, the importance becomes very clear. I think we all know couples who have lived through nightmares of not being married in such a crisis. Those are the stories that need to be told. Not that anyone will be convinced since some people are clearly not capable of caring about anyone but themselves, but I think most people would get it. (In fact I think that’s one of the reasons that public opinion on marriage has moved so far so quickly.)
posted by Mike in Houston on
It’s a tangled web with much mischief on the right in an effort to create religious-liberty panic. But some on the left would have no qualms with forcing the ministers to perform their marriage (a shotgun wedding, perhaps?), so no side is looking especially good in all this.
Head slap.
There is not a single credible person “on the left” that is advocating forcing ministers to perform marriages — unless that is part of their civil duties (as a magistrate or county clerk)… so give it a rest already.
posted by Don on
Wow. Forcing ministers to perform gay marriages against their will. Huh? Where? When? How would the non-existent commie Marxist lefties, who don’t actually want this, get it past the constitution?
I’m starting to think religious conservatives might be meth addicts with tin foil on their windows constantly peeking out between the cracks looking for the jihadist sleeper cells that have joined forces (inexplicably) with their local gay rights organizations to firebomb their house. Only 5 days without sleep and extreme drug-induced paranoia could yield these kinds conclusions.
It’s completely nuts. And yet it does demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the law, and the constitution in particular, actually works. Forget that no one wants it. It would be impossible to survive a court challenge should the imaginary Marxist homos manage to create the non-existent agenda and actually get it enacted. It Just Can’t Happen.
posted by Francis on
I’m inclined to agree with you on the tinfoil, but the “smoking scanté while publicly demonising anything even remotely drug related” angle strains credulity. They’d have to come up with imaginative ways of hiding their filthy habit, which they clearly lack the brainpower for.
posted by Wilberforce on
It makes me so sad that we don’t have anyone to make the obvious argument on this, probably because Americans don’t know the first thing about scripture. Thus:
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
These are businesses posing as religions, which the founder condemned in no uncertain terms in the above quote. But again, the general public are dumber than a bag of hammers and easily fooled by any slippery story.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Hitching Post flap is legally concluded, not that it will make any difference to conservative Christians and their “boxcars are the new black helicopters” allies on the right.
posted by Don on
So now the uber-far left ACLU (card-carrying members) have decided that the Hitching Post falls under a religious exemption and see no point in challenging the existence of said religious exception.
If the organization that is a litmus test for far-left loonery sees nothing wrong here, then maybe – just maybe – the real loonies might lie somewhere else on the political spectrum?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Hitching Post resolution provides a sensible way forward to resolve the conflict.
The Knapps discontinued a part of the business (civil and/or non-religious marriage celebrations) in order to conform to their religious beliefs. It works because the 1st Amendment protects religious activity, not the business itself. If the Knapps backslide on the “traditional Christian wedding celebrations” business model, and once again offer wedding services above and beyond, the ordinance will be applicable.
Note that the Hitching Post situation is quite different from the “bakers and florist” situation, because baking a cake or arranging flowers is not, to anyone with any sense, a religious activity protected by the 1st Amendment.
But there is also a more important difference, in practical terms. The Knapps were willing to limit the scope of their business model — that is, willing to lose business — in order to conform to their religious belief. Unlike the Knapps, the baker and florist and wedding venue cases to date involve Christians who are not willing to do that — what they want to do is exclude gays and lesbians but do business as normal with everyone else. The Knapps are willing to sacrifice for their faith; the others so far were only willing to sacrifice gays and lesbians for their faith.
In any event, Stephen will have to await another example to crank up the outrage machine. But not to worry. The ADF will find another business to groom for martyrdom, and soon. Count on it.
posted by Don on
totally agree.
performing a religious wedding that is contrary to religious belief should be protected from discrimination laws. not florists. but clerks and magistrates need to be clear that it doesn’t include them. of course, in North Carolina, they seem to have a pretty good idea now.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Hitching Post resolution is interesting because it is so different from the other cases to date..
The Knapps discontinued a part of the business (civil and/or non-religious marriage celebrations) in order to conform to their religious beliefs. It works because the 1st Amendment protects religious activity, not the business itself. If the Knapps backslide on the “traditional Christian wedding celebrations” business model, and once again offer wedding services above and beyond, the ordinance will be applicable.
Note that the Hitching Post situation is quite different from the “bakers and florist” cases to date, as well as the other “wedding venue” cases, because baking a cake or arranging flowers or providing a hall for a wedding and/or reception is not, in any real sense, a religious activity protected by the 1st Amendment.
But there is also an important difference, in real-world, practical terms. The Knapps were willing to limit the scope of their business model — that is, willing to lose business — in order to conform to their religious belief within the ordinance. Unlike the Knapps, the baker and florist and wedding venue cases to date involve Christians who are not willing to do that — what they want to do is exclude gays and lesbians but do business as normal with everyone else. The Knapps are willing to sacrifice for their faith; the others so far are only willing to sacrifice gays and lesbians for their faith.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I seem to have posted the same thing twice. So much for letting my husband distract me in mid-post.
posted by Mike in Houston on
So another ADF-stirred up controversy (like the sermon flap) ends… and yet, state-sanctioned (religious-based) discrimination of legally married people doesn’t rise to the level of commentary from Stephen and the homocons.
That villainous lesbian Mayor Parker’s daughter couldn’t get a drivers license because her documentation (like the birth certificate) had both her mothers’ information listed…
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/With-two-mothers-Parker-s-daughter-faced-5845484.php
posted by Jorge on
The Knapps are willing to sacrifice for their faith; the others so far are only willing to sacrifice gays and lesbians for their faith.
Whining about the fact that one is suffering under a reign of terror for one’s faith does seem a little anti-Christian.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
[T]he ADF will find another business to groom
‘groom’….Oh, snap!
posted by Mike in Houston on
They’re already revving up the Christian Persecution™ outrage machine — sans truth or facts — for a big blow-out here in Houston this coming Sunday at (of course) Grace Church (home of one of the five pastors under subpoena for their role in the HERO petition process).
The Gay Hate Hoe-Down will be helmed by Tony (gay kids commit suicide because they know they’re disordered) Perkins, with appearances by the Benham (gays are like ISIS) Brothers, Bryan (the first amendment applies only to Christians the way I define them) Fischer and many more!
Of course, if you want to really understand what these folks from I Stand Sunday really stand for… a reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXE8vKM7h6A
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Deciding to force conservative evangelicals (especially, you know, ordained ministers) to engage in behavior supporting same-sex marriage (especially, you know, performing marriage ceremonies) makes supporters of LGBT legal equality look like modern-day Robespierres.
Only Robespierre? Not Hilter and the “boxcars” ala Tony Perkins? Come on, Stephen. Get with the right-wing program.
Who is making “supporters of LGBT legal equality look like modern-day Robespierres”. Certainly not the much-hated “progressive LGBT” groups, who did not get involved in the fracus, a fracus manufactured entirely by the ADF to discredit a particular non-discrimination ordinance and chip away at public accommodation laws in general.
The reason that “supporters of LGBT legal equality look like modern-day Robespierres”, if that is in fact the case (doubtful) is that the ADF and its cohorts on the religious right, aided and abetted by sympatico propagandists, pounded the drum incessently to create that impression. The gang (the Benhams, Huckabee, Perkins, the Robertsons, Scarbrough, Starnes, et. al.) are gathering for “I Stand Sunday” in Houston, where the drum will be pounded even louder.
The way to fight back the current drumbeat of manufactured outrage and anti-gay hysteria (ministers to be jailed, Christians to be put in boxcars, churches to be silenced, preaching the Gospel will be prosecuted as a hate crime, and so on) is to do what we did the last time around (perverted, diseased child molsters destroying the foundations of civilization) during the anti-marriage amendment period and its aftermath, and continue forward with reasoned argument giving lie to the lie.
The way to fight back is not — repeat not — to join the loud and ugly anti-gay chorus, as you seem to be doing with your continued characterization that gays and lesbians are akin to Robespierre, intent on inflicting a “Reign of Terror” on the good people of America.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Frankly, this seems like a “manufactured” controversy.
Initially, the Hitching Post — not the most romantic of names IMHO — thought that it would be required to do same-sex marriages (although no gay couples had requested it) because it initially advertised as doing civil and religion marriage ceremonies. Turns out, they don’t.
Again, I do not think that any gay couple actually wanted to get married at the Hitching Post, nor compel the ministers to officiate. It was just some sort of theoretical situation that was resolved without an ounce of tyranny.
posted by Don on
Wait. The Hitching Post sued the city not the other way around. And they did pre-emptively so as not to trigger an “over-reach” by the town forcing a non-existent gay couple from knocking on their door. Then the AFA blasts the town’s switchboard and floods their email inbox with tens of thousands of angry emails and phone calls from people all over the country attacking the city for doing something it didn’t know it was going to even do yet.
Maybe we should build a wall along the Canadian border to prevent jihadis from sneaking in that way because well, you know, of course it’s going to happen. So why is everybody sitting around calmly like nothing is wrong here! Freak out already! Some of these people SPEAK FRENCH! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I miss the days when the conservatives were trying to convince the liberals not to freak out over every little thing and to simply let nature take its course. I mean, that is the cornerstone of Reaganism, isn’t it? Let people live their lives with as little government interference as possible? I can’t imagine the Gipper even chiming in on this one. Good grief.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I cannot let the jab at the Canadians (French-Canadians) go without an opportunity to break into song……1…2…3…..Here we go…..”Blame Canada!”
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
OK, I was asked to explain the reference…..it’s from South Park the movie/musical (1999).
I have not always liked South Park (or the brand of humor), but the movie/musical is a treat to watch.
One of the film’s more famous songs -blame Canada – is tied up with the film’s main plot point; the U.S. declares war on Canada (out of parental outrage over an R-rated Canadian film with fowl language).
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The new story about the t-shirts should probably read, “some LGBT progressives”. I suspect a fair number of people (across the political spectrum…and the sexual identity spectrum) would find the lawsuit to be silly and run afowl of the First Amendment.
Stephen would probably label me a ‘progressive’, (a fair number of progressives have found some of my views to be conservative)….although I think it is silly and stupid to force the t-shirt maker to do gay pride t-shirts. This does not mean that civil rights laws or public accomodations laws should not exist (as some libertarian conservatives argue) or should not include sexual orientation.