BTW - Personally I don't think the case will see the inside of a Federal Court for a couple of reasons:
1. The City already acknowledged that with the incorporation of The Hitching Post in September and it's ending removing the offerings of Civil Marriges from it's site that the law no longer applies since the business is operating as a religious corporation.
2. No complaint was filed in the May/June time frame when the owners asked the City about their status, no harm came to the business so there are no damages to correct.
If the complaint isn't withdrawn by mutual agreement, my opinion is that it is likely to be dismissed for lack of merit.
>>>>
You can't "act as" a religious corporation, you either are one, set up from the get-go legally, or you are not one. You don't get to switch back and forth at your whim.
You can't "act as" a religious corporation, you either are one, set up from the get-go legally, or you are not one. You don't get to switch back and forth at your whim.
1. Could you provide a link that shows the City communicated with The Hitching Post between the after the 17th and before the 23rd when they communicated that as a religious corporation The Hitching Post is exempt from the law under the paragraph previously cited? It should be interesting to see since the ADF complaint was filed on the 17th so it wouldn't have included the information you claim.
2. The communication where the "threat" (and I use the term loosely) occurred in the May/June time frame and it wasn't the city going to The Hitching Post and making a "threat". It was the owner that contacted the city to ask a question.
>>>>
BTW - Personally I don't think the case will see the inside of a Federal Court for a couple of reasons:
1. The City already acknowledged that with the incorporation of The Hitching Post in September and it's ending removing the offerings of Civil Marriges from it's site that the law no longer applies since the business is operating as a religious corporation.
2. No complaint was filed in the May/June time frame when the owners asked the City about their status, no harm came to the business so there are no damages to correct.
If the complaint isn't withdrawn by mutual agreement, my opinion is that it is likely to be dismissed for lack of merit.
They claimed they received a phone call from someone asking about them performing a same sex wedding. No complaint was ever filed against them, which is the only reason any city official would initiate contact with them and there is no record or evidence any city official ever contacted them.
They filed the suit for their fear that they could possibly face penalty for refusing even though there was never a complaint made against them, which is required before the city could take action if they were going to.
See reply to Worldwatcher above.
Given the dates involved, such a complaint must have been unlikely.
I don't expect news articles to go into detail, but what all the sources I've read seem to agree on is that the Knapps were concerned about the penalty aspects of the new ordinance and contacted the city about it. They were worried about what they learned, so they contacted an attorney, who urged them to file a restraining order against the city taking action aganst them. Given that they could have been bankrupted or sent to prison even if later found innocent, the preemptory nature of their suit doesn't seem unreasonable.
well you have heard wrong because what you stated has never happened
Nope, but assuming the filed complaint is telling the truth, it's logically implicit.
Ordinance §9.56 went into effect on the 15th, and the Knapps refused a SSM the 17th, filing the complaint the same day.
As of the 17th when the complaint was filed, it said: "According to the City, the Knapps violated and still violate Ordinance §9.56".
If they are "still" violating it after it, there must have been some form of contact after §9.56 went into effect.
As I understand it, the city didn't start issuing SSM licenses until the 15th of October,...
...so anyone filing a complaint before that would have been unlikely. Given the dates, it seems the couple were taking preemptive action.
Even if the city has decided they are exempt, it would still be interesting to see what a federal Court has to say on the matter. It might draw the line between business and religion differently than the city.
thank you for posting that link as it supports me 100%
there was ZERO force of any baker to service homosexual weddings in violation of their conscience.
1.)True. No person of faith was "forced" to participate in services for same sex marriages against their conscience.
2.) They can always just get sued or be forced to close their business.
The ordinance had been in effect since June 4th, 2013. It didn't go in to effect on October 15th. On the 23rd, after the filing is when the city contacted The Hitching Post to inform them that as a religious corporation they were exempt. Same-sex Civil Marriage went into effect on the 15th statewide, that wasn't a date that had anything to do with the city. As to "must have been some form of contact after §9.56 went into effect" there is no evidence in the complaint, and the ADF lawyers were very complete in establishing a background and timeline for the case, funny that with such a thorough filing they failed to mention any contact between The Hitching Post, LLC, or the ADF made by the city pertaining to the matter. They didn't so one can only assume that you made that up
The Knapps obviously disagreed since they filed a suit claiming so.Exactly, it is the The Hitching Post, LLC acting in conjunction with the ADF that are trying to make a story. The never "threatened" them - answer a question when asked is not a "threat", nor had any complaint been filed where the city had initiated or planned action.
Being "concerned" that something might happen in the future is not legal grounds for a lawsuit. Not one that you will win anyway.
True. No person of faith was "forced" to participate in services for same sex marriages against their conscience. They can always just get sued or be forced to close their business.
The suit was not for damages, it was a request for a restraining order against enforcing §9.56 against the couple who filed it. I'm no legal expert, but it would surprise me if restraining orders in the US could not be filed preemptively.
Which is not the purpose of restraining orders. Either the law applies to them, in which the restraining order could not be used to prevent legitimate legal action against them, or it doesn't, in which the restraining order is completely pointless. They are wasting the courts time, which they should pay for.
The suit states that "According to the City, the Knapps violated and still violate Ordinance §9.56". This was filed October 17th.
You may be right, but that would mean the attorney lied when he filed the suit.
I'm not disposed to believe that is the case until I see something a bit more convincing.
I'm not sure why you keep mentioning October 23rd in relation to the suit, as any events on that day could not have influenced the Knapps in filing it.
The Knapps obviously disagreed since they filed a suit claiming so.
It sounds to me like you're saying that if a court sentences someone according to a law and a higher court later retroactively decides that the law was inapplicable, no damage could have been incurred by the defendants in the meantime.
I don't think it's "rational," per se.
However, I certainly do believe that there are a number of people out there would like to see something along those lines happen.
No it doesn't mean they "lied", it means they were reacting to a reply to an inquiry by The Hitching Post (S Corp) from the May/June time frame. Since the complaint was filed on the 17th, it would of course had no mention of the City memo dated October 23rd - after the filing.
And since that is not in dispute, nor relevant to the suit at the time it was filed, I fail to see why you keep mentioning it.Correct, however the 23rd is when the City told The Hitching Post that they are not subject to the law.
If that was an appeal to authority, it wasn't a very convincing one. The merits of any case are up to the judge or jury to decide.They are free to disagree, dosen't change the facts of the timeline.
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?