Ministers threatened with jail and thousands in fines for refusing to marry gays

[Queller]

Seeking an injunction against the threat of years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines seems non-frivolous.

Please provide evidence that this couple was faced with the threat of years in prison.

 

[Queller]

All over. See the OP for a good example

Since they reorganized, the business in the OP is most likely exempt from the ordinance. So what about it?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Please provide evidence that this couple was faced with the threat of years in prison.

Already provided in post #19, but here it is again.

I would suggest you read the motion which has been filed: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/KnappTROmotion.pdf

Plaintiffs also request that the temporary restraining order remain in effect until such time as the Court dissolves it or grants Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction or other requested relief. Because this lawsuit is brought to vindicate Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiffs further request that any bond requirement be waived.
...
When a prospective customer called and asked if The Hitching Post would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony on October 17, 2014, they accordingly declined that request. For this single act, the Ordinance subjects the Knapps to up to 6 months in jail and $1,000 in fines. Each day the Knapps hold to their religious beliefs and decline to marry that couple constitutes a separate violation of the Ordinance and carries the same 6-month, $1,000-infines penalties. Thus, in one week this continuing violation of the Ordinance alone would subject the Knapps to imprisonment for over 3 years and $7,000 in fines.​

 

[AirPo]

Already provided in post #19, but here it is again.

That's not proof, but here it is again!

 

[Belk]

Thanks. It looks like they are availing themselves of all legal remedies.

My guess would be that this couple was advised by legal counsel that status as a "religious corporation" was not automatic or not assured ... or maybe the couple had second thoughts about refiling their business organization and resented having to change their business categorization because of the city's silly ordinance which interfered with the way they'd run their business for years. Whatever the reason, they then took the expensive step of also filing for injunctive relief, a seemingly prudent action.

From what CanDan was saying your supposition sounds close to the truth. Basically while it was not a necessary action it is not unheard of to force a judgement up front so that they do not have to worry about lawsuits down the road. It certainly did not hurt in the free advertisement department either.

 

[MachZer0]

Then the claim of bullying doesn't apply. This couple was not forced to violate their conscience.

Time will tell for this particular couple, but the law certainly will force someone to violate their conscience or suffer the penalties. That indeed is bullying

 

[MachZer0]

Since they reorganized, the business in the OP is most likely exempt from the ordinance. So what about it?

Maybe. That hasn't been determined, but my guess is that there are other Christian business owners who will find themselves in a predicament because of this bullying law

 

[Aureus]

Time will tell for this particular couple, but the law certainly will force someone to violate their conscience or suffer the penalties. That indeed is bullying

The law already forces a lot of people to violate their conscience or suffer the penalties by making them serve black customers. That was even a religious issue for the Mormons for quite some time. I wonder if you think that 'bullying' was any worse or any better than this current 'bullying.'

 

[MachZer0]

The law already forces a lot of people to violate their conscience or suffer the penalties by making them serve black customers. That was even a religious issue for the Mormons for quite some time. I wonder if you think that 'bullying' was any worse or any better than this current 'bullying.'

That was bullying as well. "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone" should rule the day

 

[Aureus]

That was bullying as well. "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone" should rule the day

Well at least you're straight forward in saying you're 100% pro racism/sexism/discrimination of all shapes and kinds.

 

[MachZer0]

Well at least you're straight forward in saying you're 100% pro racism/sexism/discrimination of all shapes and kinds.

I'm pro liberty. If that means that some people are allowed to discriminate, so be it.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Being against homosexual marriage =/= against homosexuals. I'm not sure how these are taken as discrimination cases.

What happens if they refused service for a interracial marriage I wonder? Which race would they be discriminating against with this logic?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The whole idea is to drive Christians out of the marketplace. If that isn't bullying, nothing is

Nonsense. They deliberately disregarded numerous verses specifically relating to Christian marriage and officiated over civil unions for years because they were not marrying people out of a Christian sense of duty to protect the sanctity of marriage, but for their own profit. That was their FOR-PROFIT business. Christ never spoke a single word against homosexuality and gay marriage, but He did have quite a bit to say about other aspects of marriage and divorce, which they blatantly ignored. As for being driven out of the marketplace, that assertion is also unfounded histrionics. They are strumming up publicity with their stunt so right-wingers who also approach verses pertaining to marriage like a buffet they can pick and choose from will flock to them in a misguided sense of loyalty.

Many law-abiding, bigotry-abhorring Christian business owners like my grandparents have thrived for decades and will continue to do so.

It's obnoxious and outrageous that you persist in completely misappropriating the use of a bullying charge for this couple. We have numerous workshops and seminars at my school and the youth center where I volunteer regarding bullying, educating us on what it is and what is not, and what this couple is experiencing does not, by any sense of the word, construe bullying. You could put the truth on one of those machines that make taffy and just stretch, stretch, stretttcccchhhhtch it out and it still wouldn't be bullying.

 

[YeShallTread]

Being against homosexual marriage =/= against homosexuals.

And your point is "ChristsSoldier"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

For-profit businesses that are open to the public are required by law to be just that -- open to the public -- even if they are run by ministers.

Christians are not above the law.

 

[AirPo]

I'm pro liberty. If that means that some people are allowed to discriminate, so be it.

The later statement contradicts the former statement.

 

[MachZer0]

Nonsense. They deliberately disregarded numerous verses specifically relating to Christian marriage and officiated over civil unions for years because they were not marrying people out of a Christian sense of duty to protect the sanctity of marriage, but for their own profit. That was their FOR-PROFIT business. Christ never spoke a single word against homosexuality and gay marriage, but He did have quite a bit to say about other aspects of marriage and divorce, which they blatantly ignored. As for being driven out of the marketplace, that assertion is also unfounded histrionics. They are strumming up publicity with their stunt so right-wingers who also approach verses pertaining to marriage like a buffet they can pick and choose from will flock to them in a misguided sense of loyalty.

Many law-abiding, bigotry-abhorring Christian business owners like my grandparents have thrived for decades and will continue to do so.

It's obnoxious and outrageous that you persist in completely misappropriating the use of a bullying charge for this couple. We have numerous workshops and seminars at my school and the youth center where I volunteer regarding bullying, educating us on what it is and what is not, and what this couple is experiencing does not, by any sense of the word, construe bullying. You could put the truth on one of those machines that make taffy and just stretch, stretch, stretttcccchhhhtch it out and it still wouldn't be bullying.

Christ confirmed every word in the Old Testament which condemns homosexual behavior. In His own words, every jot and tittle.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's obnoxious and outrageous that you persist in completely misappropriating the use of a bullying charge for this couple. We have numerous workshops and seminars at my school and the youth center where I volunteer regarding bullying, educating us on what it is and what is not, and what this couple is experiencing does not, by any sense of the word, construe bullying. You could put the truth on one of those machines that make taffy and just stretch, stretch, stretttcccchhhhtch it out and it still wouldn't be bullying.

Hi, Artemis.

Let's consider the definition of bullying to see if the municipality's actions qualify: Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion ...​

​

Yep, the municipality is employing the threat of fines and jail time to coerce.

... to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others.​

​

Was the municipality intending to intimidate?

Given the threat of jail time and thousands of dollars in fines, the answer is an unqualified yes.

Perhaps you disagree, but by definition the municipality's actions appear to be a clear case of bullying.

 

[YeShallTread]

Christ confirmed every word in the Old Testament which condemns homosexual behavior. In His own words, every jot and tittle.

Indeed He did. I would add, He also said....

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.​

Does that mean self-mutilation? No...it is to be understood figuratively.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

And your point is "ChristsSoldier"?

The point is that they are against the marriage, not the people who want to be married.