I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried...

[moonshaz]

For-Profit Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Back in May, when a federal judge first overturned Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, the Hitching Post Chapel in Coeur d’Alene expressed concern about the possibility of having to marry same-sex couples. The wedding chapel located just across the street from the Kootenai County

Comments

[evilnel]

I agree. Once you cross into for-profit land, you're playing a different game. I think the moral of this story is that you can't have your (wedding) cake and eat it too.

Edited to add wit.

[bex]

That's because it's not often used correctly. It means that once you eat your cake, it's gone - you don't have it anymore. You can't have your cake (whole, in your possession) AND have eaten it... 'cause then it's gone. People often use it to say "you can't have the best of both worlds," which I think is what is happening here, and I guess in that case the analogy is you can't get to enjoy eating your cake (yummy) but then also have a whole cake left to eat. Once you eat it, it's gone.

(Edit: Wikipedia has a list of similar expressions in other languages and it's interesting and hilarious. "You can't have the lamb and the money" (from selling the lamb), "You cannot both blow and have flour in your mouth," "It is impossible to ride two horses with one butt.")

[evilnel]

I didn't used to get it either until I thought about it more literally. If you have your cake, you are not eating it currently. If you have eaten it, you no longer "have" it (like in your hand). I think it's basically saying 'don't try to hope for two mutually exclusive outcomes.'

[amyura]

I'm kinda wondering what their church's stance is on offering church-defined sacraments under the umbrella of a for-profit business. Didn't Jesus have a few things to say on the subject of money on the temple?

[skittish_derby]

I was thinking a similar line-- like, don't the churches make a profit on weddings? why are *they* exempt at all.

[silver_apples]

Doing some quick research, it looks like church rental fees range from "donation expected" to $1000. Members of the church usually get a discount. You are expected to give the officiant an honorarium, and on top of that there's probably a fee for the organist or anyone else helping out, a cleaning deposit, and a fee for any decorations or other things the church provides (flowers, unity candles, etc.). The cost can get high quickly, but I suspect churches don't make much money off of weddings, and the little they do helps cover other budget shortfalls. I don't think it counts as a for-profit business.

[spyral_out]

Confirming this! It's not a lucrative service for them at all. The UU church I'm a member of provides wedding services entirely free of charge - renting the space, ministerial services, counseling, everything is free. Most people donate heavily but, having worked there in the past, I know that almost all of it is eaten up by budget shortfalls.

[sophranius]

Oh my god I live fifteen minutes away from there.

[stainedfeathers]

"The Knapps also ask for “nominal and compensatory damages” for the violation of their constitutional rights and for lost income."

Wait.. so you TURN AWAY paying customers and then complain about lost income and expect to get a judge to award you money because you turned them away?

[redstar826]

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried...

Really? I'm pretty sure this has happened before and I've seen a fair amount of discussion about how the religious right is pushing for every possible religious exemption to avoid complying with non-discrimination laws which protect lbgtq people.