29A
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 171
- Location
- St. Louis, MO.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Usually tl;dr - too long; didn't read.
I don't know what your cryptic abbreviations mean. If you have something to say to me, say it plainly.
In my understanding is the city never "threatened" anyone.
My reading on the case from various sources seems to make the following timeline (this is from memory) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong factually:
1. Prior status: The Hitiching Post existed as an S Corporation. A form of corporation used for closely held businesses where the business does not pay federal income taxes but profits or losses are the direct responsibility of the shareholders. In other words if the business has a major loss (like losing a lawsuit) then it is the owners who are personally responsible for paying for the loss.
2. May 2014, Idaho's ban on same-sex Civil Marriage is found to be unconstitutional in Federal District court.
3. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.
4. During this timeframe history, May ruling and during the stay period The Hitching Post performed and advertised for "traditional and civil marriages". (This is important.)
5. In May a reporter talked to the Knapps about the District Court ruling and that Idaho's law had been ruled unconstitutional.
6. Still in May and only days after the District Court ruling the city attorney (Warren Wilson) was asked about The Hitching Post as a Public Accommodation and said the below (from the ADF lawsuit). Now if you look in the news report were this comes from (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s19VX8KVSp4), he's standing outside the building so obviously it was a walkup, outside interview and we have no idea the level of preparation - if any. There is no "threat" there, simply pointing out that under the ordinance businesses in the wedding business would fall under the law.
“I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding)
activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said. Similar laws have applied to florists,
bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in
other states, Wilson noted. “Those have all been addressed in various states and
run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the
Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation
that would be subject to the ordinance.” In Washington, no clergy person is
required to marry a couple if doing so would violate the dictates of their faith
tradition. Idaho does not have a similar exemption in place, but religious entities
are exempt from the Coeur d’Alene ordinance, so pastors in the city are not
obligated to perform same-sex weddings. But any nonreligious business that hosts
civil ceremonies would fall under the city law, Wilson said."
7. Between May and October The Hitiching post continues to advertise for Civil Marriages.
8. Still in May, the Knapps contacted the City Attorney and asked him what would happen if their business refused to provide same-sex marriages under the ordinance. The attorney responded with what the law said - a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.
9. September 2014 The Hitching Post changes it's legal status from an S Corp to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) which provides a hirer degree of insulation for the owners personal assets in the event of a major loss by the LLC.
10. October 7th Idaho's ban being found unconstitutional is upheld by the 9th Circuit.
11. Sometime shortly after the ban the website for The Hitching Post purged references to Civil Marriages and emphasized that they would only perform traditional Christian weddings.
11. October, SCOTUS rejects stay request.
12. October 15th SSCM's start.
13. October 23rd the City sent a letter to the Knapps that said "t is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by Hitching Post Weddings LLC is exempt from the requirements of the ordinance and would not be subject to prosecution under the ordinance if a complaint was received by the city."
9. October 6th The Hitching Post files file documents showing the intent to operate a religious organization.
*******************************************
1. The business "The Hitching Post, S Corp" probably would have run afould of the Public Accommodation ordinance because the business advertised for and performed civil weddings in addition to the religous services they performed.
2. The business reorganized into "The Hitching Post, LLC" and removed civil weddings from it's business model and now advertises only for traditional Christian weddings (a religious ceremony) and not civil marriages.
3. Telling someone that asks what the penealities are for breaking the law is not a "threat". If I call the local DA's office and ask what then penalty for murder is in my state and he tells me life in prison or with unusual circumstances death, that is not the DA threatening me with life in prison or death. It's answering the question that I asked.
>>>>
In my understanding is the city never "threatened" anyone.Can you explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened them for them to challenge the ordinance in court?
My reading on the case from various sources seems to make the following timeline (this is from memory) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong factually:
1. Prior status: The Hitiching Post existed as an S Corporation. A form of corporation used for closely held businesses where the business does not pay federal income taxes but profits or losses are the direct responsibility of the shareholders. In other words if the business has a major loss (like losing a lawsuit) then it is the owners who are personally responsible for paying for the loss.
2. May 2014, Idaho's ban on same-sex Civil Marriage is found to be unconstitutional in Federal District court.
3. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.
4. During this timeframe history, May ruling and during the stay period The Hitching Post performed and advertised for "traditional and civil marriages". (This is important.)
5. In May a reporter talked to the Knapps about the District Court ruling and that Idaho's law had been ruled unconstitutional.
6. Still in May and only days after the District Court ruling the city attorney (Warren Wilson) was asked about The Hitching Post as a Public Accommodation and said the below (from the ADF lawsuit). Now if you look in the news report were this comes from (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s19VX8KVSp4), he's standing outside the building so obviously it was a walkup, outside interview and we have no idea the level of preparation - if any. There is no "threat" there, simply pointing out that under the ordinance businesses in the wedding business would fall under the law.
“I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding)
activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said. Similar laws have applied to florists,
bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in
other states, Wilson noted. “Those have all been addressed in various states and
run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the
Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation
that would be subject to the ordinance.” In Washington, no clergy person is
required to marry a couple if doing so would violate the dictates of their faith
tradition. Idaho does not have a similar exemption in place, but religious entities
are exempt from the Coeur d’Alene ordinance, so pastors in the city are not
obligated to perform same-sex weddings. But any nonreligious business that hosts
civil ceremonies would fall under the city law, Wilson said."
7. Between May and October The Hitiching post continues to advertise for Civil Marriages.
8. Still in May, the Knapps contacted the City Attorney and asked him what would happen if their business refused to provide same-sex marriages under the ordinance. The attorney responded with what the law said - a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.
9. September 2014 The Hitching Post changes it's legal status from an S Corp to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) which provides a hirer degree of insulation for the owners personal assets in the event of a major loss by the LLC.
10. October 7th Idaho's ban being found unconstitutional is upheld by the 9th Circuit.
11. Sometime shortly after the ban the website for The Hitching Post purged references to Civil Marriages and emphasized that they would only perform traditional Christian weddings.
11. October, SCOTUS rejects stay request.
12. October 15th SSCM's start.
13. October 23rd the City sent a letter to the Knapps that said "t is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by Hitching Post Weddings LLC is exempt from the requirements of the ordinance and would not be subject to prosecution under the ordinance if a complaint was received by the city."
9. October 6th The Hitching Post files file documents showing the intent to operate a religious organization.
*******************************************
1. The business "The Hitching Post, S Corp" probably would have run afould of the Public Accommodation ordinance because the business advertised for and performed civil weddings in addition to the religous services they performed.
2. The business reorganized into "The Hitching Post, LLC" and removed civil weddings from it's business model and now advertises only for traditional Christian weddings (a religious ceremony) and not civil marriages.
3. Telling someone that asks what the penealities are for breaking the law is not a "threat". If I call the local DA's office and ask what then penalty for murder is in my state and he tells me life in prison or with unusual circumstances death, that is not the DA threatening me with life in prison or death. It's answering the question that I asked.
>>>>
I asked you to explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened the owners of the Hitching Post for them to challenge the ordinance in court. You posted a detailed history of the events, but you never answered my question.
Usually tl;dr - too long; didn't read.
I don't agree with your premise that the city "threatened" the Knapps to begin with. As shown with the emphasized text above.
To understand why I disagree you have to understand the timeline of events.
1. During the time that "The Hitiching Post" was a S Corp, they accepted and advertised for the performance of Civil Marriages (a non-religious ceremony). During this time there were two conditions that existed: (a) The Hitching Post only performed marriages with Marriage Licenses, and (b) Same-sex Civil Marriage licenses weren't issued by Idaho. The Hitching Post then had no same-sex civil marriages (SSCMs) to perform.
2. During that time frame, and because they advertised for nonreligious ceremonies, they would have fallen under the Public Accommodation law for the performance of nonreligoius activities.
3. **THEY ASKED** the city what (a) if they fell under the law and two what the penalties would be for violation. Answering a question with what the law states is not a threat.
4. Shortly before SSCMs became legal in Idaho they (a) changed their business model, (b) committed to performing only religious ceremonies, and (c) updated their advertising to eliminate civil ceremonies. With the reorganization of the business, they then qualified for the exemption of a religious organization and the city acknowledged that.
I disagreed with your premise and showed you **WHY** the premise was wrong.
Does that clear it up for you?
If I call the DA and ask if I would be held accountable under the law for knowingly writing bad checks and ask what the penalty is and the DA explains that yes it is illegal to knowingly write bad checks and then I ask what the punishment is for check fraud and (s)he explains that - is that a threat?
>>>>
Down with all brownshirts, leftists,rightists and middle-of-the-roadists.
All right, assume the city did not threaten the Knapps. I don't care if they did or not, nor am I interested in the sequence of events. I asked you to explain why some open threat by the city was needed before the Knapps could file a suit challenging the ordinance. You still have not done that. Tell me what you know that the constitutional lawyers in the public law firm that is working with the Knapps did not know. Why are they such fools as to have filed a federal suit no court could recognize?
Well, I know that the city didn't need to "threaten" (open or not) anything for the ADF to be able to file a law suit. Anyone and their brother can file a lawsuit. Now whether that lawsuit has any merit and will continue past the filing is a whole different kettle of fish.
Whether the court will "recognize" it or not is unknown at this time. All we know is that the ADF lawyers filed the suit, the city wrote them a letter on the 20th or 23th (IIRC) noting that there was no basis in the suit as The Hitching Post would not subject to the law.
Whether the ADF will withdraw the suit and if not what the cities response will be is unknown. Once those two conditions are met, then it will be up to a Judge. It can be expected that the city will ask for a summary dismissal since the law (in the cities view) doesn't apply to The Hitching Post since they are now a religious organization. If that logic holds then the law doesn't apply to them and the Judge dismisses the case for lack of standing. (The law has to apply to you and you have to show the potential for indivdiual injury to have standing.)
>>>>
the fact the ACLU made clear it doesn't want to defend the ordinance is telling.
Can you explain why it was necessary for the city to have threatened them for them to challenge the ordinance in court?
To hell with Google. If you've got something to say to me, then say it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?