The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.The thing that is most perplexing is why an aspiring married couple would insist on receiving services from people who don't support their union. Over the past decade, more and more Americans began to accept the "live and let live" mantra and thus no longer protested the idea of gays marrying. So why is it that when the gays seemingly get what they want (i.e. the "freedom to marry"), why must they turn it into a cudgel against those who politely reject such an exercise?
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.
This isn't the first story of its kind either. It further validates Erick Erickson's assertion from 19 months ago that, despite opposing gay marriage but not caring if it's legal, you will be made to care.
- How desperate are the Democrats to hang on to their U.S. Senate majority? They're citing blunders made by GOP Senate candidates......in 2012!!
Of course, it doesn't help the Dems when they're desperately trying to distance themselves from President Obama yet he continually inserts himself in the fray.
- So Monica Lewinsky joined Twitter on Monday.
— Monica Lewinsky (@MonicaLewinsky) October 20, 2014
Ms. Lewinsky posted her first tweet just ahead of a speech she was to given at Forbes' inaugural "Under 30 Summit" in Philadelphia.
In her speech, Lewinsky spoke of her advocacy to stop "cyberbullying." of which she claimed she was the first victim upon the 1998 revelation of her affair with then President Bill Clinton. While I felt awful for Ms. Lewinsky and how the affair basically ruined her life due to the public shaming, I don't believe she should be 100% absolved of responsibility. Given Lewinsky was a young woman in her early 20s when the affair began, I find it difficult to believe she didn't realize the moral repugnance of having relations with another woman's husband. Now do I believe she deserves to have her life in complete shambles as a result? No. In fact I'm rooting for her to use her awful circumstances to make a positive impact in the lives of others.
While it's a noble cause Lewinsky is undertaking, it would be even more so had she not portrayed herself a helpless victim.