Comments on: Idaho Hitching Post case

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:58:42 +0000

Jim: The point is not that same-sex couples can’t find services. The point is to beat religious people up, to bully them, to force them to publicly recant their beliefs and then to rub everyone’s noses in it so that we all know Who’s In Charge Now.

By: City Tells Idaho Wedding Chapel It Can Turn Away Gay Couples - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:37:18 +0000

[…] of the Cato Institute explained it all from a libertarian perspective in his Overlawyered blog here. I decided not to engage in discussing the intrigue further because, though the technical […]

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:39:09 +0000

Allan,
Isn’t that what the Knapps are claiming? That they are essentially being forced to conduct ceremonies that are contrary to their religious beliefs?

I have less of a problem with the photographers and bakers than I do with this.

Personally I see a business opportunity here. Find people who have no problem with this and start offering package deals. Wedding, reception, catering, cakes and photographers. One stop shopping.

By: Allan

Allan — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:50:54 +0000

Jim,
Really? Really? If I thought that people were trying to get religious ministers to perform ceremonies against their will, I would certainly be against that. All people want is equal access to places of business. Equal access to public accommodations is an easy question (always). Forcing personal services, i.e., photographers and bakers, is a tougher question. Forcing someone to perform a religious ceremony against his will is an easy question (never).

By: Lrk

Lrk — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:50:39 +0000

inalienable rights as defined is pretty clear on this. And for a libertarian site it would seem you would hold these so called “natural” rights in high esteem. The bill of rights protects freedom of religion, not freedom to marry whoever you want. Laws that don’t cross those rights and do no harm to anyone should be the goal. If a gay couple wants to marry and it will violate a private business owner religious expression/speech, then the line has been crossed. The couple has the freedom to choose their own “minister” or officiator. It is very plain. As for the ADF going over board with the story, I believe with the current winds blowing on this movement it is best to presume worse case scenario. IMO

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:02:05 +0000

D,
If the religious union is separate from the civil union, then you just solved the entire problem. If gays can get a civil union as allowed by law, then why are they so insistent on having a RELIGIOUS minister perform a ceremony? There are plenty of people who can marry people, who DON’T have a religious issue with it.

By: D

Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:54:07 +0000

Cecil – Tom Perkins was citing dana chilton above. Are you correcting Tom for not correcting dana? If I am reading this correctly, your comment should be directed at dana.

Jim Collins – Are you being pedantic or inquisitive? Assuming you are inquisitive… You are conflating a religious union with a legal one. The religious union is separate and distinct from the legal one. Establishment, cancellation, annulment, etc of one has no effect on the other, though change in status for both may be pursued simultaneously.

BTW, the word you are looking for is “ordination”. Your assumption about the requirements to receive such is, well, an assumption. The education component is very much not a universal requirement for ordination. Besides, that tangent was irrelevant to your line of questions.

IceTrey – Well spoken and thanks for your clever username.

By: Cecil

Cecil — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:37:30 +0000

Tom Perkins, you are correct up to, but not including as a representative of the government. The government does not have any religious freedom. And I for one have to agree with that limitation. It also does not have any other constitutional rights not specifically given to it because those belong to the states and to the people.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:41:11 +0000

The Knapps are “ordained” ministers. I’m assuming that means that they have had some sort of an education in the religion that “ordained” them and that “ordainment” is a certification of that education.

Do the rules of that religion allow them to perform same sex marriages?
If the rules do not, can their “ordainment” be revoked?
If the rules do not, and they perform the ceremony anyway, is the couple “really” married?
If the couple turns out to NOT be married, can the Knapps be charged with fraud or theft by deception?

By: The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive That Idaho Gay Marriage Lawsuit? It Just Got Murky. - The Liberty Papers

Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:15:28 +0000

[…] So, what’s the history of the Hitching Post? Well, that’s where it gets murky. Walter Olson of Overlawyered tipped me off on this one. […]