Religious Freedom Under Attack . . . Again | Around the World with Ken Ham

answers-in-genesis-logoLast week, pastors in Texas faced an attack of their freedoms of religion and speech when city officials subpoenaed their sermons, and this week the attack centers on a couple in Idaho who own a wedding chapel and refuse to perform ceremonies for homosexual couples. This is a story that liberals promised would never come, but it’s already here. The Christian couple, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, operate Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.* They now face possible jail time or thousands of dollars in fines because they respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple.

Since the federal courts for the District of Idaho have “held unconstitutional Idaho’s statutes and constitutional amendments preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere,” the city of Coeur d’Alene claims that its “non-discrimination”ordinance requires the Knapps to marry same-sex couples. According to reports, when the Knapps declined to perform a gay marriage, they subjected themselves to jail time and fines for their refusal. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in apologetics, news, theology, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Religious Freedom Under Attack . . . Again | Around the World with Ken Ham

  1. delphamae says:

    First, I do not believe that ministers in a non-profit church should be made to perform these marriages. That is not the case described in this article. These men ran a for-profit business, there for the laws of discrimination apply. Plain and simple. When you ‘sell’ marriages to the public, PUBLIC laws apply. To say that this is a violation of First Amendment rights is absurd. The Constitution, Article IV section 2, states that: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Article III section 1, The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Translation? If you pay taxes, you are a citizen, no matter what your religion. If you are a citizen, you are entitled to the same rights as EVERY citizen, NO MATTER WHAT GOD YOU BELIEVE IN. It also says that the Supreme Court has the power to override the States in matters like this. This is stated in America’s ORIGINAL Constitution. Before anything was added. The 9th Amendment: Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution. What about the 13th Amendment? Denying a tax paying American of the legal right to marry is the equivalent of ‘involuntary servitude’. Then try reading the 14th Amendment. Next move on to the Civil Rights Act. No person shall be discriminated against based on religion. What’s my point? Christians have NO right, under the Constitution, to deny gay’s, the same right to get married, as every other tax paying citizen in America can, based on another’s personal religion. These are the laws of our government. Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. If God established our Constitution, we should follow it. If your run a public business, you must follow public law. What if a divorcee came in to be married? Mark 10:2 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. Adultery is a sin, just as equal as homosexuality. Yet, no Christian outcry over divorce. Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. How are opinions like this, that condemn a set group of sinners, going to bring them any closer to the faith? Jesus came here for the sinners, not the righteous. I know this has been a long post, but I felt I had to say something. The message of Jesus has been lost and it saddens me. Rule number one in my faith is John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Think before you judge, lest God judge you.

  2. The argument above reminds me of the Nazis and their big lie. The word of God by a whopping 34% was the original source of our constitution and the founding documents, the next nearest source was John Locke or Montesquieu in the single digits. And then the Supreme Court in 1792 and again in 1892 said this was a Christian nation. Now we have the secularists moving with a full court press to run the ministers out of the public arena and even being forced to perform acts that are clearly contrary to their consciences. Soon they will have the believers cowering in their little church buildings, not daring to breath a word of what the Bible teaches for fear of being sued and/or sent to prison while the secularists preen themselves in victory, having stolen a whole nation from its foundations. Like a fish! It will become obvious, when the Christians who put into law and practice the idea of religious liberty rise up to protect their own right to it. where the real numbers and influence for good exist. We have laws that spell out the matter of matter of being accessories before, to, and after the fact, and, in this case, the judgment might come as a shock to those who think to rewrite the moral laws that even Jesus approved. Just think: I live about a 50 minute drive down the highway, where one of my ancestors fought in an American Revolutionary War Battle (Guilford Courthouse), and I dare say he would rise up and reach for his musket at the idea that his descendants could not practice their faith for which he had fought.

  3. Ken Hamrick says:

    If the business is religious in context, such as a Christian wedding chapel, then they have a right to run that business according to Christian principles alone. The government may give the right to get married, but it cannot give the right to a Christian marriage or one performed by Christian clergy. If the owners here have erred at all, it is in forming a business with a clearly Christian context—a Christian business performing ceremonies of the Christian religion—until this is made illegal, all the other objections fail.

  4. delphamae says:

    I’m sorry, but I missed the word the word Christian anywhere in the name of their BUSINESS. It is called the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion does not trump all the other Amendments. I do not think that Church’s should be held to the same standards, for they are non-profit religious houses of worship. A Christian BUSINESS is a for-profit. You can not refuse business to others based on religion, sex, or color. It IS illegal, so all other objections fail. I would like to point out Amendment 9:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This means that one right can not be used to deny others of their rights. So, please..find a better argument. And you still did not answer my question about divorces? That’s a sin against God as well. But, they had no problem marrying them. Why is that? Oh, I forgot. Being a Christian homosexual is worse than a drunkard, or a divorcee. My bad.

  5. Ken Hamrick says:


    chapel: a Christian place of worship, often within a larger building, or a smaller annex of a larger church. The British meaning is further restricted to such places of worship used by Protestants.

    You are begging the question. Your argument stands on the assumption that the question is only about which customers may be served. If that alone were the question, then you would be correct. However, you have not established what you want us to share as an assumption, that homosexual marriage is not a moral abomination to the God of the Bible (the God of Christianity). If the question is not a moral one, then only the matter of discrimination applies; but if it is a moral one, then the matter of religious freedom applies—and trumps all other supposed rights. It is the Creator, not government, who has endowed men with certain unalienable Rights; and those rights, as codified in the Constitution, are merely to secure those rights as given by God—without restricting or going beyond them. The right to marry is God-given. There is no right to redefine marriage in a way that contradicts how God defined it (as shown in the Bible). As for U.S. law in this case, the government cannot rightly constrain any citizen to do what is immoral and against his religion. So I think you should find a better argument (except that there is no good argument for government-enforced participation in immorality).

    You asked:

    And you still did not answer my question about divorces? That’s a sin against God as well. But, they had no problem marrying them. Why is that? Oh, I forgot. Being a Christian homosexual is worse than a drunkard, or a divorcee.

    That I can see, they did not divorce anyone. They only married those who wanted to actually get married in the real sense of the word. They didn’t turn anyone away because he or she was a homosexual. If a homosexual man and a homosexual woman wanted to get married, the chapel would have probably performed that ceremony. It was not the homosexuality of the couple, but the homosexuality of the supposed “marriage” that caused them to refuse to perform the ceremony.

    My bad.

    No problem. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Comments are closed.