(10-23-2014 10:11 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:08 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The key here is that the ordinance specifically exempts religious organizations.

Why is that the key (unless, of course, The Hitching Post turns out to be a religious organization)?

The hitching post isn't a church (yet).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-23-2014 10:13 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:11 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:08 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The key here is that the ordinance specifically exempts religious organizations.

Why is that the key (unless, of course, The Hitching Post turns out to be a religious organization)?

The hitching post isn't a church (yet).

Why is that important to the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the City to apply this statute to the pastors working at The Hitching Post?

(10-23-2014 10:17 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:13 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:11 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:08 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The key here is that the ordinance specifically exempts religious organizations.

Why is that the key (unless, of course, The Hitching Post turns out to be a religious organization)?

The hitching post isn't a church (yet).

Why is that important to the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the City to apply this statute to the pastors working at The Hitching Post?

What are they pastors of?

Also, it seems like this has more to do with them being the business owners than anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-23-2014 10:20 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:17 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:13 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:11 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:08 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The key here is that the ordinance specifically exempts religious organizations.

Why is that the key (unless, of course, The Hitching Post turns out to be a religious organization)?

The hitching post isn't a church (yet).

Why is that important to the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the City to apply this statute to the pastors working at The Hitching Post?

What are they pastors of?

The Hitching Post. I'm not aware of any requirement that a pastor be tied to a particular church. Traveling preachers used to be quite common and semi-retired pastors can still conduct marriages.

Quote:Also, it seems like this has more to do with them being the business owners than anything.

What difference does that make?

(10-23-2014 10:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:20 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:17 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:13 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:11 AM)jh Wrote:  Why is that the key (unless, of course, The Hitching Post turns out to be a religious organization)?

The hitching post isn't a church (yet).

Why is that important to the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the City to apply this statute to the pastors working at The Hitching Post?

What are they pastors of?

The Hitching Post. I'm not aware of any requirement that a pastor be tied to a particular church. Traveling preachers used to be quite common and semi-retired pastors can still conduct marriages.

Quote:Also, it seems like this has more to do with them being the business owners than anything.

What difference does that make?

It makes plenty of difference. They aren't getting fined as pastors, they're getting fined as business owners. If they were the owners and other employees were performing the marriages, they'd still be the ones getting fined.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shocker that CDA is involved in political drama

Just find someone else to marry them.

(10-23-2014 10:38 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Shocker that CDA is involved in political drama

They want to add to our colorful history of civil rights drama.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-23-2014 10:32 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:20 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:17 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:13 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The hitching post isn't a church (yet).

Why is that important to the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the City to apply this statute to the pastors working at The Hitching Post?

What are they pastors of?

The Hitching Post. I'm not aware of any requirement that a pastor be tied to a particular church. Traveling preachers used to be quite common and semi-retired pastors can still conduct marriages.

Quote:Also, it seems like this has more to do with them being the business owners than anything.

What difference does that make?

It makes plenty of difference. They aren't getting fined as pastors, they're getting fined as business owners. If they were the owners and other employees were performing the marriages, they'd still be the ones getting fined.

It's not enough to just identify differences you think exist. You have to be able to explain why these differences are important. What difference does it make that, according to you, they are being fined as business owners and not pastors? Do they have any other employees who perform weddings for them--and if so, why would that matter?

(10-23-2014 10:47 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:32 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:20 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:17 AM)jh Wrote:  Why is that important to the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the City to apply this statute to the pastors working at The Hitching Post?

What are they pastors of?

The Hitching Post. I'm not aware of any requirement that a pastor be tied to a particular church. Traveling preachers used to be quite common and semi-retired pastors can still conduct marriages.

Quote:Also, it seems like this has more to do with them being the business owners than anything.

What difference does that make?

It makes plenty of difference. They aren't getting fined as pastors, they're getting fined as business owners. If they were the owners and other employees were performing the marriages, they'd still be the ones getting fined.

It's not enough to just identify differences you think exist. You have to be able to explain why these differences are important. What difference does it make that, according to you, they are being fined as business owners and not pastors? Do they have any other employees who perform weddings for them--and if so, why would that matter?

It matters because people think they're specifically targeting the pastors. They're targeting the business owners, and it just so happens that they're the ones who also perform the marriages. Their business is being required to perform same sex marriages, and since they're the only employees, they're being forced to do it by default. The business should be required to accommodate, but not any individual employee.

I don't know if any of that makes sense. It's early and I'm groggy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-23-2014 10:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It matters because people think they're specifically targeting the pastors. They're targeting the business owners, and it just so happens that they're the ones who also perform the marriages.
Their business is being required to perform same sex marriages, and since they're the only employees, they're being forced to do it by default.

None of this matters. It doesn't even matter that they are pastors--any private person entitled to perform weddings in Idaho could also successfully challenge the statute. In addition to Free Exercise problems, this threatened application of the statute fails on Free Speech grounds as well. The government cannot compel noncommercial speech, and the fact that these pastors are paid to perform weddings does not change the ceremony itself into commercial speech.

(10-23-2014 11:16 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It matters because people think they're specifically targeting the pastors. They're targeting the business owners, and it just so happens that they're the ones who also perform the marriages.
Their business is being required to perform same sex marriages, and since they're the only employees, they're being forced to do it by default.

None of this matters. It doesn't even matter that they are pastors--any private person entitled to perform weddings in Idaho could also successfully challenge the statute. In addition to Free Exercise problems, this threatened application of the statute fails on Free Speech grounds as well. The government cannot compel noncommercial speech, and the fact that these pastors are paid to perform weddings does not change the ceremony itself into commercial speech.

I don't disagree with you (read my edit). The reason this is an issue at all is because it's a business. The city is trying to compel the business to perform the weddings.

(10-23-2014 11:29 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:16 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It matters because people think they're specifically targeting the pastors. They're targeting the business owners, and it just so happens that they're the ones who also perform the marriages.
Their business is being required to perform same sex marriages, and since they're the only employees, they're being forced to do it by default.

None of this matters. It doesn't even matter that they are pastors--any private person entitled to perform weddings in Idaho could also successfully challenge the statute. In addition to Free Exercise problems, this threatened application of the statute fails on Free Speech grounds as well. The government cannot compel noncommercial speech, and the fact that these pastors are paid to perform weddings does not change the ceremony itself into commercial speech.

I don't disagree with you (read my edit). The reason this is an issue at all is because it's a business.

No, government cannot compel noncommercial speech from businesses either.

(10-23-2014 11:35 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:29 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:16 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It matters because people think they're specifically targeting the pastors. They're targeting the business owners, and it just so happens that they're the ones who also perform the marriages.
Their business is being required to perform same sex marriages, and since they're the only employees, they're being forced to do it by default.

None of this matters. It doesn't even matter that they are pastors--any private person entitled to perform weddings in Idaho could also successfully challenge the statute. In addition to Free Exercise problems, this threatened application of the statute fails on Free Speech grounds as well. The government cannot compel noncommercial speech, and the fact that these pastors are paid to perform weddings does not change the ceremony itself into commercial speech.

I don't disagree with you (read my edit). The reason this is an issue at all is because it's a business.

No, government cannot compel noncommercial speech from businesses either.

Why is it noncommercial speech?

(10-23-2014 11:38 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:35 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:29 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:16 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:56 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  It matters because people think they're specifically targeting the pastors. They're targeting the business owners, and it just so happens that they're the ones who also perform the marriages.
Their business is being required to perform same sex marriages, and since they're the only employees, they're being forced to do it by default.

None of this matters. It doesn't even matter that they are pastors--any private person entitled to perform weddings in Idaho could also successfully challenge the statute. In addition to Free Exercise problems, this threatened application of the statute fails on Free Speech grounds as well. The government cannot compel noncommercial speech, and the fact that these pastors are paid to perform weddings does not change the ceremony itself into commercial speech.

I don't disagree with you (read my edit). The reason this is an issue at all is because it's a business.

No, government cannot compel noncommercial speech from businesses either.

Why is it noncommercial speech?

Because commercial speech is pretty much limited to speech proposing a commercial transaction, not any speech by a for-profit entity. See the link in Post #17 for a more detailed explanation.

(10-23-2014 11:42 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:38 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:35 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:29 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:16 AM)jh Wrote:  None of this matters. It doesn't even matter that they are pastors--any private person entitled to perform weddings in Idaho could also successfully challenge the statute. In addition to Free Exercise problems, this threatened application of the statute fails on Free Speech grounds as well. The government cannot compel noncommercial speech, and the fact that these pastors are paid to perform weddings does not change the ceremony itself into commercial speech.

I don't disagree with you (read my edit). The reason this is an issue at all is because it's a business.

No, government cannot compel noncommercial speech from businesses either.

Why is it noncommercial speech?

Because commercial speech is pretty much limited to speech proposing a commercial transaction, not any speech by a for-profit entity. See the link in Post #17 for a more detailed explanation.

So does the fact that speech is part of the 'service' this business provides change anything? If I'm interpreting this all correct, the government can compel businesses to offer a service, but not compel what they say. Who's to say they can't perform the wedding and say whatever the hell they want?

(10-23-2014 12:00 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:42 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:38 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:35 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:29 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  I don't disagree with you (read my edit). The reason this is an issue at all is because it's a business.

No, government cannot compel noncommercial speech from businesses either.

Why is it noncommercial speech?

Because commercial speech is pretty much limited to speech proposing a commercial transaction, not any speech by a for-profit entity. See the link in Post #17 for a more detailed explanation.

So does the fact that speech is part of the 'service' this business provides change anything? If I'm interpreting this all correct, the government can compel businesses to offer a service, but not compel what they say. Who's to say they can't perform the wedding and say whatever the hell they want?

No. At some point the officiant would have to declare the marriage final or official (and I assume sign some official documentation). This would be compelled by the government even if they do not specify the exact words.

(10-23-2014 12:13 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 12:00 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:42 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:38 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 11:35 AM)jh Wrote:  No, government cannot compel noncommercial speech from businesses either.

Why is it noncommercial speech?

Because commercial speech is pretty much limited to speech proposing a commercial transaction, not any speech by a for-profit entity. See the link in Post #17 for a more detailed explanation.

So does the fact that speech is part of the 'service' this business provides change anything? If I'm interpreting this all correct, the government can compel businesses to offer a service, but not compel what they say. Who's to say they can't perform the wedding and say whatever the hell they want?

No. At some point the officiant would have to declare the marriage final or official (and I assume sign some official documentation). This would be compelled by the government even if they do not specify the exact words.

So in any situation where a private business/employee would be required to say something they don’t agree with, they should be allowed to refuse service?

(10-23-2014 12:22 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 12:13 PM)jh Wrote:  No. At some point the officiant would have to declare the marriage final or official (and I assume sign some official documentation). This would be compelled by the government even if they do not specify the exact words.

So in any situation where a private business/employee would be required to say something they don’t agree with, they should be allowed to refuse service?

Ideally we will get there someday, but that's not the state of the law right now. Again from the link.

Quote:UPDATE: A commenter asked whether, under this logic, businesses could refuse to talk to customers of a particular race, or to offer them goods. The answer is “no,” because the rules having to do with speech that proposes a commercial transaction, or that conducts a commercial transaction in a nonspeech product, is less constitutionally protected — especially against speech compulsions — than other speech (including speech sold for money).

(10-23-2014 12:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 12:22 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 12:13 PM)jh Wrote:  No. At some point the officiant would have to declare the marriage final or official (and I assume sign some official documentation). This would be compelled by the government even if they do not specify the exact words.

So in any situation where a private business/employee would be required to say something they don’t agree with, they should be allowed to refuse service?

Ideally we will get there someday, but that's not the state of the law right now. Again from the link.

Quote:UPDATE: A commenter asked whether, under this logic, businesses could refuse to talk to customers of a particular race, or to offer them goods. The answer is “no,” because the rules having to do with speech that proposes a commercial transaction, or that conducts a commercial transaction in a nonspeech product, is less constitutionally protected — especially against speech compulsions — than other speech (including speech sold for money).

That update is talking about commercial speech, and we just established that we're talking about noncommercial speech.