Remember that Hitching Post gay wedding case? Yeah… never mind

posted at 5:01 pm on October 29, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Sorry I missed this earlier in the week, given all of the rush hour traffic clogging the lanes between ISIS City and Ebolatown. We previously covered the now familiar tale of the Knapps at the Hitching Post in Idaho. For the short version of the recap, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, were informed that they were going to have to perform same sex weddings at their chapel in order to remain in compliance with a city non-discrimination ordinance. The ensuing uproar which traveled from coast to coast like a shotgun blast apparently attracted the attention of the city fathers who have since thought better of the matter.

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.

More from attorney Doug Mataconis, who saw this one coming.

Even accepting the legitimacy of public accommodation laws and the idea that the idea of expanding them to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation, there is something unique and different about a wedding ceremony conducted by an ordained minister. Even if that ceremony is not religious in nature in and of itself, the fact that it is being performed by a minister means that the law needs to take into consideration the religious beliefs of the individuals that would be impacted by it. After all, as Volokh notes, to interpret it otherwise would mean that any minister who performs a ceremony for a small stipend would potentially be covered by such a law, and that would clearly run afoul of both the Idaho version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which mirrors the Federal Law at issue in the Hobby Lobby case, and the First Amendment itself. In either case, forcing the minister to perform the ceremony notwithstanding any doctrinal objections they may have to do so would impose a substantial burden on their religious liberty.

I rather suspect that everyone in the area (outside of a handful of activists who would probably want to force it into the courts as they have done with bakeries and photographers) was glad to see this dispute go away. You might be able to find a judge willing to take your case if it’s a completely secular service open to the public, such as hall rentals and photo albums. But do you really want to drag this elderly, adorable husband and wife into court and tell them they have to do something which violates their religious tenets? You may as well be the prosecutor in Miracle on 34th Street who had to prove that Santa Claus isn’t real.

Case closed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s not going to go away. It will get bigger and more national attention. LGBT will not allow this to stand and will take it to Federal court.

Cindy Munford on October 29, 2014 at 5:07 PM

I’m waiting to see the leftists go after a Muslim Mosque for not performing gay marriages…..

He11 – I’m still waiting for a lefty to say something critical about Muslims for executing gays just for being gay……

dentarthurdent on October 29, 2014 at 5:07 PM

In some denominations, a minister who performs such a ceremony can lose his ministerial status. That is a pretty substantial burdern for accomodating a desire that can be met in many less burdensome ways.

KW64 on October 29, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Pushback. We need more.

CurtZHP on October 29, 2014 at 5:08 PM

weird. When i lived in Idaho, Coeur d’Alene was known as the town white where supremacist go hide out.

MikeInBA on October 29, 2014 at 5:08 PM

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.

Would just making up rules under the color of law be considered bullying?

How about a civil rights violation?

Back when I was practicing law, I would often read the actual statute before I would form my opinion. Apparently they don’t teach that in law school anymore.

Lance Corvette on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Remember that Hitching Post gay wedding case? Yeah… never mind
posted at 5:01 pm on October 29, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

This was never a real thing.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Don’t worry.

The Gay Mafia will locate a wedding chapel that also performs civil ceremonies, and insist the ministers wed gay couples.

Count on it.

Adjoran on October 29, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Case closed.

Not likely. The Homo-Fascists will be back with more HotAir generated hate.

reddevil on October 29, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Darn. Anybody know the return policy at Bed, Bathhouse & Beyond?

Christien on October 29, 2014 at 5:11 PM

When does polygamy become legal???…

PatriotRider on October 29, 2014 at 5:11 PM

This has been the crown jewel of the activists all along: going after established religion

John the Libertarian on October 29, 2014 at 5:12 PM

I am still waiting for someone to make a point and go to a black owned catering business and hire them to cater a Klan rally. Or a Jewish business being hired to cater a Neo-Nazi rally. Think then the left will change their mind that businesses can refuse to serve anyone they choose?

The Notorious G.O.P on October 29, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Even if that ceremony is not religious in nature in and of itself, the fact that it is being performed by a minister means that the law needs to take into consideration the religious beliefs of the individuals that would be impacted by it.

This is not good.
Every Christ-follower is a “minister,” which Biblically simply means servant (the New Testament Greek word is translated as either servant or minister in various places).
We are called to serve God & serve people.
There is no clergy-laity distinction in the New Testament.
So if this couple ought to be exempt from oppressive govt mandates to honor a terrible perversion of marriage, then florists & bakers ought to be exempt as well.
Serving God & serving people requires that we do so with love & with truth.

itsnotaboutme on October 29, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Pushback. We need more.

CurtZHP on October 29, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Uh-huh. We need more than that; a lot more.

HiJack on October 29, 2014 at 5:14 PM

There is no clergy-laity distinction in the New Testament.

To elaborate (anticipating protests):
We are of course called to honor those who teach the Scriptures, but that can be done by a truck driver, a doctor, a florist, or a baker.
The Scriptures tell us that everything is to be done for God’s glory, whether you’re sorting mail for the boss, you’re preparing a sermon, you’re arranging flowers, or you’re baking a cake.

itsnotaboutme on October 29, 2014 at 5:18 PM

This was never a real thing.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

No surprise that’s the only thing you have to say, having provided no evidence of any fabrication, and now being completely unable to use “public accommodation” or “for-profit business” as a crutch.

The Schaef on October 29, 2014 at 5:19 PM

dentarthurdent on October 29, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Hope you aren’t holding your breath waiting on those…

This was never a real thing.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Really? Do you ever read the article?

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.

Sure seems real, particularly to the Knapps, who got one letter from the City Attorney saying they had to comply or become a not-for-profit, followed by a second letter that basically backed away from the original position of the city government.

Athos on October 29, 2014 at 5:22 PM

So. Idaho…

-libfree.

Judge_Dredd on October 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM

It’s pure bullying by the Democrats. It’s the same story with the Houston mayor. Bullies flake out when you make a stand.

The problem in all this is thd notion that only the religious, after passing some religious test, has the right documents or whatever, is allowed to have freedom of association.

If one person can get an exemption because of religion, then anyone should have the same right. Otherwise you’ve created a class of people with more rights than others.

Buddahpundit on October 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Glad to see the gay mafia have to bend over and grab its ankles on this one.

BuckeyeSam on October 29, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Using the SCOTUS approved Oblowhardcare mandate as a precedent, president Me! Me! Me! can just stick his stupid pen and his stupid phone in his stupid hand and issue another one of his stupid mandates, namely that all people in the country must perform or attend a gay wedding once annually, or pay an IRS penalty tax.

That’s how it works now in the stupid dictatorship our stupid country has become.

Smegley on October 29, 2014 at 5:28 PM

First Amendment, Schmirst Amendment.

Onward comrades the future of the totalitarian state is going to be glorious, GLORIOUS!!!

jukin3 on October 29, 2014 at 5:28 PM

The fight doesn’t stop, but it seems to be proper to be grateful for small victories. If I can find the contact information, maybe I’ll send a note of thanks to the city of Coeur d’Alene.

22044 on October 29, 2014 at 5:29 PM

good… glad to see that the city officials are backing down.

You might be able to find a judge willing to take your case if it’s a completely secular service open to the public, such as hall rentals and photo albums.

and that’s sad. why should “open to the public” mean that the business has to be completely open to everyone in the public and not allowed to turn anyone down? a private business should be allowed to choose which business transaction offers they accept and reject. why do people feel like they are automatically entitled to other people’s property and services? why does government feel like it has the authority to force a business owner to accept every offer given to them?

Sachiko on October 29, 2014 at 5:31 PM

He11 – I’m still waiting for a lefty to say something critical about Muslims for executing gays just for being gay……

dentarthurdent on October 29, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Won’t happen, the lefties understand that Muslims are willing and able to kill to enforce their faith. There is a lot that the American Marxists are willing to do to get what they want, dying for the cause, not something they consider an option.

Want proof? Ask Libfree, HotAit’s resident Homosexual Pervfessor, to go demand that he and his partner to get married in a Mosque, you’ll see just how fast the left runs away.

oscarwilde on October 29, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Case closed.

Oh, really? What does Sally Kohn have to say about that?

chris0christies0donut on October 29, 2014 at 5:32 PM

“But do you really want to drag this elderly, adorable husband and wife into court and tell them they have to do something which violates their religious tenets?”
.
And liberals scream in reply “YES! YES! YES! A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!”

higgins1991 on October 29, 2014 at 5:33 PM

if I were the Knapps, I would be looking at a civil rights violation lawsuit against the city. I’m sure the ACLU would be there to support them…right?

But honestly how is this not a civil rights violation? Forced servitude used to be against the law.

jukin3 on October 29, 2014 at 5:33 PM

why does government feel like it has the authority to force a business owner to accept every offer given to them?

Sachiko on October 29, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Have you never heard? Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately. Those addicted to power and authority make crack or heroin addicts look like nice well behaved kindergarten children.

oscarwilde on October 29, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Back when I was practicing law, I would often read the actual statute before I would form my opinion. Apparently they don’t teach that in law school anymore.

Lance Corvette on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

That’s so old-fashioned – now we pass (and enforce) laws before we find out what’s in them……

dentarthurdent on October 29, 2014 at 5:38 PM

The fight doesn’t stop, but it seems to be proper to be grateful for small victories. If I can find the contact information, maybe I’ll send a note of thanks to the city of Coeur d’Alene.

22044 on October 29, 2014 at 5:29 PM

that’s nice of you but i think the city only backed down because of the controversy that was generated. i don’t think they sincerely wanted to help the hitching post ministers.

The problem in all this is thd notion that only the religious, after passing some religious test, has the right documents or whatever, is allowed to have freedom of association.

If one person can get an exemption because of religion, then anyone should have the same right. Otherwise you’ve created a class of people with more rights than others.

Buddahpundit on October 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM

true. this isn’t about religion. stop talking about religion. this is about government overstepping its authority. government should have no authority to tell a baker to bake a cake or a photographer to take a picture, and so on and so forth. that’s it! it has nothing to do with religion. non-religious people should not have to be forced by gov’t to accept all business transactions either.

Sachiko on October 29, 2014 at 5:38 PM

I’m waiting to see the leftists go after a Muslim Mosque for not performing gay marriages…..

Ain’t gonna’ happen. Last I heard, Muslims don’t have marriage ceremonies in the Mosques. In Islam, it’s simply a contract between two people. If there’s a marriage ceremony at all, it’s probably just a simple civil affair, possibly even done at the courthouse.

DaveK on October 29, 2014 at 5:39 PM

The Real face of Domestic Terrorism …

If we intimidate a person so much that they voluntarily comply, even though law may not specifically require it, we win.

Many ‘minsters’ have complied with the intimidation to bend their beliefs to accommodate any manner of issue in kind…

… however, people like this couple are more likely to choose prison time over compliance in the face of this type of intimidation.

What government entity currently in power at any level would truly risk their careers imprisoning a Pastor or other religious leader for abiding their religious principles?

Lawrence on October 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Ain’t gonna’ happen. Last I heard, Muslims don’t have marriage ceremonies in the Mosques. In Islam, it’s simply a contract between two people. If there’s a marriage ceremony at all, it’s probably just a simple civil affair, possibly even done at the courthouse.

DaveK on October 29, 2014 at 5:39 PM

At the least done according to Sharia law.
I still want to see some kind of complaint by the left about Islam in this respect – or some attempt by the LGBTs to try to force acceptance by Muslims.
And, no Athos – I’m not holding my breath…..

oscarwilde on October 29, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Ya – Oscar has it right – just like how the lefty PETA enviro-wackos will attack little old ladies in fur coats – but not leather clad biker gangs – hmmmmm, I wonder why……

dentarthurdent on October 29, 2014 at 5:47 PM

This was never a real thing.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

We all said the same thing about SSM 20 years ago. Now look where we are…

yaedon on October 29, 2014 at 5:48 PM

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…

They also won’t be required to believe in the Easter Bunny. Just as much of a fantasy as a “same sex marriage”.

kcewa on October 29, 2014 at 5:49 PM

OK…..for now.

However, the militant ghey will not be denied. This is a but a hiccup towards their ultimate goal and that of the Marxists behind the scenes.

In a few years these malcontents will be labeling all churches “houses of hate” and they simply cannot exist within the confines of their new progressive dystopia.
(Mosques need not apply for apply for some strange reason/)

The tyranny of the minority marches on.

StubbornGreenBurros on October 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM

WTF?

Santa Claus ain’t real?

F it! I’m now a full blown cynic.

KirknBurker on October 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Just another homosexual stirring the pot…They all need to go away “City police investigators learned that the Massachusetts woman who filed the complaint against the Hitching Post was already married to a woman in that state.”

Bullhead on October 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM

If one person can get an exemption because of religion, then anyone should have the same right. Otherwise you’ve created a class of people with more rights than others.

Buddahpundit on October 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM

We did, until the Civil Rights act which oddly repealed sections of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights came about.

Now its those championing erotic rights over the faint remaining lettering in the Constitution addressing religious rights who will determine our future.

This is what it is like living without Rule of Law.

Reuben Hick on October 29, 2014 at 5:54 PM

This was merely sticking a toe in the water to see how hot it was. They will be back in full force before Sally Kohn can change her boxer shorts.

bimmcorp on October 29, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Case closed.

NO! It should BE SHOVED UP SOMEONE’S ASS!

GarandFan on October 29, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Maybe the bakers could become ordained ministers.

JellyToast on October 29, 2014 at 5:55 PM

The Left has no idea what tolerance means.

paul1149 on October 29, 2014 at 5:56 PM

This I was never a real thing.
verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Better.

Nutstuyu on October 29, 2014 at 5:59 PM

It was also found that the lesbian who made the initial complaint was already married in another state.. But good news, the Supreme Court in New York found that uncle/niece marriage is okay..

melle1228 on October 29, 2014 at 6:00 PM

This was never a real thing.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

No surprise that’s the only thing you have to say, having provided no evidence of any fabrication, and now being completely unable to use “public accommodation” or “for-profit business” as a crutch.

The Schaef on October 29, 2014 at 5:19 PM

They claim is someone called and requested an SSM ceremony.
There is only their claim of this.
(And I think this kind pastor and his wife might actually be telling the truth here – but that the call came from one of the attorney’s who had the lawsuit ready to file.)
They call they were threatened with jail, fine, etc.
Again, they claim this and provide zero evidence of there ever being any threat.
This isn’t a mystery. There’s plenty of evidence to how these sweet folks were managed by an anti-SSM advocacy group.
They were walked through changing their LLC status, etc.

But you believe it all you want.
I also can’t prove invisible elves don’t exist.
So you got me there.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Just another homosexual stirring the pot…They all need to go away “City police investigators learned that the Massachusetts woman who filed the complaint against the Hitching Post was already married to a woman in that state.”
Bullhead on October 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM

See?? Even teh gheys need polygamy!!

Nutstuyu on October 29, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Case closed.

Not likely. The Homo-Fascists will be back with more HotAir generated hate.

reddevil on October 29, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Smells like Teen Spirit in here…

Del Dolemonte on October 29, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Even if that ceremony is not religious in nature in and of itself, the fact that it is being performed by a minister means that the law needs to take into consideration the religious beliefs of the individuals that would be impacted by it.

I disagree. If a minister performs a marriage in the context of his church duties, then it is a religious event. If someone with a minister’s degree performs a marriage unrelated to his church, ie as a for profit venture, then his being a minister is only incidental (he is qualified by the state to perform a marriage).

That being said, I don’t think that the state should be requiring private businesses to accommodate gay couples if the couples are not of the same faith as the minister/pastor/priest/etc.

In other words, I think it stinks to have a couple who are not religious, who do not attend a specific church to expect to be married by someone who did get a religious degree. There are plenty of non-secular alternatives for non-religious couples.

Chitownmom on October 29, 2014 at 6:04 PM

They claim is someone called and requested an SSM ceremony.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 6:02 PM

City police investigators learned that the Massachusetts woman who filed the complaint against the Hitching Post was already married to a woman in that state.

The complainant told police by phone from Massachusetts that “an old lady” at the Hitching Post told her they would not provide the wedding service because it would be a violation of the owners’ religious beliefs.

Evelyn “Lynn” Knapp told the police investigator that the woman called two times Thursday morning.

“Lynn said this female was yelling at her and calling her a ‘redneck’ and a ‘bigot,’” states the police report.

Knapp told police the caller never requested a wedding, so Knapp didn’t have to refuse service.”

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_26f22e85-757d-5c7d-9b28-d7295f173b1c.html

melle1228 on October 29, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I think I saw elsewhere that Annise Parker called off the subpoenas to the Houston 5.

Winning battles, but not the war.

22044 on October 29, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I read this link at Gay Patriot, in the comments. Looks like another case of gay fascism

The_Livewire on October 29, 2014 at 6:18 PM

The irony is that are large part of these people losing their doctors voted for the man that caused their problem.
Living off of feel good thinking has a terrible consequence sometime.

Don L on October 29, 2014 at 6:19 PM

No law should prevent any individual or business from doing or refusing business with anyone. Anything else makes a mockery of freedom.

Count to 10 on October 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM

…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.

How would that justify withdrawing the case? If anything, it means they would continue even if the Knapps’ were to become a non-profit. All that is is blah blah talk to appease those people who don’t bother thinking about what is being sense.

Fenris on October 29, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Ooops …being said sense.

Fenris on October 29, 2014 at 6:26 PM

There is no clergy-laity distinction in the New Testament.

itsnotaboutme on October 29, 2014 at 5:14 PM

.
The back page of every Sunday bulletin of my little stone church in Hamilton, VA had this statement: “Ministers: every member of the congregation.”

ExpressoBold on October 29, 2014 at 6:32 PM

how hard is it to get ordained? couldn’t the bakers and photogs do the same?

smitty41 on October 29, 2014 at 6:33 PM

I think I saw elsewhere that Annise Parker called off the subpoenas to the Houston 5.

she did and she’s mad as hell she had to do it, I expect her to show more of her true colors

She did this to burnish her leftist credentials for future endeavors. She’s term limited. And yes, financial forensics will show she has been along for the whole ride and voted for every unprinted dollar of this city’s $7 billion debt (created in 12 years mind at that).

DanMan on October 29, 2014 at 6:33 PM

But do you really want to drag this elderly, adorable husband and wife into court and tell them they have to do something which violates their religious tenets?

For SSM advocates, yes. Yes, they do.

There Goes the Neighborhood on October 29, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Case closed.

Not by a long shot.

The gay activists will not rest until their agenda is pushed all the way down our throats.

WTNY on October 29, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Let the bullying commence.

CW on October 29, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Even if that ceremony is not religious in nature in and of itself, the fact that it is being performed by a minister means that the law needs to take into consideration the religious beliefs of the individuals that would be impacted by it.

I disagree. If a minister performs a marriage in the context of his church duties, then it is a religious event. If someone with a minister’s degree performs a marriage unrelated to his church, ie as a for profit venture, then his being a minister is only incidental (he is qualified by the state to perform a marriage).

That being said, I don’t think that the state should be requiring private businesses to accommodate gay couples if the couples are not of the same faith as the minister/pastor/priest/etc.

In other words, I think it stinks to have a couple who are not religious, who do not attend a specific church to expect to be married by someone who did get a religious degree. There are plenty of non-secular alternatives for non-religious couples.

Chitownmom on October 29, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a right allowed to churches. It doesn’t have to be part of church duties to be a religious right.

The fact that they’re ordained just makes the violation of religious freedom a little more obvious. But a baker or photographer or T-shirt maker who refuses to take part in what he believes is an abomination is just as much a case of religious freedom.

There Goes the Neighborhood on October 29, 2014 at 6:45 PM

The idea that private enterprise has to provide accommodation according to the dictates of the state is a fundamental violation of property rights. Historically the state would have to prove the legitimate police power underlying such a law. As it is it seems that the law’s premise is that everything is owned collectively and property rights don’t mean anything.

Kevin R on October 29, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Every Christ-follower is a “minister,” which Biblically simply means servant (the New Testament Greek word is translated as either servant or minister in various places).
We are called to serve God & serve people. There is no clergy-laity distinction in the New Testament. itsnotaboutme on October 29, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Oh just stop! There were apostles and non-apostles. Deacons and non-deacons. There were bishops and non-bishops. Do I need to provide you with chapters and verses?

Akzed on October 29, 2014 at 6:56 PM

This was never a real thing. verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Like your grasp of reality.

Akzed on October 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Like your grasp of reality insanity.

Akzed on October 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM

These trolls need better editors so I don’t have to keep correcting their typos.

Nutstuyu on October 29, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Thank you Alliance Defending Freedom for the good work you do in protecting our rights. I will continue to support.

Christian Conservative on October 29, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Nutstuyu on October 29, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Please elaborate.

Akzed on October 29, 2014 at 7:22 PM

They claim is someone called and requested an SSM ceremony.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 6:02 PM

City police investigators learned that the Massachusetts woman who filed the complaint against the Hitching Post was already married to a woman in that state.

The complainant told police by phone from Massachusetts that “an old lady” at the Hitching Post told her they would not provide the wedding service because it would be a violation of the owners’ religious beliefs.

Evelyn “Lynn” Knapp told the police investigator that the woman called two times Thursday morning.

“Lynn said this female was yelling at her and calling her a ‘redneck’ and a ‘bigot,’” states the police report.

Knapp told police the caller never requested a wedding, so Knapp didn’t have to refuse service.”

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_26f22e85-757d-5c7d-9b28-d7295f173b1c.html.
.
melle1228 on October 29, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Don’t let the door hit you in the a$$ on your way out of the conversation Verbie.

itsspideyman on October 29, 2014 at 7:29 PM

I am glad to see common sense prevailed . . . for a change.

WannabeAnglican on October 29, 2014 at 7:42 PM

This has been the crown jewel of the activists all along: going after established religion

John the Libertarian on October 29, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Yup. They’re attempting to normalize abnormal behavior. They’ve already claimed the courts and culture.

Religion’s next and then the kids (or maybe at the same time) – for example, the Boy Scouts and letting little Johnny play girl when he feels like it.

Ruckus_Tom on October 29, 2014 at 8:26 PM

JETBOY

I don’t know if you will see this thread, but this is for our friend, Jetboy, and anyone else who struggles with same sex attraction.

Tonight on EWTN is a half hour show called An Invitation to Courage, to help those with same sex attraction.

Tonight, Wendesday October 29th, at 11:00PM Eastern Time

If you don’t have EWTN cable TV, you can live stream EWTN 24/7 on its website. At the top of the homepage click Television, then Live TV English, then hit the livestream for whatever area of the world you live, ie United States English.

http://www.ewtn.com/

Also, EWTN Live tonight hosted by Fr. Mitch Pacwa had the Courage Apostolate priest on as a guest for the whole hour.

That show will be repeated tonight at 1:00AM and tomorrow morning (Thursday) at 9:00AM. (Both Eastern Standard time)

You can DVR them or watch online.

For those who have never seen the website for Courage International, here is the link:
http://couragerc.org/

May God bless all of you and your families. You are in my prayers.

Elisa on October 29, 2014 at 9:22 PM

JETBOY

I don’t know if you will see this thread, but this is for our friend, Jetboy, and anyone else who struggles with same sex attraction.

Tonight on EWTN is a half hour show called An Invitation to Courage, to help those with same sex attraction.

Elisa on October 29, 2014 at 9:22 PM

What a mean and self-serving thing to do. You address youself to a guy who hasn’t been posting today. You characterize his very nature as a “struggle” and seek to direct him to a “half hour show” for “help”.

I don’t get cross with too many people on Hot Air any more, but I gotta tell you, this makes me want to let you know what I think of your “advice” to my friend, in alphabetical order:

Abusive absurd arrogant asinine A-hole.
Berserk bigoted b*tchy blind braindead bratty beclowned bloodthirsty Bore.
Clichéd charlatan childish clueless Crybaby.
Disgraceful disgusting dishonest delusional douchebag.
Feckless filthy foolish foul-mouthed fever-swamp Fascists.
Has-been hypocritical hysterical hateful hack Hardliner.
Idiotic incoherent ill-informed immature insane irrational irrelevant Illiterate.
Juvenile kneejerk Kool-Aid-guzzling Kook.
Lazy loony liberal lunatic lying Loser.
Mean-spirited mindless mocking Mouth-breathing moronic ME-o-con.
Nagging narcissistic naive nativist Nutcase.
Obnoxious obtuse
Paranoid pathetic petty pissy pompous pitiful petulant pouting predictable POS.
Rude relentless rabid repetitiveridiculous ranting RINO.
Silly sanctimonious smearing self-righteous shreaking sneering saboteur.
Sputtering spittle-flecked self-involved senseless Slanderer!
Thoughtless trash-talking toolbag traitorous twisted troll,
Un-American uninformed unpatriotic Unitard!
Vicious vacuous vile vituperative Viper.
Weak whining worthless wingnut xenophobic Zealout!

RushBaby on October 29, 2014 at 10:04 PM

RushBaby on October 29, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Please, don’t hold back. lol

I don’t think Jetboy, who I consider a brother, will feel the same way you do. I have read many of his posts. He says he struggles. He is Catholic, as am I, and I imagine, like me, he reads threads which he doesn’t post on.

It’s not like I have “outed” him.

If my post bothers you, there is nothing I can do about it. My conscience is clear.

God bless all here. Good night.

Elisa on October 29, 2014 at 10:56 PM

RushBaby on October 29, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Damn! And I was happy just coining the term “copsucker” to describe a few HA pinheaded porky pig posters (mostly cops or spouses of cops). I’m going to have to try harder now.

earlgrey on October 29, 2014 at 11:11 PM

The gay activists will not rest until their agenda is pushed all the way down our throats.

WTNY on October 29, 2014 at 6:41 PM

To be honest, it’s the progressive agenda that will not rest. Just like the Soviets, Soros, Obama, et. al., believe religion is the opiate of the masses. The gay activist’s are simply the cat’s paw.

Ricard on October 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Those city council members should have to pass an amendment to the ordinance explicitly spelling out who it applies to and who it doesn’t. Get it on their voting record and don’t let them hide behind a lawyer saying one thing and then the same lawyer saying another.

The ordinance is still there and it still could be pulled out at a later date.

cptacek on October 29, 2014 at 11:50 PM

The leftist extremists want to destroy freedom of association for everyone who does not agree with them.

The biggest obstacle to their plan is figuring out how to deprive groups of their rights without creating another “oppressed minority”…which they would then have to defend…

…but then, logic has never been a strong point for leftists!

landlines on October 30, 2014 at 12:12 AM

I’m going into the mail-order Minister biz.

If everyone becomes a minister, no one can be forced to violate their religious beliefs and be bullied into baking a cake or arranging any part of a ceremony that one cannot condone.

profitsbeard on October 30, 2014 at 2:24 AM

I’ll bet that city ordinance is still on the books, waiting to be trotted out the next time an lgbt is offended.

Kissmygrits on October 30, 2014 at 7:35 AM

Now where is the poster (can’t remember his name) who was calling everyone who made this same argument, “ignorant” and “stupid”? I guess I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology.

magicbeans on October 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM

This was never a real thing.

verbaluce on October 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Yes, it was. Your lack of understanding of constitutional law and legal pre-emption is enormous.

GWB on October 30, 2014 at 12:40 PM