Idaho Town Bridling in their Religious Discrimination?
Coeur d’Alene, a small town in northern Idaho appears to be trying to rein in their earlier threat to put two ministers in jail for refusing to conduct same-sex weddings. As I outlined last week, Don and Lynn Knapps, two Evangelical ministers, own The Hitching Post, a wedding chapel in Coeur d’ Alene. The Knapps, who have been operating The Hitching Post for over a quarter of a century, are ministers in the Foursquare denomination that holds to the biblical and historical definition of marriage. FRC’s allies at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) quickly came to the Knapps’ defense. Originally Coeur d’Alene city attorney Mike Gridley told ADF attorneys that the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be “exempt” from the city’s ordinance requiring compliance with its “anti-discrimination” law.
Coeur d'Alene, a small town in northern Idaho appears to be trying to rein in their earlier threat to put two ministers in jail for refusing to conduct same-sex weddings. As I outlined last week, Don and Lynn Knapps, two Evangelical ministers, own The Hitching Post, a wedding chapel in Coeur d’ Alene. The Knapps, who have been operating The Hitching Post for over a quarter of a century, are ministers in the Foursquare denomination that holds to the biblical and historical definition of marriage.
FRC’s allies at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) quickly came to the Knapps’ defense. Originally Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley told ADF attorneys that the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be “exempt” from the city’s ordinance requiring compliance with its “anti-discrimination” law.
The city has changed its tune just a bit after the public outcry against this clear violation of the couple’s First Amendment rights grew to a crescendo across the nation. Now Gridley says, “After we’ve looked at this some more, we have come to the conclusion they would be exempt from our ordinance because they are a religious corporation.”
Not so fast, says ADF. What’s the basis for the new interpretation? What’s to say city officials won’t rethink the statute after the public outcry has died down? While ADF sees this as a move in the right direction, “to fix the ordinance, the city needs to adopt new language that will make clear who is subject to it. It is a fundamental violation of due process to pass a criminal law that does not clearly specify to whom it applies.”
There is a reason the Left wants this to go away and will say what they need to in order to shift the public’s focus from it. This is the just one consequence of the redefinition of marriage – the loss of religious freedom.
D.C. HealthCare Letter
FRC joined several other pro-life organizations in the nation’s capital last week by signing Alliance Defending Freedom’s letter to the D.C. Council Members urging them to reject Bill 20-790 the “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014” sponsored by Councilmember David Grosso. The District Council votes on this bill tomorrow. Under the guise of “non-discrimination” the proposal would require most employers in the District to support abortion by requiring them to cover elective abortion in their health insurance, as well as other services an employer may object to covering (such as contraception or IVF). To not cover such benefits would, under this bill, be an act of “discrimination.” This bill directly violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law that was the basis for Hobby Lobby’s successful challenge to the Obamacare HHS mandate. Similar bills have been introduced in New York, Michigan and North Carolina reflecting a trend that pro-abortion advocates are not happy enough with legal abortion – they want to force employers to cover it in their insurance.
The fact is this bill tracks with the pro-abortion goal of mainstreaming abortion. It is like California’s Department of Managed Health Care regulation which I wrote about last week, designed to force those who disagree with them to cover elective abortion in their health plans. Like the California regulation, the D.C. bill would violate the federal “Weldon Amendment” which forbids states and localities that receive federal funds from discriminating against those who object to participating in abortion.
Yet the District’s bill goes even further by forcing pro-life organizations located in the District to turn a blind eye to prospective employee’s participation in abortion. FRC is based here in the nation’s capital precisely to defend life as well as freedom and the family. Why should pro-life groups based in D.C. who hire staff to carry out their pro-life mission be forced to ignore a person’s participation in abortion? The non-discrimination bills we do support are protective of those who have conscience objections to participating in abortion. That the Left would twist the concept of “non-discrimination” on its head to force those with objections to abortion to participate in it is pernicious at best.
Forget any pretense of “agreeing to disagree” over abortion. The left understands that they can win only by silencing their opposition, and they are using the law and government to accomplish that goal. That is why we joined ADF, the March for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Charlotte Lozier Institute, Concerned Women for America, and the National Right to Life Committee to urge the Council to reject this bill. Congress, of course, has the Constitutional authority over all District of Columbia legislation. The Republican controlled House should put the District on notice that it will not accept such a blatant violation of its resident’s conscience rights.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
