Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 63

DAVID A. CORTMAN* dcortman@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 188810 KEVIN H. THERIOT* ktheriot@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 373095 Rory T. Gray* rgray@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 880715 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D-1100 Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043 (770) 339-0774 (770) 339-6744 Fax

JEREMY D. TEDESCO* jtedesco@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 023497 JONATHAN A. SCRUGGS* jscruggs@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 030505 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480)-444-0020 (480)-444-0028 Fax

VIRGINIA MCNULTY ROBINSON vrobinson@robinsonlaw-pllc.com Idaho Bar No. 7380 ROBINSON LAW, PLLC 1910 Northwest Blvd., Suite 200 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 (208) 664-1139 (208) 664-1171 Fax

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DONALD KNAPP; EVELYN KNAPP; HITCHING POST WEDDINGS, LLC,

Case No. _________________

Plaintiff, v.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 63
CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE, Defendant. NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1. This cas e i s ab out the City of C oeur D ’Alene unc onstitutionally coercing two Christian ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in violation of their religious beliefs, their ordination vows, and their consciences. Coeur D’Alene does so by imposing a Hobson’s choice on the Knapps through City Ordinance §9.56, w hich bars s exual orientation di scrimination i n publ ic accommodations: the Knapps can either v iolate th eir r eligious c onvictions a nd min isterial v ows b y p erforming same-sex w edding ceremonies o r f ollow th eir religious convictions a nd vow s b y d eclining t o perform same-sex ceremonies and face up to 180 da ys in jail and up t o $1,000 in fines. Worse, each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties. Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000. For the past several months, the City has privately and publicly threatened to apply Ordinance §9.56 t o t he Knapps if s ame-sex m arriage b ecame l egal in I daho and t he K napps declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.
2. The Knapps now face this very situation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated Idaho’s marriage laws and legalized same-sex marriage in Idaho on October 7, 2014 , thereby allowing Idaho c ounty c lerks to begin issuing same-sex m arriage licenses on O ctober 15 . A f ew d ays l ater, on October 17, 2014, the K napps invoked their religious be liefs a nd or dination vow s and d eclined a r equest t o p erform a s ame-sex w edding ceremony. According t o t he C ity, t he Knapps violated a nd s till v iolate Ordinance §9.56, a nd
2

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 63
each day that passes subjects them to the risk of escalating jail sentences and fines. Because of the immediate and irreparable h arm the Knapps are suffering to their constitutionally protected rights, they urgently need this Court to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining Ordinance § 9.56 as-applied to them.
3. Donald and Evelyn Knapp are ordained Christian ministers who believe biblical marriage is good for society. Not onl y have they been happily married for 47 years, they h ave married roughly 35,000 couples and seen countless lives blessed through marriage. As ordained ministers, the K napps believe G od cal led t hem t o promote t he w elfare of t heir c ommunity by uniting others in marriage.
4. Based on t his c alling, the K napps began ope rating the H itching P ost W edding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho in 1989.
5. The Knapps have performed wedding ce remonies in this ch apel ever s ince, eventually forming Hitching Post Weddings, LLC as a “religious corporation” and an “extension of t heir s incerely he ld r eligious beliefs” t o “h elp p eople cr eate, cel ebrate, an d b uild l ifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.” See Hitching Post Wedding, LLC Operating Agreement, attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
6. Because their religious beliefs affect everything they do, the Knapps and Hitching Post, LLC only perform wedding ceremonies consistent with their religious beliefs. The Knapps and H itching P ost, LLC c annot, ha ve not , a nd will not perform ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs, such as a same-sex wedding ceremony.
7. The K napps a nd H itching P ost, LLC c annot pe rform these ceremonies because they believe God cr eated m arriage t o b e a sacred covenant between one m an and one woman. The K napps also pledged to f ollow this b elief i n their or dination vow s. Performing same-sex
3

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 63
wedding c eremonies would thus force t he Knapps to condone, p romote, a nd even consecrate something forbidden by their religious beliefs and ordination vows.
8. The K napps have n ever ap proached t hat cliff’s ed ge. R ather, t hey have consistently declined to perform same-sex ceremonies, refusing to perform these ceremonies at least 15 times in the past and as recently as May 2014 and October 17, 2014.
9. But Coeur d’Alene now requires the Knapps and Hitching Post, LLC to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or face criminal liability.
10. Ordinance §9.56 prohibits a “public accommodation” from d enying “any p erson because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, f acilities o r p rivileges of a ny place of publ ic r esort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.”
11. The H itching P ost Wedding C hapel is a pub lic a ccommodation und er t his ordinance b ecause the Knapps ope n t he chapel to t he pub lic a nd of fer w edding s ervices i n exchange f or a f ee. According t o t he C ity, t he K napps a nd H itching Post, L LC also deny privileges ba sed on s exual or ientation unde r t his or dinance because t hey perform wedding ceremonies for opposite-sex couples and do not perform these services for same-sex couples.
12. This past s ummer, after the Idaho district court enjoined Idaho’s m arriage l aws, City o fficials to ld Mr. K napp twice that Ordinance § 9.56 required hi m t o perform s ame-sex wedding ceremonies if same-sex marriage became legal. Deputy C ity Attorney Warren Wilson then publicly declared the City’s position when a journalist asked him about the Hitching Post: “For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the
4

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 5 of 63
9th Circuit… If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”
13. Because the K napps a nd H itching P ost, LLC are c urrently v iolating Ordinance §9.56, they are subject to pay fines up to $1,000 and suffer jail time of up to 180 days for every day they violate the ordinance. See City Ordinance §§9.56.060 and 1.28.
14. So, i f t he Knapps d ecline t o p erform a s ame-sex cer emony o n a M onday and continue to do so the next day, the Knapps risk going to jail for nearly one year and being fined $2,000.
15. If the Knapps refuse to perform one same-sex ceremony for one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000.
16. If t he K napps r efuse t o pe rform one s ame-sex c eremony f or 30 da ys, t hey r isk going to jail for over 14 years and being fined $30,000.
17. If t he K napps r efuse t o pe rform one s ame-sex cer emony f or a year, t hey risk going to jail for 180 years and being fined $365,000.
18. The Knapps thus face an impossible choice: Suffer escalating fines and jail time for following their r eligious b eliefs an d ordination vows or forsake their religious be liefs a nd ordination vows and perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. But the First Amendment does not allow t he g overnment t o f orce regular citizens or r eligious c orporations m uch l ess or dained ministers to m ake t his c hoice. For these r easons, t he K napps a nd H itching P ost, LLC a sk t his Court to enjoin Ordinance §9.56 and declare it unconstitutional as applied to them because this application violates t he F ree S peech Clause, t he F ree E xercise Clause, t he E qual P rotection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act.
5

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 6 of 63
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. This c ivil r ights a ction r aises f ederal q uestions u nder th e U nited S tates Constitution, pa rticularly t he F irst a nd F ourteenth A mendments, a nd t he C ivil Rights A ct of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20. This action also raises claims under state law, particularly the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA), Idaho Code § 73–401 et seq. 21. This C ourt ha s or iginal jurisdiction ove r the federal cl aims under 28 U .S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367. 22. This Court has authority to award the requested damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and Idaho Code. § 73 -402(4); the requested d eclaratory r elief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 -02 and Idaho Code. § 73-402(4); the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and Idaho Code. § 73-402(4); and costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Idaho Code. § 73-402(4). 23. Venue is p roper in t his d istrict under 28 U .S.C. § 1391(b) b ecause t he D efendants reside in this district and/or all of the acts described in this Complaint occurred in this district.
PLAINTIFFS 24. Plaintiff Donald K napp is a C hristian a nd an or dained m inister w ith t he International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. 25. Mr. Knapp is a resident and citizen of the state of Idaho and is married to his wife Evelyn Knapp. 26. Mr. Knapp is also one of the two members (“member” is the formal name for an owner of an LLC) of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC.
6

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 7 of 63
27. Plaintiff Evelyn K napp is a C hristian a nd an or dained m inister with t he International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
28. Mrs. Knapp i s a resident and citizen of t he s tate of Idaho and is married t o Mr. Knapp.
29. Mrs. Knapp is the other member of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC. 30. Plaintiff Hitching P ost W eddings is a limited liability company o rganized under Idaho law, with its principal place of business at 524 Government Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. 31. Hitching P ost W eddings, LLC’s ope rating agreement explains the company’s religious character and purpose: The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely b y ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held r eligious be liefs a nd i n a ccordance w ith t heir vow s t aken a s Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build l ifetime, m onogamous, one -man-one-woman m arriages as d efined b y t he Holy Bible.
DEFENDANT 32. Defendant City o f Coeur d’ Alene is a municipal c orporation authorized unde r state law to sue and be sued. See Idaho Code § 50–101 et seq. 33. Coeur d’Alene is responsible for passing and enforcing its ordinances, including City Ordinance §9.56.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Knapps come to faith 60 years ago
34. In S eptember 1952 a t a small, I nternational C hurch of t he Foursquare Gospel church in Oregon City, Oregon, a teacher summarized the good news about Jesus to a room full of young children. The teacher then p rayed and released the children to report to their parents. Donald Knapp was in the room that day. He began to follow Jesus at the age of six.
7

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 8 of 63
35. Mr. K napp immediately reported his new c ommitment to hi s m other, who ha d faithfully brought him to the church since his birth.
36. As far back as he can remember, Mr. Knapp has followed Jesus. 37. As far back as he can remember, Mr. Knapp attended a Foursquare Church. 38. Mrs. Knapp began to follow Jesus in 1953 i n Martinez, California. She was five years old. 39. She s tarted at tending a Fo ursquare C hurch a f ew years l ater i n Downey, California and has continued to do so ever since. 40. The K napps eventually crossed pa ths i n Los A ngeles at LIFE (Lighthouse of International Foursquare E vangelism) Bible C ollege, the flagship college f or ministers, missionaries and teachers of the Foursquare Church. The Knapps begin life together at a wedding chapel 41. Mr. Knapp enrolled at LIFE Bible in 1964. 42. A year later, Mr. Knapp attended a revival meeting at a church near campus, and during a t ime of pr ayer there Mr. K napp felt G od call him to b e a p astor. From t hat poi nt forward, Mr. Knapp pursued his calling to be a minister in the Foursquare Church. 43. That same year, Mrs. Knapp came to LIFE Bible and met Mr. Knapp for the first time. 44. Four months after their f irst date, on a s cenic ex cursion t o Wayfarer’s Wedding Chapel, Mr. Knapp pr oposed t o M rs. K napp. S he a ccepted, a nd t hey were m arried a t a Foursquare church on August 5, 1967. They have been married over 47 years.
8

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 9 of 63
45. Mr. K napp t hen g raduated f rom LIFE B ible i n June 1968 w ith a de gree i n theology. By graduating from LIFE Bible, Mr. Knapp received his license to be a minister in the Foursquare Church. The Knapps minister throughout Pacific Northwest
46. Mr. K napp t hen put t hat l icense t o us e, and he a nd M rs. K napp moved to Prineville, Oregon where Mr. Knapp pastored his first church: Prineville Foursquare Church.
47. For the next thirteen years, the Knapps served numerous Foursquare Churches in the northwest area:
• 1968-70: Prineville Foursquare Church in Prineville, Oregon • 1970-72: The Valley Foursquare Church in Millwood, Washington • 1972-77: Coeur d'Alene Foursquare Church in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho • 1977-80: New Life Christian Center Church in Spokane Valley, Washington 48. At e ach s top, M r. K napp served as l ead p astor o r as sistant p astor. H e even founded New Life Christian Center Church. 49. And ear ly i n h is p astoral car eer, Mr. K napp received hi s or dination f rom t he Foursquare Church after he had served enough time in a local church to qualify for ordination. 50. The Foursquare Church ordained Mr. Knapp in February of 1970. 51. Before and after he was ordained, Mr. Knapp performed typical pastoral duties for his c hurches, pr eaching, s peaking at f unerals, t eaching S unday s chool, counseling church members, baptizing new believers, administering communion, and officiating weddings. 52. Mr. Knapp officiated his first wedding in 1969. 53. At each church on their j ourney, Mrs. K napp served al ongside Mr. K napp, volunteering in any capacity she could to support her husband and the church.
9

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 10 of 63
54. For example, Mrs. Knapp taught Sunday school, counseled church members, led Bible study groups, and played the piano.
55. A f ew years l ater, Mrs. K napp sought ordination because she had s erved i n churches beside Mr. Knapp for so long.
56. The Foursquare Church ordained Mrs. Knapp in May 1978. 57. In 1980, the Knapps finally came to the church they still attend today: Life Center Foursquare Church in Spokane. Mr. Knapp served as an assisting pastor for this church, and Mrs. Knapp volunteered like she did before. 58. But the scope of their ministry expanded when the Knapps received an offer from a member of their former church: an offer to buy the Hitching Post. The Knapps begin Hitching Post Chapel ministry 59. Mr. K napp f irst l earned a bout t he H itching P ost Chapel around 1975 from a member of hi s Coeur d' Alene church, J ohn G reen. G reen worked a t t he H itching P ost a nd eventually purchased it. 60. But Mr. Knapp did not begin to work at the Hitching Post Chapel until 1987. At that time, a former minister of the Coeur d'Alene Foursquare Church was officiating weddings at the Hitching Post Chapel seven days a week. This was too much for him. So he called his friend Mr. Knapp and asked for help. 61. The r equest i ntrigued M r. K napp. Mr. K napp not onl y ne eded e xtra i ncome, he thought t he e xperience would be a pe rfect w ay to us e h is t alents an d m inisterial ex perience t o bless others. 62. So Mr. Knapp agreed and began working and officiating weddings at the Hitching Post Chapel one day a week starting in fall 1987.
10

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 11 of 63
63. Mr. Knapp continued to work at the Hitching Post Chapel in this capacity for one and a half years.
64. Then in 1988, John Green offered to sell the Hitching Post to the Knapps because Green had fallen into some financial troubles.
65. The prospect of owning a small business both excited and scared the Knapps. So they prayed long and hard about the offer. And God answered their prayers. The Knapps became convinced that God had opened a door for them to pursue this new opportunity and had called them to minister in this new venue.
66. Indeed, the K napps decided t o g o f orward be cause th e H itching P ost a llowed them to serve people in a pastoral role just as they served in pastoral roles in their church. The Knapps viewed their wedding services at the Hitching Post as their ministry, as an opportunity to touch lives and to speak the good news about God, about God’s love, and about the meaning of marriage to a whole new category of people.
67. So the Knapps bought the Hitching Post business and name from Green in 1989 and began leasing the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel that same year. The Hitching Post Chapel: 95 years of weddings
68. But the Hitching Post hosted weddings long before the Knapps bought it. 69. Upon i nformation a nd belief, The Hi tching P ost ope ned i ts door s and be gan hosting weddings in the Coeur d'Alene area as far back as 1919. 70. In those da ys, t he j ustice of t he pe ace would s elect a l ocation for hi s office and that l ocation be came kn own a s t he H itching P ost. E ventually, t he government di ssolved the justice of the peace position, and ministers stepped in to officiate weddings at the Hitching Post. 71. The Hitching Post moved to its current location sometime in the 1950s.
11

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 12 of 63
72. This current location is 524 N Government Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. 73. In t his l ocation, t he H itching P ost Chapel is a pproximately 300 f eet f rom t he Kootenai County Clerk’s office. 74. The Hitching Post Chapel and the Kootenai County Clerk’s office are located on the same street. 75. The Kootenai County Clerk’s office issues marriage licenses. 76. A person can walk from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office to the Hitching Post Chapel in roughly 1 minute. 77. Couples often do precisely this. They get their marriage license from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office and walk across the street to wed at the Hitching Post Chapel. 78. Because t he C lerk’s o ffice is so c lose b y, t he Hitching P ost Chapel is a v ery convenient and popular spot for couples wanting a wedding service. 79. Roughly 50% of H itching P ost c ustomers c ome t o t he H itching P ost Chapel on the same day they receive their marriage license from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office. I believe in God the Father Almighty: the Knapps affirm the Bible on marriage 80. Since the K napps are each ordained m inisters a nd r egularly perform w eddings, they take their religious beliefs seriously, especially their religious beliefs about marriage. 81. The Knapps are evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs. 82. For example, the Knapps believe that God has revealed His will in the Bible, that all people have violated God’s commands, and that all people need forgiveness offered through God’s Son, Jesus Christ. 83. The K napps also hol d to t he c hurch’s hi storic v iew on m arriage, s exual de sire, and sexual activity.
12

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 13 of 63
84. Specifically, the K napps believe that G od c reated t wo di stinct genders i n H is image, that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that God intends for all sexual activity to occur within this one-man-one-woman marriage covenant.
85. As a co rollary to these beliefs and because of statements in the Bible addressing this topic, the Knapps believe that all sexual acts outside and contrary to a one-man-one-woman marriage covenant are contrary t o G od’s w ill, i ncluding f ornication, homosexual a cts, a nd polygamy.
86. Likewise, the Knapps believe that Christian ministers perform and participate in a religious ceremony when they officiate a wedding.
87. As C hristian min isters, w hen the K napps officiate at weddings, they publicly bless, pr omote, pray f or, and e ndorse t hose marriages. T hey also convey religious messages about those marriages and ceremonially initiate those marriages.
88. For this reason, the Knapps cannot officiate a same-sex wedding or commitment ceremony without violating their religious beliefs, promoting activities contrary to their religious beliefs, and expressing messages contradicting their religious beliefs.
89. While the K napps believe all f orms o f s exual immo rality a re c ontrary t o G od’s will, they also believe that all people are created in God’s image, and therefore all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
90. Likewise, the K napps believe Jesus co mmanded C hristians to love th eir neighbors.
91. Accordingly, the K napps exhibit love toward every pe rson t hey m eet and t reat them with dignity and respect, regardless of who they are, regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless of whether they act in ways the Knapps consider contrary to God’s word.
13

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 14 of 63
92. The Knapps also hold a Christian view of vocation and work. 93. Specifically, the Knapps believe that they should honor God in all aspects of their lives, including their work, and that they should seek to serve God and their neighbors through their vocation. 94. As a r esult, the K napps exhibit l ove t oward every pe rson they e ncounter while they work and they treat them with dignity and respect. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church: the Knapps affirm the Church on marriage 95. As ordained m inisters i n t he International C hurch of t he Foursquare Gospel, the Knapps have affirmed their a greement w ith t he Church’s religious b eliefs. The K napps’s personal religious beliefs align with and reflect their Church’s beliefs. 96. The f ollowing doc uments i dentify and e xplain t he be liefs of t he F oursquare Church: t he F oursquare C reedal S tatement, t he F oursquare D eclaration o f F aith, a nd t he Corporate Bylaws of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. 97. The Foursquare Church also issues a Handbook for the Operation of Foursquare Churches that contains regulations about ordination for Foursquare ministers. 98. According t o t he F oursquare C orporate Bylaws, t he B oard o f D irectors m ay revoke the credentials of a Foursquare minister on the following grounds:
• Heresy • Willful f ailure or r efusal t o c omply w ith t he pr ovisions of t he “ Declaration of
Faith,” th e A rticles, o r these B ylaws a s a pplicable to th e min ister’s p lace o f appointment or service Bylaws §12.2.5. 99. These Bylaws also require persons do t he following to be entitled to membership in a Foursquare Church:
14

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 15 of 63
• Subscribe an d ad here t o t he “D eclaration o f F aith,” co mpiled b y Aimee Semple McPherson.
• Agree to comply with the Articles and these Bylaws. Bylaws §13.6.1.
100. Church membership can be revoked for the following reasons: • Refusal to adhere to the “Declaration of Faith,” or to comply with the provisions of the Articles or these Bylaws • Willful unchristian or unscriptural conduct.
Bylaws §13.6.7. 101. These Bylaws later specify: “Marriage is a biblical covenant relationship between
a man and a woman established initially by God…. High standards of marriage are very essential to the individual, to the family, and to the cause of Christ.” Bylaws §13.6.8.
102. The B ylaws al so r equire Foursquare pastors to “[ e]vangelize t he co mmunity, strive f or t he s alvation of s ouls, e dify t he church, a nd bui ld up C hristian l ife t hroughout t he church b y p reaching, t eaching, c onducting s ervices, a nd a dministering ordinances, i ncluding marriage only between a man and a woman.” Bylaws §14.4.
103. At the end of the Bylaws is an appendix entitled “Minister’s Code of Ethics.” This code requires Foursquare ministers to affirm the following:
• As an ordained or licensed minister or Christian worker, I subscribe in full to the contents of the “Declaration of Faith,” compiled by Aimee Semple McPherson, F ounder o f t he International C hurch of t he Foursquare Gospel.
• I declare myself in harmony with and bind myself to the objects, purposes and pr ovisions of t he A rticles of Incorporation a nd b ylaws of t he International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
• I a gree t hat I am o bligated b y m y d ivine c all as a C hristian an d as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to abide by, in ministry and life, the
15

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 16 of 63
biblical s tandards of i ntegrity a nd m orality to w hich a ll C hristian leadership is accountable. • I agree t o c omply w ith t he f oundational pr inciples, pr ocesses a nd procedures of t he International C hurch of t he Foursquare G ospel, as s et forth i n t he following B oard a pproved do cuments: “ The D eclaration of Faith,” “Articles of Incorporation and bylaws of the International Church of t he Foursquare Gospel.” I will exhort m y fellow Foursquare m inisters to uphol d t he pr inciples of a hol y l ife and t o a dhere t o t he foundational principles, pr ocesses a nd pr ocedures o f t he International C hurch of t he Foursquare Gospel. 104. Ministers of t he F oursquare C hurch m ust s ubscribe a nd a dhere t o t his Code of Ethics a s “a pr erequisite f or l icensing a nd/or ordination.” H andbook for t he O peration of Foursquare Churches §12.1. 105. In their o rdination vo ws, t he K napps pledged t o a bide b y t he F oursquare Statement of Faith and Bylaws. 106. If the Knapps performed a same-sex wedding ceremony, they would violate their ordination vows and risk Church discipline, including the possible revocation of their credentials as ministers. 107. Because the K napps cannot p erform s ame-sex w edding ceremonies a nd comply with t heir or dination vo ws or t heir pe rsonal r eligious be liefs, t hey ha ve a lways op erated t heir wedding business in accordance with these religious beliefs. The Knapps form Hitching Post Weddings LLC to promote biblical marriage 108. The Knapps view their work and business at Hitching Post as ministry. Thus, they operate every as pect o f the H itching P ost f or a religious pu rpose a nd ba sed on their religious beliefs. 109. When the Knapps bought the Hitching Post, they initially operated the business as an S corporation.
16

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 17 of 63
110. Eventually, the Knapps formed their business into its present structure: a limited
liability company called Hitching Post Weddings, LLC.
111. When t hey di d t his, t he K napps took the opportunity t o m emorialize th eir
practices, goals, and purposes for the Hitching Post in writing.
112. The K napps have al ways followed t hese pr actices, g oals, a nd pur poses s ince
buying the Hitching Post in 1989.
113. The O perating A greement of H itching P ost Weddings, LLC i dentifies the
company’s character, ethos, and goals. See Exhibit 1.
114. Section 3.1 of this Agreement is entitled “Purpose.”
115. This section reads as follows:
The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely b y ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held r eligious be liefs a nd i n a ccordance w ith t heir vow s t aken a s Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build l ifetime, m onogamous, one -man-one-woman m arriages as d efined b y t he Holy Bible.
The Christian religion requires that all its adherents, and especially its ministers, apply t heir religious pr ecepts a nd doc trines t o a ll f acets of t heir l ives, i ncluding their work and the operation of their businesses. For this reason, the Hitching Post reserves the right to refuse a r equest for services that would require the entity to engage i n conduct t hat c onflicts with i ts owners’ s incerely held r eligious beliefs and the ministerial vows taken by the owners.
The H itching P ost e ngages i n i ts ow n e xpression t hrough t he s ervices t hat i t provides. In so doing, The Hitching Post intentionally expresses public messages that pr omote a spects of i ts ow ners’ C hristian r eligion a nd t hose are not inconsistent with those sincerely held beliefs. For this reason, The Hitching Post reserves the right to refuse a r equest for services that would require the entity to engage i n or hos t e xpression t hat v iolates i ts o wners’ s incerely h eld r eligious beliefs. Only H itching P ost’s ow ners a nd e mployees pe rform t he w eddings a t Hitching P ost C hapel a nd ot her l ocations s cheduled b y t he H itching P ost. T hey have ul timate c ontrol ove r t he c ontent of t he c eremony a nd w ill not c onduct a ceremony that expresses messages that are inconsistent with their Christian faith.
17

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 18 of 63
The Hitching Post provides wedding and marriage-related services for the purpose of publicly expressing and promoting that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, which i s consistent with its owners’ s incerely h eld religious b eliefs and w ith t heir m inisterial vow s. A ny request f or w edding and m arriage-related services not within this identified purpose is outside the scope of services offered by the Hitching Post.
The H itching P ost, c onsistent w ith i ts ow ners’ s incerely h eld r eligious b eliefs, provides w edding a nd m arriage-related s ervices a lso f or t he pur poses of promoting t he s ocial i nstitution of m arriage as a f undamental bui lding b lock of our s ociety a nd pr omoting t he publ ic unde rstanding of m arriage a s t he u nion of one m an a nd on e w oman. B y f urthering t hese pur poses, t he Hitching P ost endeavors t o i nstill a nd pr omote t his bi blical unde rstanding of m arriage and marriage-related v alues in t he co mmunities w here i t o perates. A chieving t hese goals is imp ortant to ensure th at ma rriage remains a v ital s ocial in stitution th at uniquely promotes the raising of children by their mother and father.
116. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC abides by its Operating Agreement.
117. The purpose of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC is to help people create, celebrate,
and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.
118. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC engages in its own expression when its owners and
employees perform the weddings at Hitching Post Chapel and other locations scheduled b y the
Hitching Post Weddings, LLC.
119. Hitching P ost W eddings, LLC reserves t he r ight t o r efuse a request f or services
that would require the entity to engage in or hos t expression that violates its owners’ sincerely
held religious beliefs.
Hitching Post Weddings LLC practices what it preaches
120. To ensure that Hitching Post Weddings LLC achieves its stated goals and follows
its corporate documents, the Knapps implemented certain policies and practices.
121. For example, Hitching Post Weddings LLC requires all its employees to sign the
“Hitching Post Employee Policy, Rules, and Regulations Regarding Marriage Ceremonies.”
18

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 19 of 63
122. A true and correct copy of this Employee Policy is attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit 2.
123. This E mployee P olicy recites t he “Purpose” s ection in the Hitching P ost
Weddings LLC Operating Agreement.
124. Then, the Employee Policy specifies the following Rules and Regulations:
• Only the Hitching P ost ow ners a nd e mployees m ay pe rform w edding ceremonies at the Hitching Post Chapel and other locations scheduled by the Hitching Post. Outside ministers may not perform wedding ceremonies at the Hitching Post Chapel or other locations scheduled b y the Hitching Post. Brides and grooms may not invite outside ministers to perform such ceremonies. Outside ministers may come and stand alongside the Hitching Post ow ner or e mployee w ho p erforms t he w edding ceremony. But onl y the Hitching Post owner or employee may perform the ceremony.
• In a ccordance with th e r eligious b eliefs and ministerial v ows o f th e
Hitching P ost ow ners, H itching P ost ow ners a nd e mployees w ill onl y perform w edding c eremonies f or c ouples e ntering i nto a one bi ological male an d o ne biological female uni on. H itching P ost ow ners a nd employees w ill not c onduct w edding c eremonies or t heir e quivalent ( i.e. commitment cer emonies, et c.) for s ame-sex, polyamorous, bi gamous, or any other relationship that is inconsistent with the Hitching Post owners’ religious belief that marriage is a union between man and woman.
• In a ccordance with th e r eligious b eliefs and ministerial v ows o f th e Hitching Post owners, Hitching Post owners and employees will perform ceremonies f or t hose o f different f aiths and religious be liefs (so l ong as those marriage ceremonies are consistent with the beliefs set forth herein) because marriage is a common grace and creational gift bestowed by God upon all humans for the benefit of human society.
• Persons of all age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, g ender i dentity/expression, d isability, ma rital s tatus, a nd socioeconomic s tatus are w elcomed a nd e ncouraged t o s tand w ith br ides and grooms and to attend wedding ceremonies.
• Persons of all age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, g ender i dentity/expression, d isability, ma rital s tatus, a nd socioeconomic s tatus are w elcomed and e ncouraged t o obt ain a ny resource about marriage provided by the Hitching Post.
125. After these rules, the Employee Policy states:
19

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 20 of 63
As an employee of the Hitching Post, I agree to perform my job-related activities in a ccordance w ith t he rules s pecified a bove. I a gree t hat I w ill not perform wedding c eremonies or their e quivalent a t t he Hitching P ost C hapel or at any locations scheduled by the Hitching Post in a way that violates the rules specified above.
126. The Employee Policy finally requires Hitching Post Employees to affirm that they
have read and agree to abide by this policy.
127. Employees do so by signing this Policy.
128. Every current e mployee and ow ner o f Hitching P ost Weddings L LC has s igned
this Employee Policy.
129. Hitching Post Weddings LLC also requires every wedding ceremony customer to
sign its “Hitching Post Wedding Customer Policy, Rules, and Regulations Regarding M arriage
Ceremonies.”
130. A true and correct copy of this Customer Policy is attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit 3.
131. This Customer Policy states the following:
The H itching P ost i s a r eligious c orporation ow ned by C hristian min isters f or a religious purpose. If you w ould l ike t o r ead a full de scription of t he Hitching Post’s purpose and character and a full description of the wedding ceremonies the Hitching Post will perform, a document outlining these is available upon r equest. Because o f its r eligious pur pose and c haracter, t he H itching P ost w ill onl y perform wedding ceremonies c onsistent w ith t he ow ners’ religious be liefs. Therefore, Hitching P ost ow ners a nd e mployees w ill not conduct w edding ceremonies o r t heir eq uivalent ( i.e. commitment c eremonies, etc.) fo r s ame-sex, polyamorous, bi gamous, or a ny ot her r elationship t hat i s i nconsistent w ith t he Hitching P ost ow ners’ r eligious be lief t hat m arriage i s a uni on be tween one biological male and one biological female.
As a H itching P ost w edding c ustomer, I a ffirm a nd p romise th at I am n ot requesting t he H itching P ost t o pr ovide a ny services t hat vi olate t he r ules specified above. I af firm and pr omise that I a m requesting th e H itching Post to perform a w edding s ervice b etween one bi ological m ale a nd one bi ological female. If I h ave any q uestions a bout how t hese r ules a pply i n m y p articular instance, I agree t o as k a H itching P ost o wner o r e mployee b efore th e Hitching
20

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 21 of 63
Post performs my wedding ceremony at the Hitching Post Chapel or at locations scheduled by the Hitching Post. Please sign that you have read this policy and agree to abide by it: 132. Hitching P ost W eddings LLC will not pe rform a w edding c eremony f or customers until they sign a copy of the Customer Policy. We ar e gathered h ere today to j oin t his m an a nd this woman: services at th e H itching P ost Chapel 133. Since the Knapps bought the Hitching Post in 1989, the Hitching Post has offered and charged for Hitching Post employees to officiate weddings. 134. On average, the Hitching Post performs roughly 1,400 weddings per year. 135. The K napps have pe rformed nearly every o ne o f t hese weddings since th e time they first bought The Hitching Post. 136. The K napps have h ired o ther min isters to o fficiate w eddings f or th e H itching Post. 137. Before h iring any min ister, the K napps ask the min ister to p erform a w edding service in f ront of them. T hat w ay, t he K napps ensure that the min ister performs ceremonies consistent with their religious beliefs. 138. The Hitching Post does not allow customers to use their own ministers to perform weddings at the Hitching Post Chapel. 139. The Hitching Post offers wedding services at the Hitching Post Chapel at 524 N Government Way and at other venues when requested. For example, the Knapps have performed wedding ceremonies in parks, churches, and private homes. 140. But almost a ll Hitching P ost w edding c eremonies oc cur at t he H itching P ost Chapel.
21

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 22 of 63
141. This ch apel offers t hree ro oms fo r wedding ceremonies: the w estern r oom, t he Victorian style sitting room, and the main chapel room.
142. The K napps di splay r eligious messages, r eligious s ymbols, r eligious books , scripture quo tes, a nd in spirational C hristian-based poems or p hrases t hroughout The H itching Post Chapel.
143. On the door frame to the main chapel where the Knapps perform most weddings is a sign that says “CHAPEL”.
144. Above t hat s ign i s a nother l arger s ign t hat s tates: “ ALL BECAUSE TW O PEOPLE FELL IN LOVE….”
145. On t he ba ck of t he door i nto t he m ain c hapel i s a s ign t hat r eads: “ WEDDING CEREMONY IS B EING P ERFORMED, P lease Take a S eat, T he M inister w ill b e R ight w ith you, Thank You.”
146. The above sign is placed on the back of the main chapel door because that side of the door faces the Hitching Post Chapel’s front room, where prospective customers enter.
147. The Ten Commandments from the Book of Exodus in the Bible is displayed in the main chapel.
148. In two, separate framed pictures, the Knapps also hang documents displaying the Bible’s teaching about the attributes of love from I Corinthians 13.
149. The document in the pictures frame states the following: Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not r ude, i t i s not s elf-seeking, i t i s not easily a ngered, i t k eeps no r ecord of wrongs. Love doe s not de light i n e vil but r ejoices w ith t he t ruth. It a lways protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. 1 Corinthians. 13.
22

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 23 of 63
150. The K napps also display a p laque t hat expresses t heir b elief t hat Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior in the Hitching Post Chapel’s front room where they first welcome customers.
151. This w ooden pl aque contains a n i cthys: a s ymbol c onsisting o f tw o in tersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish.
152. Throughout hi story, C hristians ha ve us ed t he i chtys a s a s ymbol t o great a nd recognize each other.
153. Inside the ichtys on the Knapps’s plaque are the following Greek letters: Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma.
154. Below the ichtys on the plaque, the following English text appears: JESUS CHRIST SON OF GOD SAVIOR. 155. This English text translates what the Greek text above it stands for. 156. The Knapps also pl ace Bibles a nd books t hat pr ovide bi blically-based gui dance for marriage in the front room where they first welcome customers. 157. Also, prominently displayed on the Knapps’s main desk in the front room is “The Star Book for Ministers” by Edward T. Hiscox. 158. This book is a resource for evangelical pastors regarding any number of religious functions a nd dut ies t hey may be called upon t o pe rform, i ncluding religious c eremonies lik e marriages. 159. Most ceremonies at the Hitching Post Chapel occur in the main chapel room. 160. Most ceremonies begin with soft, instrumental music played over a speaker. 161. Then the Hitching Post minister directs the ceremony.
23

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 24 of 63
162. While each H itching P ost min ister adds personal t ouches t o t heir w edding
ceremonies, they perform substantially the same ceremony.
163. For example, a sample ceremony is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4. This
sample is a true and correct description of the ceremony Mrs. Knapp performs.
164. Mrs. Knapp begins her ceremony this way:
Mrs. K napp: We're gathered he re t o j oin t his m an a nd t his w oman in H oly Matrimony, w hich i s h onorable a mong a ll m en a nd i s not t o be e ntered i nto unadvisedly, or lightly, but reverently, discretely and in the fear of God.
165. Mrs. Knapp proceeds to ask the groom questions and have him repeat vows to his
bride:
Mrs. Knapp: Do you take the lady whom you now hold by the hand, to be your lawful a nd w edded w ife? ( I D o). D o you pr omise t o love a nd cherish h er i n sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better for worse, and forsaking all others keep you only unto her so long as you both shall live? (I do)
Groom repeats vows: I ___ take you ____, to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this Day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.
166. Mrs. K napp a sks s imilar que stions t o t he br ide and ha s he r r epeat vow s t o t he
groom.
167. Mrs. Knapp then asks the couple joint questions:
Mrs. K napp: D o you bo th pr omise i n t he pr esence of G od t hat you w ill a t a ll times and in all circumstances treat each other with respect as is appropriate for a husband and a wife. (I Do). That you will love, cherish and stay with one another until separated by death. (I Do)
168. Mrs. Knapp then proceeds to give a homily that directly references 1 C orinthians
13.
169. This homily includes the following:
I'd like to talk to you about Love. Love is a very small word, but there is a lot of meaning t o i t. G od ha s t old us s omething a bout l ove a nd s ince He created
24

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 25 of 63
marriage and love, I think that He has some great advice for us and if we follow what he says, you will have a great marriage. He tells us that Love is kind, is not selfish, Love ke eps no r ecord o f w rongs, w orks t o pl ease, t rusts, hope s, perseveres. 170. After a pplying t hese s criptural pr inciples t o t he br ide a nd groom, M rs. K napp explains the significance of wedding rings and instructs the couple to exchange rings. 171. Mrs. Knapp then prays over the couple: Dear Lord, Bless ____ a nd ____, he lp t hem as a hus band and wife t o do t hings that will build a marriage, that ____ would often tell ____ how much she respects him and appreciates hi m, and t hat ____ w ill give ____ t he Love and t enderness and ki ndness t hat s he n eeds. H elp t hem t o b e n ot onl y l overs, but b est friends, sharing what is in their hearts with each other. Thank you for this Lord, in Jesus Name, Amen. 172. Finally, Mrs. Knapp pronounces the couple married: Forasmuch as ____ and ____ have consented together in Holy wedlock and have witnessed the same before God and have given and pledged their commitment to each ot her and have de clared t he s ame b y t he giving and receiving o f rings and joining of hands. I pronounce that you are Husband and Wife in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. You may now kiss the bride. 173. Mrs. Knapp performs this precise ceremony for most ceremonies she performs. 174. Mrs. K napp occasionally v aries the c eremony in m inor w ays. For ex ample, sometimes she focuses on God’s forgiveness and encourages the couple to forgive each other just as God forgives them. Other times, she references the Golden Rule rather than 1 Corinthians 13. More r arely, Mrs. K napp e xplains t he c oncept of l ove described in 1 C orinthians 13 w ithout explicitly referencing that text. Mrs. Knapp tries to personalize the service to the couple as much as she can. 175. For ceremonies she performs, Mrs. Knapp decides what to say about marriage and how to say it.
25

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 26 of 63
176. Mrs. K napp’s c eremonies c onvey her r eligious ex pression as an o rdained minister.
177. Mrs. K napp conveys religious m essages a nd r eligious c oncepts t hrough he r wedding c eremonies. Mrs. K napp intentionally creates a w edding s ervice that honor s G od a nd that c onveys G od’s i ntention f or m arriage. Through h er ceremonies, Mrs. K napp also communicates that G od l oves m arriage a nd p eople s hould f ollow G od’s g uidance a bout marriage.
178. Since pur chasing t he Hitching P ost i n 1989, M rs. K napp ha s pe rformed approximately 1,500 wedding ceremonies.
179. Every one of these ceremonies had been consistent with her religious beliefs. 180. Mr. K napp typically p erforms ceremonies with s imilar s tructure, format, a nd substance as Mrs. Knapp’s ceremonies. 181. A cer emony Mr. K napp performed is av ailable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QY21qg6Y4M. A c opy of this v ideo is a ttached to th is Complaint as Exhibit 5. 182. This video reflects a typical ceremony Mr. Knapp performs. Most ceremonies Mr. Knapp performs are similar to this video. 183. As this video suggests, Mr. Knapp usually relies on t he Golden Rule to form the basis for his homilies. Mr. Knapp also prays and references God and the Bible. 184. Mr. Knapp tries to personalize his services to each couple as much as he can. 185. For ceremonies he performs, Mr. Knapp decides what to say about marriage and how to say it. 186. Mr. Knapp’s ceremonies convey his religious expression as an ordained minister.
26

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 27 of 63
187. Mr. K napp conveys religious m essages and r eligious c oncepts t hrough his wedding c eremonies. Mr. K napp intentionally creates a w edding s ervice t hat honor s G od a nd that c onveys G od’s i ntention f or m arriage. T hrough his ceremonies, Mr. K napp also communicates that G od l oves m arriage a nd p eople s hould f ollow G od’s g uidance a bout marriage.
188. Since pur chasing t he Hitching P ost i n 1989, M r. K napp ha s pe rformed approximately 34,000 wedding ceremonies.
189. Every one of these ceremonies had been consistent with his religious beliefs. 190. The wedding services the Hitching Post offers are religious ceremonies. 191. When t hey perform w edding ceremonies, the K napps express m essages o n t heir own behalf and on behalf of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC. 192. When t hey pe rform w edding c eremonies, the K napps express th eir r eligious messages and religious messages on behalf of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC. 193. The Hitching Post charges between $80 and $102 for their wedding services. 194. This charge varies based on the date of the w edding ( weekday or weekend) and whether the couple wants photographs taken. 195. If a couple wants photographs, the presiding Hitching Post minister photographs the c ouple s ix to ten times a fter th e c eremony using a H itching P ost o wned d igital camera. If another Hitching Post employee is present, that employee will take pictures of the ceremony. 196. The Hitching Post then gives the couple the photographs on a secure digital card. 197. The H itching P ost onl y provides phot ography s ervices f or w edding c eremonies performed by Hitching Post ministers.
27

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 28 of 63
198. To e very wedding c ustomer, t he H itching P ost pr ovides s ome r esources a bout marriage.
199. These resources offer advice about how to foster a successful marriage. 200. These resources reference and rely on the Bible or rely on biblical principles. 201. The Knapps provide these resources to every customer because they believe that exposing them to God’s love and design for marriage provides the best chance for the customers to have a successful and lasting marriage. 202. The Knapps hope and frequently pray that wedding customers will read and view these resources and come to believe in Jesus Christ and come to base their marriage on biblical principles. 203. For ex ample, the Hitching Post provides a CD to every wedding customer. This CD contains two audio f iles o f the K napps’s pastor at Life Center Foursquare C hurch, J oe Wittwer. 204. The first audio file on t he Hitching Post CD contains a message entitled “Proven Ideas for Building S trong M arriages.” T his m essage i s a lso a vailable a t http://hitchingpostweddings.com/advice/. 205. Pastor Wittwer recorded this message specifically for the Hitching Post. 206. Around 1994, M r. Knapp w ent t o P astor W ittwer and asked hi m t o create a message the Hitching Post could distribute to its customers. 207. Mr. K napp w anted t o d o t his t o give customers a r esource t hey c ould reference repeatedly to strengthen their marriages.
28

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 29 of 63
208. Pastor Wittwer gave Mr. Knapp this message around 1994, and the Hitching Post began distributing it on cassettes at first and then on CDs. Wittwer updated this message around 2005, and the Hitching Post placed it on their website in summer of 2014.
209. In this me ssage, W ittwer a sserts th at “God designed and created m arriage, an d nobody knows better than God how to make a marriage work well.” Wittwer then encourages the listeners to seek wisdom from the Bible to foster their marriage.
210. Wittwer also encourages the listeners to love their spouses. And Wittwer defines love not as a feeling but as a commitment to do what is best for the other person no matter what it costs.
211. Wittwer does not hide what this love looks like: “I can’t think of a better example of love than the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible says that it was love that made him die on the cross for you and me.”
212. Likewise, W ittwer e ncourages t he l isteners t o f orgive e ach ot her i n t heir marriages. Wittwer again points to Jesus as the example: “The Bible says that in Jesus God has forgiven all of our sins, every sin, past, present, future are all forgiven in Christ.”
213. Wittwer also cites Luke 6:38 and Ephesians 5 and concludes b y praying t o God for t he c ouples l istening t o t he r ecording: “ I pr ay t hat t hey c ould put you, J esus, a t t he ve ry center o f t heir r elationship. That as t hey l ove you m ore, t heir l ove for e ach o ther w ill grow as well.”
214. The second audio file on the Hitching Post CD contains a 47 minute sermon from Wittwer entitled “Commitment — A Superglue of Marriage.”
215. A c opy o f th is s ermon is a lso a vailable a t http://hitchingpostweddings.com/advice/.
29

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 30 of 63
216. Pastor Wittwer originally gave this sermon at his church. 217. In his “Commitment — A Superglue of Marriage” sermon, Pastor Wittwer cites the following Bible verses:
• Genesis 2: 24: “ For t his r eason, a m an w ill l eave hi s f ather and m other a nd b e united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
• John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and onl y Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
• Romans 5:8: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
• 1 John 3:16: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.”
• 1 John 4:9-10: “This is how God showed his love among us: he sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. And this is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
• Leviticus 19:32: “Rise up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God.”
218. Wittwer a lso e mphasizes t hat G od i ntends e very m arriage t o b e pe rmanent. Wittwer then p rovides s ome s kills a nd v alues th at w ill h elp ma rried c ouples s tay to gether and highlights commitment a s th e mo st important v alue f or a p ermanent m arriage: “M arriage i s a covenant between two people based on promises we make before God and keep with his help.”
219. To em phasize commitment’s importance for m arriage, W ittwer cites s ample marriage vows and explains them through the prism of J esus’ actions and words. Wittwer also has married couples in his audience recite these marriage vows line by line to each other.
220. Wittwer f inishes hi s s ermon t his w ay: “These are bi g p romises, a nd we ne ed God’s help. So help me God. Help me. Want a superglue marriage? Make the promises. Repeat them often to each other. And ask God for his help. So help me God. I choose us.”
30

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 31 of 63
221. In a ddition t o t he C D with Pastor Wittwer’s messages about m arriage, t he Hitching Post also currently provides a book to every wedding customer.
222. This book is entitled “Marriage Building It to Last” by Bob and Page Bingham. 223. This 283 pa ge book pr ovides a dvice a bout ho w t o m aintain a nd d evelop a marriage, i ncluding a dvice a bout s ex, l ove, de cision m aking, a nd t he di fferences b etween m en and women, that is consistent with biblical teaching regarding marriage. 224. Besides wedding ceremonies, the Hitching Post also sells postcards with pictures of the Hitching Post Chapel. The Hitching Post has sold postcards for approximately 10 years. 225. The H itching P ost has s old and w ill c ontinue to s ell these pos tcards t o anyone regardless o f t heir r ace, color, r eligion, c reed, s ex, s exual or ientation, gender i dentity, n ational origin, ancestry, age, or veteran status. 226. With r espect t o w edding ceremony s ervices, t he H itching P ost h as o ffered and will continue to offer its services to an yone r egardless of their r ace, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, or veteran status. Hitching Post promotes marriage online: Hitchingpostweddings.com 227. The Knapps also pay a company to maintain a website for the Hitching Post. The website is accessible at http://hitchingpostweddings.com/. 228. The Knapps decide what content to place on this website. 229. This w ebsite e xplains t he hi story of t he H itching P ost a nd pr ovides c ustomers information about pricing, the Hitching Post staff, and wedding reservations. 230. The website also contains an “Advice” section with a host of free resources about how to develop a successful and lasting marriage. See http://hitchingpostweddings.com/advice/.
31

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 32 of 63
231. For e xample, t his advice section pr ovides a l ink to a 45 m inute sermon Pastor Wittwer originally gave at his church. This sermon is entitled “The Essence of Marriage.”
232. A t rue an d co rrect co py of a v ideo o f W ittwer’s “T he E ssence o f M arriage” sermon is available at http://vimeo.com/79140854. A true and correct copy of this video is also located on the CD attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6.
233. In this video, Pastor Wittwer cites the following Bible verses: • Ephesians 5: 31: “ For t his r eason a m an w ill l eave hi s f ather a nd m other and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” • Deuteronomy 10: 20: “Fear t he Lord your G od and s erve hi m. Hold f ast t o hi m and take your oaths in his name.” • Exodus 19: 4-6: “ ‘You y ourselves ha ve s een w hat I di d t o E gypt, a nd how I carried you on eagles’ w ings a nd br ought you to m yself. N ow i f you obey m e fully a nd ke ep m y c ovenant, t hen out of a ll na tions you w ill be m y t reasured possession. Although t he whole earth i s m ine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” • John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and onl y Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” • Romans 5:8: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” • 1 John 4:10: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
234. Wittwer then defines marriage as “a covenant between a man and a woman based on promises they make before God and keep with his help.” He exhorts his audience to spurn the consumerist m odel of m arriage, w here s pouses l eave a m arriage when i t doe s not m eet t heir needs, and adopt a covenantal model of marriage that mimics God’s relationship with his church: a pe rmanent r elationship w here t he pa rtners a re fully know n b y e ach ot her yet f ully l oved b y each ot her. H e f inally concludes w ith pr ayer, thanking G od b ecause “you a re t he c ovenant
32

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 33 of 63
keeping God, that you are the one who said, I will never leave you, I will always love you, I will always forgive you. I promise.”
235. Below the link to Wittwer’s sermon, the advice page on the Hitching Post website then contains a section of “Love Quotes.”
236. The following quotations appear in this section: • So in e verything, do t o ot hers w hat you w ould ha ve t hem do t o you…. – Matthew 7:12 • However, e ach one of you a lso m ust l ove hi s w ife a s he l oves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. – Ephesians 5:33 • Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-serving (selfish), it is not easily angered, it keeps no r ecord of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. I – Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)
237. The ad vice p age n ext co ntains a “R ecommended Listening” s ection w ith t wo recordings.
238. The f irst r ecording contains Wittwer’s “ Proven Ideas f or Building S trong Marriages” message. The second recording contains Wittwer’s “Commitment - A Superglue of Marriage” sermon.
239. The same message and sermon also appears on the CD the Hitching Post gives to every w edding ceremony customer. T he c ontent of this m essage and s ermon are described above.
240. Finally, the advice page on the Hitching Post website contains a “Recommended Reading” s ection. T his s ection c ontains l inks t o the A mazon w ebpage w here vi ewers c an bu y particular books about marriage.
241. The Recommended Reading section contains links to the following books:
33

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 34 of 63
• “The Meaning of Marriage” by Timothy Keller • “Love and Respect” by Emerson Eggerichs • “The 5 Love Languages” by Gary Chapman • “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” by Dr. Laura Schlessinger • “His Needs, Her Needs” by William Harley • “Communication, Key To Your Marriage” by H. Norman Wright • “Before You Say I DO” by N. Wright • “For Better or For Best” by Gary Smalley • “Love For A Lifetime” by James Dobson • “Love Is A Decision” by Gary Smalley 242. Timothy Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. 243. Emerson E ggerichs w as t he s enior pa stor of T rinity C hurch i n E ast Lansing, Michigan. 244. Gary C hapman is th e senior as sociate p astor at C alvary Baptist C hurch i n Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 245. H. N orman W right is the R esearch P rofessor o f C hristian E ducation a t T albot School of Theology. 246. James Dobson is founder and chairman emeritus of Focus on the Family. 247. Gary Smalley is the founder of the Smalley Relationship Center and the author of books on family relationships from a Christian perspective. 248. Six books l isted on t he H itching P ost website ci te t he B ible t o p rovide advice about marriage.
34

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 35 of 63
249. Those t hat do not a re, i n t he vi ew of t he K napps, c onsistent w ith t he Bible’s teachings concerning marriage.
250. The K napps r ecommend these r esources on t he H itching P ost w ebsite because they want everyone to access these resources and come to believe in Jesus Christ and base their marriage on biblical principles.
251. On t he Hitching P ost w ebsite and i n many resources l inked on t his website, t he Hitching P ost pr omotes the m essage t hat G od c reated m arriage t o b e a o ne-man-one-woman covenant.
252. The Hitching Post website and many resources linked on t his website encourage couples to base their marriages on the Bible.
253. If the K napps performed a same-sex m arriage ce remony, t hey would be expressing a m essage a bout m arriage t hat contradicts the me ssages th ey p romote o n th eir website. Hitching Post refuses to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies
254. For as long as the Knapps have owned it, the Hitching Post has never allowed its ministers to officiate same-sex weddings because doing so would violate the Knapps’s religious beliefs.
255. As a result, Hitching Post employees have refused requests to perform same-sex wedding and commitment ceremonies.
256. Mr. Knapp has refused to perform same-sex ceremonies at least 15 separate times since 1989.
257. For ex ample, a w oman called t he H itching P ost Chapel in t he 1990s and as ked Mr. Knapp if the Hitching Post married women.
35

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 36 of 63
258. Confused, Mr. K napp asked w hat s he m eant. T he w oman t hen a sked doe s t he Hitching Post marry lesbians.
259. Mr. Knapp responded no. 260. Another incident occurred around May 2014. 261. At that time, two women came to the Hitching Post Chapel together and asked in person to be married. One woman was elderly and the other was much younger. They appeared to be 20 years apart in age difference. 262. The H itching P ost e mployee w orking th e f ront desk a t th e time d eclined th eir request. The couple then left. 263. That employee told Mr. Knapp about t he incident af ter t he f act, an d Mr. K napp agreed that the employee followed company policy by denying the request. 264. On October 17, 2014, a pr ospective c ustomer c alled a nd a sked i f T he Hitching Post w ould pe rform a s ame-sex w edding c eremony. In a ccordance w ith t heir s incerely h eld religious convictions a nd m inisterial vow s, M rs. K napp pol itely responded t hat T he H itching Post does not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies because it is a r eligious organization. S he also i nformed t he i ndividual t hat t he c ounty c lerk’s of fice c ould pr ovide hi m a l ist of pl aces where he could get married. The Knapps do not intend to change this decision. 265. In accordance with their sincerely held religious convictions and ministerial vows, the K napps i ntend t o d ecline a ny other requests t hey receive t o p erform s ame-sex w edding ceremonies at The Hitching Post. Coeur d’Alene passes Ordinance 9.56; Ordinance 9.56 applies to the Hitching Post Chapel 266. The Coeur d’Alene City Council passed Ordinance 9.56 on June 4, 2013, by a 5-1 vote.
36

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 37 of 63
267. During te stimony before the vot e, bus iness o wners raised concerns that t he
ordinance would force them to compromise their faith and expose them to costly litigation.
268. According to media reports, Councilman Steve Adams warned that “[i]nevitably
the ordinance will be used as a sword more than a shield.”
269. Also a ccording t o m edia r eports, C ouncilwoman D eanna G oodlander s tated t hat
the ordinance sends “the message that intolerance does not belong in Coeur d’Alene.”
270. The Ordinance states that “[t]he following acts are prohibited and shall constitute
a m isdemeanor: … T o de ny t o or t o di scriminate a gainst a ny person be cause of s exual
orientation and/or gender identity/expression the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or
amusement.”
271. Ordinance 9.56 defines “public accommodation” as follows:
PLACE O F P UBLIC RESORT, AC COMMODATION, AS SEMBLAGE OR AMUSEMENT: Includes, but i s not l imited t o, a ny publ ic pl ace, l icensed or unlicensed, ke pt f or gain, hi re or r eward, or w here charges a re m ade f or admission, s ervice, oc cupancy o r us e of a ny property o r f acilities, w hether conducted for the entertainment, housing or lodging of transient guests, or for the benefit, us e or accommodation of t hose s eeking health, recreation or rest, or for the sale of goods and merchandise, or for the rendering of personal services, or for public c onveyance o r t ransportation on l and, w ater or i n t he a ir, i ncluding t he stations a nd t erminals t hereof a nd the garaging of ve hicles, or w here food or beverages of any kind are sold for consumption on t he premises, or where public amusement, e ntertainment, s ports or r ecreation of a ny ki nd i s of fered with or without charge, or where medical service or care is made available, or where the public g athers, c ongregates, or a ssembles for a musement, r ecreation or publ ic purposes, or public halls, public elevators and public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two (2) or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants, or a ny publ ic l ibrary or a ny e ducational i nstitution w holly or pa rtially supported by public funds, or schools of special instruction.
272. The H itching P ost Chapel qualifies as a “public acco mmodation” u nder t he
Ordinance.
37

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 38 of 63
273. The Hitching Post qualifies as a “public accommodation” under the Ordinance for at least three reasons: (1) it is a public place; (2) it is operated for a profit (i.e. “kept for gain”); (3) it charges for the wedding ceremonies and other marriage-related services it offers.
274. Accordingly, the Ordinance’s bar on sexual orientation discrimination applies to The Hitching Post and its operations.
275. The City interprets Ordinance §9.56, and specifically its bar on sexual orientation discrimination, to bar a public accommodation from declining to provide a service to same-sex couples that it would provide to opposite-sex couples or to anyone else.
276. The O rdinance pr ovides t hat a “ violation of t his c hapter i s a m isdemeanor, punishable as provided in title 1, chapter 1.28 of this code.”
277. Chapter 1.28 s tates that a misdemeanor is punishable “by a fine of not more than one t housand dol lars ($1,000.00), or b y i mprisonment not t o e xceed one hundred e ighty ( 180) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
278. Chapter 1.28 f urther p rovides t hat “ [e]ach s uch pe rson i s guilty of a separate offense o r liable to a s eparate penalty for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the ordinances of the city is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, and he shall be punished accordingly.”
279. Accordingly, the K napps co mmit a s eparate and d istinct m isdemeanor e ach d ay they continue follow their religious beliefs and decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony.
280. Each of those misdemeanor violations is punishable by jail time, a fine, or both.
38

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 39 of 63
Coeur d’Alene officials confirm that Ordinance §9.56 applies to Hitching Post
281. Coeur d’ Alene officials have al so i nformed Mr. K napp and t he m edia that C ity
Ordinance §9.56 requires the Hitching Post to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
282. On M ay 13, 2014, a f ederal d istrict c ourt ju dge in validated the I daho laws
defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
283. A f ew d ays after t hat r uling, a reporter w ith t he Spokesman-Review newspaper
called Mr. Knapp and asked whether he and the Hitching Post would begin performing same-sex
wedding ceremonies in light of the judge’s ruling.
284. Mr. K napp r esponded: “ I c annot i n good conscience pe rform s ame-sex
marriages.”
285. The day after talking to the reporter, Mr. Knapp read an article in the Spokesman
Review t hat d iscussed whether Ordinance § 9.56 would r equire t he H itching P ost t o pe rform
same-sex wedding ceremonies.
286. That article stated the following (emphasis added):
Wedding venues that turn away gay couples may violate local laws, such as Coeur d’Alene’s pr ohibition on di scrimination ba sed on s exual or ientation. T he provision adopted b y t he C ity C ouncil l ast year applies t o hous ing, employment and pl aces of publ ic accommodation, i ncluding bus inesses t hat render p ublic services. “I t hink t hat t erm i s br oad e nough t hat i t w ould c apture ( wedding) activity,” city attorney Warren Wilson said. Similar laws have applied to florists, bakeries a nd phot ographers t hat h ave r efused t o work on s ame-sex w eddings i n other states, Wilson noted. “Those have all been addressed in various states and run a foul o f s tate pr ohibitions s imilar t o t his,” he s aid. “ I w ould th ink t hat th e Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that w ould be s ubject t o t he or dinance.” In W ashington, no c lergy pe rson i s required t o m arry a c ouple i f doi ng s o w ould v iolate t he di ctates o f t heir f aith tradition. Idaho does not have a similar exemption in place, but religious entities are ex empt f rom the C oeur d’ Alene or dinance, s o pa stors i n t he c ity are not obligated to perform same-sex weddings. But any nonreligious business that hosts civil ceremonies would fall under the city law, Wilson said.
39

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 40 of 63

287. This n

ewspaper ar

ticle i

s av

ailable o

nline at

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/15/ministers-diverge-in-opinion-on-lifting-of-

idahos/.

288. This n ewspaper ar ticle contains some statements a ttributed t o Coeur d ’Alene

Deputy City Attorney Warren Wilson.

289. The statements a ttributed to W ilson in t his n ewspaper ar ticle accu rately r eflect

statements Wilson made.

290. These s tatements a ccurately reflect t he p osition o f t he Coeur d’ Alene City

Attorney Office.

291. These statements accurately reflect the position of the City of Coeur d’Alene.

292. Wilson has continued to a nnounce that O rdinance §9.56 a pplies to f or-profit

wedding chapels including the Hitching Post.

293. For e xample, a round M ay 15, 2014, a reporter w ith a local te levision s tation

created a report about same-sex marriage and the Hitching Post.

294. This report is available at http://www.kxly.com/news/north-idaho-news/hitching-

post-owners-will-close-before-performing-samesex-marriages/26006066. A w ritten a rticle a lso

accompanies the video report.

295. A t rue a nd c orrect c opy of t his vi deo r eport i s a ttached t o t his Complaint as

Exhibit 7.

296. The reporter interviewed Wilson for this report and asked him about the Hitching

Post Chapel.

297. Wilson made the following statements on camera during his interview:

40

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 41 of 63
• “For profit wedding chapels in this city now are in a position where last week the ban w ould ha ve pr evented t hem f rom pe rforming gay m arriages, t his w eek gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit.”
• “If you t urn away a gay c ouple or refuse t o p rovide s ervices to th em th at you would pr ovide f or anyone e lse, t hen i n t heory you vi olated our c ode a nd you're looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”
298. These statements accurately reflect statements Wilson made. 299. These s tatements a ccurately reflect t he p osition o f t he Coeur d’ Alene City Attorney Office. 300. These statements accurately reflect the position of the City of Coeur d’Alene. 301. The Coeur d’ Alene City A ttorney O ffice i s r esponsible f or e nforcing Ordinance §9.56. 302. After re ading W ilson’s media statements, Mr. K napp became co ncerned. He wanted clarification whether the Hitching Post was violating the law because the Hitching Post had de clined requests t o pe rform s ame-sex cer emonies i n t he p ast. Mr. K napp also kne w t he Hitching Post would receive these requests in the future because the Hitching Post is so popular and so close to the county clerk’s office where marriage licenses are issued. 303. Moreover, t he l ocal media w idely r eported a bout t he H itching P ost’s unwillingness to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. 304. Therefore, City officials knew about the Hitching Post’s unwillingness to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. 305. In l ight of t his ge neral knowledge a nd of ficials’ c omments i n t he m edia, Mr. Knapp decided t o c all t he C oeur d’ Alene C ity Attorney’s O ffice t o clarify whether Ordinance §9.56 applied to the Hitching Post.
41

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 42 of 63
306. Mr. K napp called th e Coeur d’ Alene City A ttorney’s O ffice on approximately May 20, 2014.
307. Mr. Knapp talked to Wilson, the same attorney quoted in the newspaper article. 308. Mr. K napp a sked W ilson i f t he C oeur d’ Alene anti-discrimination or dinance required him and the Hitching Post to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. 309. Mr. K napp also asked i f h e w as ex empt from the or dinance since h e was an ordained minister. 310. Wilson r esponded t hat M r. K napp w ould h ave t o pe rform s ame-sex w edding ceremonies because of the Coeur d’Alene ordinance. 311. Wilson a lso r esponded that M r. K napp w as n ot e xempt f rom t he or dinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church. 312. Mr. K napp a sked w hat w ould ha ppen i f he r efused t o p erform t he s ame-sex wedding ceremonies. 313. Wilson responded that Mr. Knapp could be fined up to $1,000 and serve up to 180 days in jail. 314. Mr. Knapp was deeply concerned at the prospect of having to forgo his religious beliefs o r s uffer fines a nd ja il t ime. S o Mr. K napp wanted t o m ake s ure t he ci ty o rdinance required him to do what the ordinance and the officials said. 315. Approximately a month after the May 20, 2014 telephone call, Mr. Knapp again called the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office. 316. This time , Mr. K napp talked to e ither Deputy City Attorney W ilson or C ity Attorney Michael Gridley.
42

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 43 of 63
317. Mr. Knapp asked if the Coeur d’Alene anti-discrimination ordinance required him and the Hitching Post to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
318. Wilson or Gridley responded that the Coeur d’Alene ordinance would require Mr. Knapp to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from this requirement. Court decisions about same-sex marriage place Hitching Post in crosshairs
319. Although the Hitching Post declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in the pa st, t he H itching P ost di d no t r eceive m any r equests to pe rform same-sex w edding ceremonies because same-sex marriage has been illegal in Idaho.
320. That c hanged b riefly on M ay 13 w hen a F ederal D istrict C ourt j udge enjoined Idaho’s l aw d efining m arriage as a o ne-man-one-woman uni on. See L atta v. O tter, 1: 13-CV00482-CWD, 2014 WL 1909999 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014).
321. The Ninth Circuit s tayed t hat or der on M ay 2 0, 2014 unt il t he Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling on October 7, 2014. See Latta v. Otter, 14-35420, 2014 W L 4977682 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014).
322. Although the Ninth C ircuit is sued its ma ndate th at s ame d ay, U nited S tates Supreme C ourt Justice Anthony Kennedy the n ext d ay stayed t hat m andate until t he S upreme Court c ould r eceive briefing f rom th e p arties about t he ne ed f or a l onger s tay. See http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14A374-Kennedy-order.pdf.
323. The S upreme C ourt ultimately denied t he Idaho G overnor’s request t o s tay t he Ninth C ircuit r uling on t he a fternoon o f O ctober 10. See http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/Idaho-marriage-SCt-stay-denial-10-10-14.pdf.
43

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 44 of 63
324. The N inth C ircuit t hen i ssued a n or der on May 13, 2014 a llowing s ame-sex marriages to begin in Idaho at 9:00 a.m. on October 15, 2014.
325. So c ounty clerks throughout I daho began is suing ma rriage lic enses to s ame-sex couples for the first time on October 15, 2014.
326. Because same-sex marriage is now legal in Idaho, the Hitching Post for the first time faces t he pr ospect of frequently receiving r equests t o pe rform s ame-sex w edding ceremonies.
327. Likewise, the Hitching Post for the first time now faces the prospect of frequently denying r equests t o pe rform same-sex w edding cer emonies because o f the Knapps’ religious beliefs.
328. Coeur d’Alene has not enforced Ordinance §9.56 against the Hitching Post in the past because same-sex marriage was illegal in Idaho.
329. Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Idaho and the Hitching Post has already denied a nd w ill de ny requests t o pe rform s ame-sex w edding c eremonies, C oeur d’ Alene will enforce Ordinance §9.56 against the Hitching Post.
330. The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive, and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines f or d eclining t o s peak a m essage and pe rform a w edding s ervice t hat c ontradicts t heir religious beliefs and ministerial vows.
331. Any a mount o f ja il time o r c riminal f ines c ould s eriously c urtail the K napps’s ability t o e ngage i n t heir de sired r eligious e xpression a nd t o pe rform t he w edding c eremonies they are called by God to perform.
44

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 45 of 63

332. The K napps are i n a co nstant s tate of f ear t hat t hey m ay ha ve t o go t o j ail, pa y

substantial f ines, or bot h, r esulting i n t hem l osing t he bus iness t hat God has called th em to

operate and which they have faithfully operated for 25 years.

333. The Knapps also cannot effectively plan their business because of this imminent

threat.

334. The K napps l ease t o us e t he H itching P ost W edding C hapel e nds October 3 1,

2014.

335. If t hey s ign a l ease ex tension an d Coeur d’ Alene enforces O rdinance § 9.56

against t hem, the K napps will ha ve t o s top pe rforming w edding c eremonies and will be s tuck

paying their lease without any source of income to do so. They cannot afford this.

336. But if they do not sign a lease extension in the next few weeks, the Knapps will

lose an extremely valuable location for their business and suffer the loss of their primary income

source.

Many Coeur d’Alene venues perform same-sex wedding ceremonies

337. While the Knapps and the Hitching Post, LLC do not perform same-sex wedding

ceremonies, many other wedding chapels and venues in Coeur d’Alene do.

338. The website for t he Kootenai C ounty C lerk’s office contains a document with a

non-exhaustive list of local wedding facilities and providers.

339. This d

ocument is

a

vailable a

t

http://www.kcgov.us/departments/recorder/marriageforms/officiants.pdf. A true and correct copy

of this document is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 8.

340. This document lists 26 Coeur d’Alene venues that perform wedding ceremonies.

45

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 46 of 63

341. In a M ay 15, 2014 ne wspaper a rticle i n t he Spokesman-Review, t wo Coeur

d’Alene ministers publicly confirmed they will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

342. This n

ewspaper ar

ticle i

s av

ailable at

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/15/ministers-diverge-in-opinion-on-lifting-of-

idahos/.

343. This article contains the following statements:

Gay couples w ill ha ve other opt ions t o m ark t heir uni ons onc e t hey o btain a marriage l icense. O ne p erson w ho s aid s he’s h appy to m arry gay c ouples i s Christine T aysan, w ho i s or dained t hrough t he Universal Life C hurch a nd ha s presided over about a dozen weddings in Idaho. “I’ve put it out there since we’ve gotten t his good ne ws (that) i f a nybody w ants t o ge t m arried on F riday t hat I would o ffer m y s ervices f ree o f ch arge,” s aid T aysan, w ho o perates as Custom Ceremonies b y C hristine. S he ex pects s ame-sex c ouples w ill b e ex cited to t ake advantage of the opportunity to marry now in the Gem State. “It’s something that a lot of them have been waiting a long time for.” Tracy Springberry, minister of the N orth Idaho U nitarian U niversalist F ellowship, s aid s he l ooks f orward t o presiding ov er s ame-sex weddings. “ I will absolutely be performing t hem,” s aid Springberry, w ho l ives i n S pokane a nd m arried her pa rtner i n W ashington l ast July. “ It m eans I can r eally l ive out m y f aith.” So f ar s he ha sn’t be en a sked t o marry a s ame-sex c ouple i n Idaho. “I’m i nterested i n m aking s ure pe ople know we’re there and are willing to do it,” Springberry said.

344. In light of the numerous wedding venues in Coeur d’Alene and the willingness of

many Coeur d’ Alene ministers to p erform s ame-sex cer emonies, s ame-sex c ouples w ill ha ve

many venues to choose from besides the Hitching Post Chapel if they want a same-sex wedding

ceremony.

345. The K napps will refer t hose s eeking a s ame-sex m arriage ceremony at t he

Hitching Post to the Kootenai County Clerk’s office for its document listing other local wedding

providers.

46

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 47 of 63
The K napps and H itching P ost W eddings, LLC will c ontinue to f ollow r eligious b eliefs a nd refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies
346. The K napps do not w ant to di sobey t he l aw. They are hardly fit fo r jail. Mr. Knapp is 68, and Mrs. Knapp is 66.
347. Nor can the Knapps afford to pay $1,000 a day for violating Ordinance §9.56. The Knapps will quickly go broke and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC will become insolvent.
348. But the Knapps do not want to shut down Hitching Post Weddings, LLC either. This business provides their primary source of income. Without this income, the Knapps would have to change careers and find another source of income to survive. This prospect frightens the Knapps given their age.
349. Moreover, the K napps feel c alled b y God to c ontinue th eir min istry a t th e Hitching Post. They are compelled by their religious beliefs and their ordination vows to perform wedding ceremonies and to encourage couples to foster Godly marriages.
350. Specifically, the K napps feel co mpelled t o e xpress a nd pr omote t he b iblical definition of marriage by performing wedding ceremonies for opposite-sex couples.
351. So i f the K napps stopped pe rforming w edding c eremonies at th e H itching P ost, they would violate God’s call to them and violate their religious duty to follow God’s call.
352. But the K napps do not want t o a nd w ill not pe rform w edding c eremonies f or same-sex couples. The Knapps will not violate the religious beliefs they have followed for over 60 years or the ordination vows they have followed for over 35 years.
353. Therefore, in choosing between the options open to them, no option is viable. For each option, the Knapps and the Hitching Post, LLC either violate their religious beliefs, suffer extreme financial hardship, or risk fines and jail time.
47

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 48 of 63
354. Therefore, the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC are currently suffering irreparable harm and need immediate relief from this Court.
ALLEGATIONS OF LAW 355. At a ll time s r elevant to th is C omplaint, e ach and a ll o f th e a cts a lleged w ere attributed to Coeur d’Alene which acted under color of a statute, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of Idaho. 356. The K napps and H itching P ost W eddings, LLC are suffering imminent a nd irreparable harm from Coeur d’Alene’s policy and practice. 357. The K napps and H itching P ost W eddings, LLC have no a dequate or s peedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivation of its rights by Coeur d’Alene. 358. Unless the conduct of Coeur d’Alene is enjoined, the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC will continue to suffer irreparable injury.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech Compelled Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, and Unconstitutional Conditions 359. Plaintiffs repeat an d r eallege e ach o f t he allegations co ntained i n p aragraphs 1 – 358 of this Complaint. 360. Religious speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. 361. Plaintiffs engage in religious speech in their operation of The Hitching Post. 362. The ow ners of T he H itching P ost, P laintiffs D onald and E velyn K napp, a re ordained m inisters w ho run t he bus iness a ccording t o t heir s incerely he ld r eligious be liefs a nd their vows taken as Christian ministers. 363. The K napps and t heir employees a re t he onl y pe rsons p ermitted to perform wedding ceremonies at The Hitching Post Chapel.
48

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 49 of 63
364. In accordance w ith t he K napps’ r eligious be liefs a nd m inisterial vow s, T he Hitching P ost W eddings, LLC and i ts ow ners a nd e mployees w ill onl y pe rform w edding ceremonies that are consistent with the Christian religion.
365. Thus, among ot her t hings, The Hitching P ost and t he Knapps will onl y perform wedding ceremonies for couples entering i nto a one bi ological m ale and o ne bi ological female union.
366. The H itching P ost a nd t he K napps’ wedding cer emonies g enerally i nvolve references t o G od, t he i nvocation of G od’s bl essing on t he uni on, t he e xchange of religiousbased vow s, prayer, and br ief remarks dr awn f rom H oly S cripture d esigned t o e ncourage t he couple and help them to have a successful marriage.
367. The Hitching Post and the Knapps provide wedding and marriage-related services for the additional purposes of publicly expressing the biblical message that marriage is between one man and one woman, promoting the idea that marriage is a fundamental building block of society, and in stilling th is b iblical u nderstanding o f ma rriage in th e communities in w hich i t operates.
368. The F irst Amendment’s F ree S peech C lause p rohibits t he g overnment f rom compelling citizens to express or support a message not of their own choosing.
369. In accordance w ith t he K napps’ r eligious be liefs a nd m inisterial vow s, T he Hitching Post will only perform wedding ceremonies for couples entering into a one biological male and one biological female union.
370. The C ity’s an ti-discrimination o rdinance, C hapter 9.56, r equires T he H itching Post and t he K napps t o e ngage i n e xpression t hat t hey do not de sire t o c onvey, na mely, performing a w edding ceremony th at s olemnizes ma rital u nions th at are n ot o ne-man-one-
49

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 50 of 63
woman unions, like the same-sex marriage ceremony request that was the catalyst for the filing of this lawsuit.
371. Because T he H itching Post and t he K napps declined t o pe rform s ame-sex wedding c eremonies pu rsuant t o the K napps’ r eligious c onvictions a nd ministerial vow s, T he Hitching Post and its owners are now subject to criminal prosecution by the City and if convicted could be imprisoned for up to one hundred eighty (180) days, or fined up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.
372. For e ach d ay t hey pe rsist i n de clining r equested same-sex w edding ceremonies, Plaintiffs a re guilty o f a s eparate o ffense and th us s ubject to rapidly e scalating f ines and ja il terms.
373. In a ddition, i f c onvicted T he H itching P ost a nd t he K napps c ould be or dered t o undergo “sensitivity training.”
374. The effect of the ordinance is to compel two Christian ministers to perform samesex wedding ceremonies in direct violation of their religious convictions and ministerial vows or, if they decline to do so, to fine and imprison them for their unwillingness to speak in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
375. This speech compulsion violates the First Amendment. 376. The First A mendment’s F ree S peech C lause also p rohibits viewpoint discrimination against protected expression. 377. The City enforces Chapter 9.56 i n a viewpoint discriminatory manner in relation to the topic of marriage. 378. The C ity will not pr osecute or t hreaten t o p rosecute und er C hapter 9.5 6 t hose expressive businesses that provide wedding services and that are willing to express a message in
50

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 51 of 63
favor o f s ame-sex m arriage, but i t w ill pr osecute or t hreaten t o pr osecute t hose e xpressive businesses, l ike T he H itching P ost, t hat pr ovide w edding s ervices and t hat a re not w illing t o foster such a message but rather promote the message that marriage is between one man and one woman.
379. Thus, an expressive business must hold and express a view favorable to same-sex marriage in order to avoid prosecution by the City and potential fines and jail time if convicted; this is rank viewpoint discrimination.
380. The effect of Chapter 9.56—especially considering the criminal fines and jail time it imposes on t hose convicted of violating it—is to impose a viewpoint-based litmus test on the ability o f r esidents of C oeur d’ Alene to ow n a bus iness, w hich i s anathema t o t he F irst Amendment.
381. The First Amendment’s Free S peech C lause also prohibits the government from conditioning a benefit on the relinquishment of a constitutional right.
382. The K napps a nd H itching P ost W eddings, LLC r etain t he r ight t o c hose t he content of their expression, to promote religious messages they choose, to participate in religious ceremonies t hey ch oose, a nd t o e xercise t heir religion b y performing r eligious c eremonies i n their capacities as ordained ministers and by operating their ministry without having to suffer jail time, fines, sensitivity training, and other arbitrary limitations on those rights.
383. By mandating that the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC perform samesex wedding ceremonies, Chapter 9.56 unconstitutionally conditions the receipt of state benefits — specifically the right to speak, the right to remain silent, and the right to exercise their religion by performing religious ceremonies and operating a ministry in accordance with their religious
51

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 52 of 63
beliefs — on t he K napps a nd H itching P ost Weddings, LLC s urrendering, s uspending, or limiting their constitutional rights to free speech.
384. Chapter 9.56 and the City’s enforcement thereof chill, deter, and restrict Plaintiffs and other religiously-owned expressive businesses from freely expressing their religious beliefs.
385. Chapter 9.56, as interpreted and applied by the City to mandate speech promoting same-sex wedding ceremonies, to punish those unwilling to express a message that violates their own convictions, and to condition the ability to earn a living and operate a ministry on forfeiting First Amendment freedoms is not the least restrictive means of serving any compelling interest the City seeks to promote.
386. Chapter 9.56, as a pplied t o P laintiffs, a ccordingly v iolate th eir right t o F ree Speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief specified in the Prayer for Relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion 387. Plaintiffs r epeat an d r eallege each of t he allegations c ontained i n pa ragraphs 1 – 358 of this Complaint. 388. The K napps’ s incerely held r eligious be liefs p rohibit t hem f rom pe rforming, officiating, or s olemnizing a w edding c eremony be tween a nyone ot her t han one m an a nd one woman. 389. The K napps’ s incerely he ld r eligious be liefs a re de rived f rom t he B ible’s teachings about the God-ordained institution of marriage, from their ministerial vows, and from the doctrinal teachings of the Church in which they are ordained.
52

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 53 of 63
390. The Knapps operate The Hitching Post pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.
391. The K napps’ compliance w ith th eir r eligious c onvictions c onstitutes a r eligious exercise.
392. The r ight t o t he f ree exercise o f r eligion en compasses t he r ight t o pr each, proselytize, and perform other religious functions, or, in other words, to be a Christian minister.
393. The Knapps act as Christian ministers in their capacity as owners and operators of The Hitching Post, and perform the religious function, among others, of officiating weddings on behalf of The Hitching Post.
394. Chapter 9.56 as applied by the City is not facially or operationally neutral. 395. Chapter 9.56 vi olates t he K napps’ r ight t o t he f ree e xercise of r eligion b y conditioning their right to own and operate a wedding ceremony business on their willingness to violate their religious beliefs by performing same-sex wedding ceremonies. 396. Chapter 9.56 ba rs the Knapps from simultaneously owning a wedding ceremony business and adhering to a key aspect of their religious faith. 397. Chapter 9.56 forces Plaintiffs to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs by d eclining t o perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and being puni shed with criminal fines and ja il time , o r a bandoning th eir f ree e xercise r ights b y p erforming s ame-sex wedding ceremonies in order to avoid criminal fines and jail time. 398. Chapter 9.56 thereby substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion. 399. Chapter 9.56 also imposes special disabilities on P laintiffs due to their r eligious beliefs.
53

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 54 of 63
400. Chapter 9.56 and t he City’s e nforcement t hereof i mpermissibly prefers s ome religious vi ews ove r ot hers by pe rmitting t hose w hose r eligious be liefs s upport s ame-sex marriage to own and operate a m arriage-related expressive business according to their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, while punishing with criminal fines and jail time those who own an d o perate m arriage-related ex pressive b usinesses acco rding t o r eligious b eliefs t hat b ar them from supporting same-sex marriage, like the Knapps.
401. The C ity’s p reference f or s ome r eligious v iews o ver P laintiffs’ r eligious v iews violates the Free Exercise Clause.
402. Chapter 9.56, f acially a nd a s a pplied b y t he C ity, i s not ge nerally applicable because it contains categorical exemptions to the prohibition against discrimination on t he basis of s exual or ientation f or “ [r]eligious c orporations, a ssociations, e ducational i nstitutions, or societies.”
403. Given C hapter 9.56’ s br oad e xemption f or r eligious c orporations, a ssociations, schools, a nd s ocieties o f a ll t ypes, th e C ity has n o le gitimate b asis f or r efusing to e xtend a religious exemption to the Knapps who are Christian ministers engaged in a religious function.
404. Chapter 9.56 a lso c ontains t he f ollowing, a dditional e xemptions t o its ban on sexual orientation discrimination: (a) An expressive association whose employment of a person protected b y t his c hapter w ould s ignificantly burden t he a ssociation’s r ights of e xpressive association unde r Boy S couts of A merica v. D ale, 530 U .S. 640 ( 2000); ( b) T he U nited S tates government, any of its departments or agencies, or any corporation wholly owned by it; (c) the state of Idaho or any of its departments, agencies, or political subdivisions, other than the city of Coeur d’Alene; (d) the rental of a housing accommodation in a building which contains housing accommodations f or not m ore t han t wo ( 2) f amilies l iving i ndependently of e ach ot her, i f t he
54

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 55 of 63
lessor or a m ember o f h is f amily r esides i n one of t he hous ing a ccommodations, or ( e) t o t he rental of a room or rooms in a single-family residential housing accommodation by an individual if he or a member of his family resides therein.
405. The enforcement of Chapter 9.56 against the Knapps, with its promise of criminal fines, j ail t ime, or bot h, i mposes s evere c oercive pr essure on t he K napps t o c hange or vi olate their religious beliefs.
406. Chapter 9 .56 al so v iolates P laintiffs’ f ree exercise rights under t he h ybrid rights doctrine b ecause it imp licates P laintiffs’ f ree e xercise r ights in c onjunction w ith ot her constitutional pr otections, l ike t heir r ight t o f ree s peech a nd t heir due p rocess r ight t o earn a livelihood free from unreasonable governmental interference.
407. The City h as no c ompelling in terest in f orcing th e Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs.
408. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs does not further any legitimate interests the City might assert.
409. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious b eliefs is n ot th e le ast r estrictive me ans a vailable to th e City o f furthering a ny legitimate interests it might assert.
410. Chapter 9.56 a nd t he C ity’s e nforcement t hereof un constitutionally chills Plaintiffs’ f reedom of r eligious e xercise a nd e xpression, bot h of w hich a re f undamental r ights guaranteed to Plaintiffs’ by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
411. Chapter 9.56, a s a pplied t o P laintiffs, a ccordingly violates t heir r ight t o f reely exercise th eir r eligion a s g uaranteed b y th e F irst a nd F ourteenth A mendments to th e U nited States Constitution.
55

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 56 of 63
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief specified in the Prayer for Relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act
(FERPA) 412. Plaintiffs r epeat an d r eallege each of t he allegations c ontained i n pa ragraphs 1 – 358 of this Complaint. 413. The Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA) provides that “[f]ree exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.” 414. FERPA also p rovides t hat t he “government s hall no t substantially bu rden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 415. The K napps’ s incerely held r eligious be liefs p rohibit t hem f rom pe rforming, officiating, o r solemnizing a w edding c eremony be tween a nyone ot her t han one m an a nd one woman. 416. The K napps’ s incerely he ld r eligious be liefs a re de rived f rom t he B ible’s teachings concerning the God-ordained institution of marriage, from their ministerial vows, and from the doctrinal teachings of the Church in which they are ordained. 417. The Knapps operate The Hitching Post pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs. 418. The K napps’ compliance w ith t heir r eligious c onvictions c onstitutes a n e xercise of religion under FERPA. 419. Chapter 9.56 forces Plaintiffs to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs by de clining t o pe rform s ame-sex wedding ceremonies a nd be ing puni shed w ith j ail time a nd
56

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 57 of 63
criminal f ines, o r a bandoning th eir f ree exercise r ights b y p erforming s ame-sex wedding ceremonies in order to avoid criminal fines and jail time.
420. Chapter 9.56’ s s evere pe nalties e ffectively pr event t he K napps f rom simultaneously owning and operating a wedding ceremony business and adhering to a key aspect of their religious faith.
421. The enforcement of Chapter 9.56 against the Knapps, with its promise of jail time, criminal fines, or both, imposes severe coercive pressure on the Knapps to change or violate their religious beliefs.
422. Chapter 9.56 thereby substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion. 423. FERPA provides that the government must show that its substantial burden on a person’s ex ercise o f r eligion i s “[ e]ssential t o f urther a co mpelling governmental i nterest” an d the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 424. The City h as no c ompelling in terest in f orcing th e Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs. 425. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs does not further any legitimate interests the City might assert. 426. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious b eliefs is n ot th e le ast r estrictive me ans a vailable to th e City o f furthering a ny legitimate interests it might assert. 427. Chapter 9.56, a s a pplied t o P laintiffs, a ccordingly violates t heir r ight t o f reely exercise their religion as guaranteed by the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief in the Prayer for Relief.
57

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 58 of 63
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection 428. Plaintiffs r epeat an d r eallege e ach o f t he allegations co ntained i n p aragraphs 1 – 358 of this Complaint. 429. The Fourteenth A mendment t o t he U nited S tates C onstitution g uarantees Plaintiffs the e qual p rotection of t he l aws, which pr ohibits the C ity from tr eating P laintiffs differently than similarly situated persons and businesses. 430. The government m ay not t reat someone d isparately as co mpared t o s imilarly situated persons when such disparate treatment burdens a fundamental right. 431. Plaintiffs are similarly s ituated to o ther persons a nd e xpressive bus inesses t hat provide marriage-related services. 432. Chapter 9.56 and the City’s enforcement thereof treats Plaintiffs’ religious speech and exercise of religion differently than those similarly situated to Plaintiffs by permitting those whose r eligious be liefs s upport s ame-sex m arriage t o ow n and ope rate a m arriage-related expressive bus iness a ccording t o t heir religious be liefs w ithout fear of puni shment, w hile punishing w ith c riminal f ines a nd j ail t ime t hose w ho ow n a nd ope rate m arriage-related expressive bus inesses a ccording t o r eligious be liefs t hat ba r t hem f rom supporting s ame-sex marriage. 433. The C ity’s di scriminatory enforcement of Chapter 9.56 violates several fundamental rights of Plaintiffs, such as their freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. 434. When the enforcement of government regulations, like Chapter 9.56, infringe on such fundamental rights, discriminatory intent is presumed. 435. In t his case, t he pr esumption of di scriminatory i ntent i s bor ne out b y t he C ity’s intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs’ religious speech and free exercise of religion.
58

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 59 of 63
436. The City lacks a rational or compelling state interest for such disparate treatment of Plaintiffs.
437. The City’s disparate treatment of Plaintiffs is not narrowly tailored to further any legitimate government interest the City may allege.
438. Chapter 9.56, a s applied to Plaintiffs, thus violates their right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief in the Prayer for Relief.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process 439. Plaintiffs r epeat an d r eallege e ach o f t he allegations co ntained i n p aragraphs 1 – 358 of this Complaint. 440. The F ourteenth A mendment t o t he U nited S tates C onstitution g uarantees Plaintiffs the right to due process of law, which includes the right to own and operate a business and earn a livelihood free from unreasonable governmental interference. 441. Chapter 9.56 unr easonably i nterferes with t he K napps due pr ocess r ights b y threatening them with jail time, criminal fines, or both, if they continue to operate their business in accordance with their religious convictions. 442. Chapter 9.56, a s a pplied t o P laintiffs, t hus vi olates t heir r ight t o due p rocess as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief in the Prayer for Relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter judgment against Defendant and provide
59

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 60 of 63
Plaintiffs with the following relief: (A) A temporary restraining or der, preliminary injunction, and pe rmanent i njunction prohibiting the C ity, its agents, of ficials, s ervants, e mployees, and a ny other persons acting in its behalf, from enforcing Chapter 9.56 against Plaintiffs based on their decision not to perform, officiate, or solemnize same-sex marriages; (B) A d eclaratory ju dgment th at Chapter 9.56, as-applied to P laintiffs, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (C) That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations of the pa rties t o t he s ubject m atter he re i n c ontroversy, i n or der t hat s uch declarations shall have the force and effect of final judgment; (D) That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any Orders; (E) That t he C ourt aw ard Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses of t his a ction, i ncluding a reasonable attorneys’ fees award, in accordance with 42 U .S.C. § 1988 and with Idaho Code. § 73-402(4); (F) That th is C ourt a ward n ominal a nd c ompensatory damages f or t he vi olation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and for lost income; (G) That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or other security being required of Plaintiffs; and (H) That t he C ourt g rant s uch ot her a nd f urther r elief a s t he C ourt de ems e quitable and just in the circumstances.
60

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 61 of 63

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of October, 2014,

DAVID A. CORTMAN* dcortman@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 188810 KEVIN H. THERIOT* ktheriot@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 373095 RORY T. GRAY* rgray@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 373095 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D1100 Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043 (770) 339-0774 (770) 339-6744 Fax

By: /s/Virginia McNulty Robinson VIRGINIA MCNULTY ROBINSON vrobinson@robinsonlaw-pllc.com Idaho Bar No. 7380 ROBINSON LAW, PLLC 1910 Northwest Blvd., Suite 200 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 (208) 664-1139 (208) 664-1171 Fax
*Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming.

JEREMY D. TEDESCO* jtedesco@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 023497 JONATHAN A. SCRUGGS* jscruggs@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 030505 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480)-444-0020 (480)-444-0028 Fax

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

61

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 62 of 63 62

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 63 of 63 63

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 84

DAVID A. CORTMAN* dcortman@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 188810 KEVIN H. THERIOT* ktheriot@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 373095 Rory T. Gray* rgray@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 880715 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D-1100 Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043 (770) 339-0774 (770) 339-6744 Fax

JEREMY D. TEDESCO* jtedesco@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 023497 JONATHAN A. SCRUGGS* jscruggs@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 030505 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480)-444-0020 (480)-444-0028 Fax

VIRGINIA MCNULTY ROBINSON vrobinson@robinsonlaw-pllc.com Idaho Bar No. 7380 ROBINSON LAW, PLLC 1910 Northwest Blvd., Suite 200 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 (208) 664-1139 (208) 664-1171 Fax

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DONALD KNAPP; EVELYN KNAPP; HITCHING POST WEDDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff, v.

Case No. 2:14-CV-00441-REB
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 84
CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE, Defendant. NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1. This case is about the City of Coeur d’Alene unconstitutionally coercing two Christian ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in violation of their personal religious beliefs, their ordination vows, and their consciences.
2. Coeur d’Alene does so by imposing a Hobson’s choice on the Knapps through City Ordinance §9.56, which bars sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations: the Knapps can either violate their religious convictions and ministerial vows by performing same-sex wedding ceremonies or follow their religious convictions and vows by declining to perform same-sex ceremonies and face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each violation.
3. The Knapps publicly announced in May 2014 that they could not perform samesex marriage ceremonies at The Hitching Post because of their religious beliefs.
4. They did so in response to media questioning after the Idaho district court ruled that Idaho’s laws stating that marriage is a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional.
5. From May 2014 to October 2014, the City privately and publicly threatened to apply Ordinance §9.56 to the Knapps if same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho and the Knapps declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.
2

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 84

6. In May 2014, after the Idaho district court invalidated the State’s marriage laws,

City Attorney Warren Wilson publicly stated that for-profit wedding chapels would violate

Ordinance §9.56 if they declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

7. Mr. Wilson publicly and specifically named The Hitching Post as a wedding

chapel that would be in violation of the law if it declined to perform same-sex wedding

ceremonies.

8. Mr. Knapp read Mr. Wilson’s public statements in media reports and became

deeply concerned.

9.

Mr. Knapp called the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office on approximately

May 20, 2014.

10. Mr. Knapp talked to Wilson, the City attorney quoted in the media reports.

11. Mr. Knapp said he was a minister and served at The Hitching Post.

12. Mr. Knapp asked Wilson if the Coeur d’Alene anti-discrimination ordinance

required Knapp and The Hitching Post to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

13. Mr. Knapp also asked if he was exempt from the ordinance since he was an

ordained minister.

14. Wilson responded that Mr. Knapp would have to perform same-sex wedding

ceremonies because of the Coeur d’Alene ordinance.

15. Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance

because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church.

16. Mr. Knapp asked what would happen if he refused to perform the same-sex

wedding ceremonies.

3

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 4 of 84
17. Mr. Knapp did not ask about the penalty for violating the ordinance in general, but asked specifically about what would happen to him if he and the Hitching Post refused to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
18. Wilson responded that Mr. Knapp could be fined up to $1,000 and serve up to 180 days in jail.
19. During the conversation between Mr. Knapp and Wilson, Wilson conveyed that he knew what the Hitching Post was and was familiar with the Hitching Post’s services.
20. Mr. Knapp was deeply concerned at the prospect of having to forgo his religious beliefs or suffer fines and jail time. So Mr. Knapp wanted to make sure the city ordinance required him to do what the ordinance and the officials said.
21. Approximately a month after the May 20, 2014 telephone call, Mr. Knapp again called the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office.
22. This time, Mr. Knapp talked to either Deputy City Attorney Wilson or City Attorney Michael Gridley.
23. Mr. Knapp said he was a minister and served at the Hitching Post. 24. Mr. Knapp asked if the Coeur d’Alene anti-discrimination ordinance required him and the Hitching Post to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. 25. Wilson or Gridley responded that the Coeur d’Alene ordinance required Mr. Knapp to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from this requirement. 26. During this conversation, the city official conveyed that he knew what the Hitching Post was and was familiar with the Hitching Post’s services.
4

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 5 of 84
27. During the two conversations between Mr. Knapp and city officials, the city officials made clear to Mr. Knapp that the anti-discrimination ordinance applied to him and to the Hitching Post and that the ordinance required Mr. Knapp and the Hitching Post to perform same-sex ceremonies.
28. After Mr. Knapp’s two conversations with the City Attorney’s office, Mr. and Mrs. Knapp became deeply concerned and fearful that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
29. Mr. Knapp has experienced severe stress and anxiety on account of his fear of being arrested and prosecuted by the City.
30. His fear and anxiety has been so great that it has resulted in him being unable to sleep on many nights.
31. The City’s threat became a reality for the Knapps when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated Idaho’s marriage laws and legalized same-sex marriage in Idaho on October 7, 2014, thereby allowing Idaho county clerks to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses on October 15, 2014.
32. Based on the City’s threats to enforce Ordinance §9.56 specifically against the Knapps, they closed their business for several days after same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho so that they would not be in violation of the Ordinance, and be subject to arrest and prosecution.
33. The Knapps lost revenue as a result of being closed on those days. 34. One day after reopening, the Knapps received a request to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony and declined to do so on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs, putting them in direct violation of Ordinance §9.56.
5

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 6 of 84
35. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs immediately filed this lawsuit to prevent the City from enforcing Ordinance §9.56 against them.
36. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the City consistently interpreted Ordinance §9.56’s exemption for “[r]eligious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies” to apply solely to non-profit, religious organizations.
37. The Hitching Post has always been, was at the time of the filing this lawsuit, and still is, a for-profit corporation.
38. After the filing of this lawsuit, the City confirmed in a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel dated October 20, 2014, that Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit business, like The Hitching Post.
39. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 1. 40. In this letter, the City affirmed four times that Ordinance §9.56 applies to forprofit entities and not to non-profit entities:
• “If they [the Knapps] are truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance…” (emphasis added);
• “If they are operating as a legitimate not-for-profit religious corporation then they are exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious organization.” (emphasis added);
• “On the other hand, if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.” (emphasis added);
6

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 7 of 84
• “I want to be clear that absent a change in the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable state or federal law, the City will not prosecute legitimate, nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies….” (emphasis added).
41. After the suit was filed and the City’s October 20, 2014 letter was sent, the City came under intense public scrutiny and criticism by national and local media and citizens.
42. Because of the filing of this lawsuit and the intense public scrutiny and criticism that followed, the City for the first time announced that The Hitching Post would be exempted from Ordinance §9.56 on October 23, 2014.
43. The City’s post-litigation exemption of Plaintiffs from Ordinance §9.56 is nothing more than a litigation tactic, is not binding on the City, and could be revoked at any time for any reason.
44. Only an order from this Court will remedy the City’s violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and prevent the City from enforcing Ordinance §9.56 against the Knapps, and other similarly-situated religious business owners, in a manner that violates their constitutionally-protected rights in the future.
45. The First Amendment does not allow the government to force regular citizens or religious corporations much less ordained ministers to choose between suffering escalating fines and jail time for following their religious beliefs and ordination vows or forsaking their religious beliefs and ordination vows and perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. But that is exactly the choice City Ordinance §9.56 required, and is still requiring, the Knapps to make. For these reasons, the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC ask this Court to award them compensatory damages for the days they were forced to close due to the City’s threats to enforce
7

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 8 of 84
Ordinance §9.56 against them, and to enjoin the Ordinance and declare it unconstitutional as applied to them because this application violates the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 46. This civil rights action raises federal questions under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 47. This action also raises claims under state law, particularly the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA), Idaho Code § 73–401 et seq. 48. This Court has original jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367. 49. This Court has authority to award the requested damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and Idaho Code. § 73-402(4); the requested declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and Idaho Code. § 73-402(4); the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and Idaho Code. § 73-402(4); and costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Idaho Code. § 73-402(4). 50. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Defendants reside in this district and/or all of the acts described in this Complaint occurred in this district.
PLAINTIFFS 51. Plaintiff Donald Knapp is a Christian and an ordained minister with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
8

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 9 of 84
52. Mr. Knapp is a resident and citizen of the state of Idaho and is married to his wife Evelyn Knapp.
53. Mr. Knapp is also one of the two members (“member” is the formal name for an owner of an LLC) of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC.
54. Plaintiff Evelyn Knapp is a Christian and an ordained minister with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
55. Mrs. Knapp is a resident and citizen of the state of Idaho and is married to Mr. Knapp.
56. Mrs. Knapp is the other member of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC. 57. Plaintiff Hitching Post Weddings is a limited liability company organized under Idaho law, with its principal place of business at 524 Government Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. 58. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC’s operating agreement explains the company’s religious character and purpose: The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs and in accordance with their vows taken as Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.
DEFENDANT 59. Defendant City of Coeur d’Alene is a municipal corporation authorized under state law to sue and be sued. See Idaho Code § 50–101 et seq. 60. Coeur d’Alene is responsible for passing and enforcing its ordinances, including City Ordinance §9.56.
9

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 10 of 84
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Knapps come to faith 60 years ago
61. In September 1952 at a small, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel church in Oregon City, Oregon, a teacher summarized the good news about Jesus to a room full of young children. The teacher then prayed and released the children to report to their parents. Donald Knapp was in the room that day. He began to follow Jesus at the age of six.
62. Mr. Knapp immediately reported his new commitment to his mother, who had faithfully brought him to the church since his birth.
63. As far back as he can remember, Mr. Knapp has followed Jesus. 64. As far back as he can remember, Mr. Knapp attended a Foursquare Church. 65. Mrs. Knapp began to follow Jesus in 1953 in Martinez, California. She was five years old. 66. She started attending a Foursquare Church a few years later in Downey, California and has continued to do so ever since. 67. The Knapps eventually crossed paths in Los Angeles at LIFE (Lighthouse of International Foursquare Evangelism) Bible College, the flagship college for ministers, missionaries and teachers of the Foursquare Church. The Knapps begin life together at a wedding chapel 68. Mr. Knapp enrolled at LIFE Bible in 1964. 69. A year later, Mr. Knapp attended a revival meeting at a church near campus, and during a time of prayer there Mr. Knapp felt God call him to formal ministry. From that point forward, Mr. Knapp pursued his calling to be a minister in the Foursquare Church.
10

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 11 of 84
70. That same year, Mrs. Knapp came to LIFE Bible and met Mr. Knapp for the first time.
71. Four months after their first date, on a scenic excursion to Wayfarer’s Chapel, Mr. Knapp proposed to Mrs. Knapp. She accepted, and they were married at a Foursquare church on August 5, 1967. They have been married over 47 years.
72. Mr. Knapp then graduated from LIFE Bible in June 1968 with a degree in theology. By graduating from LIFE Bible, Mr. Knapp received his license to be a minister in the Foursquare Church. The Knapps minister throughout Pacific Northwest
73. Mr. Knapp then put that license to use, and he and Mrs. Knapp moved to Prineville, Oregon where Mr. Knapp pastored his first church: Prineville Foursquare Church.
74. For the next thirteen years, the Knapps served numerous Foursquare Churches in the northwest area:
• 1968-70: Prineville Foursquare Church in Prineville, Oregon • 1970-72: The Valley Foursquare Church in Millwood, Washington • 1972-77: Coeur d'Alene Foursquare Church in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho • 1977-80: New Life Christian Center Church in Spokane Valley, Washington 75. At each stop, Mr. Knapp served as lead pastor or assistant pastor. He even founded New Life Christian Center Church. 76. And early in his pastoral career, Mr. Knapp received his ordination from the Foursquare Church after he had served enough time in a local church to qualify for ordination. 77. The Foursquare Church ordained Mr. Knapp in February of 1970.
11

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 12 of 84
78. Before and after he was ordained, Mr. Knapp performed typical pastoral duties for his churches, preaching, speaking at funerals, teaching Sunday school, counseling church members, baptizing new believers, administering communion, and officiating weddings.
79. Mr. Knapp officiated his first wedding in 1969. 80. At each church on their journey, Mrs. Knapp served alongside Mr. Knapp, volunteering in any capacity she could to support her husband and the church. 81. For example, Mrs. Knapp taught Sunday school, counseled church members, led Bible study groups, and played the piano. 82. A few years later, Mrs. Knapp sought ordination because she had served in churches beside Mr. Knapp for so long. 83. The Foursquare Church ordained Mrs. Knapp in May 1978. 84. In 1980, the Knapps finally came to the church they still attend today: Life Center Foursquare Church in Spokane. Mr. Knapp served as an assisting pastor for this church, and Mrs. Knapp volunteered like she did before. 85. But the scope of their ministry expanded when the Knapps received an offer from a member of their former church: an offer to buy the Hitching Post. The Knapps begin Hitching Post Chapel ministry 86. Mr. Knapp first learned about the Hitching Post Chapel around 1975 from a member of his Coeur d'Alene church, John Green. Green worked at the Hitching Post and eventually purchased it. 87. But Mr. Knapp did not begin to work at the Hitching Post Chapel until 1987. At that time, a former minister of the Coeur d'Alene Foursquare Church was officiating weddings at
12

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 13 of 84
the Hitching Post Chapel seven days a week. This was too much for him. So he called his friend Mr. Knapp and asked for help.
88. The request intrigued Mr. Knapp. Mr. Knapp not only needed extra income, he thought the experience would be a perfect way to use his talents and ministerial experience to bless others.
89. So Mr. Knapp agreed and began working and officiating weddings at the Hitching Post Chapel one day a week starting in fall 1987.
90. Mr. Knapp continued to work at the Hitching Post Chapel in this capacity for one and a half years.
91. Then in 1988, John Green offered to sell the Hitching Post to the Knapps because Green had fallen into some financial troubles.
92. The prospect of owning a small business both excited and scared the Knapps. So they prayed long and hard about the offer. And God answered their prayers. The Knapps became convinced that God had opened a door for them to pursue this new opportunity and had called them to minister in this new venue.
93. Indeed, the Knapps decided to go forward because the Hitching Post allowed them to serve people in a pastoral role just as they served in pastoral roles in their church. The Knapps viewed their wedding services at the Hitching Post as their ministry, as an opportunity to touch lives and to speak the good news about God, about God’s love, and about the meaning of marriage to a whole new category of people.
94. So the Knapps bought the Hitching Post business and name from Green in 1989 and began leasing the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel that same year.
13

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 14 of 84

Knapps form for-profit corporation in Washington

95. For their newly acquired business, the Knapps created a new corporation in

Washington State.

96. The Knapps named this corporation D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. The corporation did

business as the Hitching Post.

97. The Knapps incorporated D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post as a

“profit

corporation”

under

Washington

law.

See

http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/ProfitCorporationsOnlineandPaperRegistration.aspx.

98. Washington State recognizes the following corporate forms: a sole proprietorship,

a general partnership, a profit corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), a nonprofit

corporation, a limited partnership (LP); and a limited liability partnership (LLP). See

http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/registration_structures.aspx (outlining business structures allowed

in Washington).

99. Washington does not recognize a “religious corporation” as an official corporate

structure.

100. According to Washington law, every corporation incorporated under Title 23B of

the Revised Code of Washington “has the purpose of engaging in any lawful business unless a

more limited purpose is set forth in the articles of incorporation.” Wash. Rev. Code §

23B.03.010.

101. The Knapps also elected to file their federal and Idaho tax returns for D.L.K.

Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post as an S Corporation.

The Hitching Post Chapel: 95 years of weddings

102. The Hitching Post hosted weddings long before the Knapps bought it.

14

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 15 of 84
103. Upon information and belief, The Hitching Post opened its doors and began hosting weddings in the Coeur d'Alene area as far back as 1919.
104. In those days, the justice of the peace would select a location for his office and that location became known as the Hitching Post. Eventually, the government dissolved the justice of the peace position, and ministers stepped in to officiate weddings at the Hitching Post.
105. The Hitching Post moved to its current location sometime in the 1950s. 106. This current location is 524 N Government Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. 107. In this location, the Hitching Post Chapel is approximately 300 feet from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office. 108. The Hitching Post Chapel and the Kootenai County Clerk’s office are located on the same street. 109. The Kootenai County Clerk’s office issues marriage licenses. 110. A person can walk from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office to the Hitching Post Chapel in roughly 1 minute. 111. Couples often do precisely this. They get their marriage license from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office and walk across the street to wed at the Hitching Post Chapel. 112. Because the Clerk’s office is so close by, the Hitching Post Chapel is a very convenient and popular spot for couples wanting a wedding service. 113. Roughly 50% of Hitching Post customers come to the Hitching Post Chapel on the same day they receive their marriage license from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office. I believe in God the Father Almighty: the Knapps affirm the Bible on marriage 114. The Knapps are evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs.
15

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 16 of 84
115. For example, the Knapps believe that God has revealed His will in the Bible, that all people have violated God’s commands, and that all people need forgiveness offered through God’s Son, Jesus Christ.
116. The Knapps also hold to the church’s historic view on marriage, sexual desire, and sexual activity.
117. Specifically, the Knapps believe that God created two distinct genders in His image, that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that God intends for all sexual activity to occur within this one-man-one-woman marriage covenant.
118. As a corollary to these beliefs and because of statements in the Bible addressing this topic, the Knapps believe that all sexual acts outside and contrary to a one-man-one-woman marriage covenant are contrary to God’s will, including fornication, homosexual acts, and polygamy.
119. Likewise, the Knapps believe that Christian ministers perform and participate in a religious ceremony when they officiate a wedding.
120. As Christian ministers, when the Knapps officiate at weddings, they publicly bless, promote, pray for, and endorse those marriages. They also convey religious messages about those marriages and ceremonially initiate those marriages.
121. For this reason, the Knapps cannot officiate a same-sex wedding or commitment ceremony without violating their religious beliefs, promoting activities contrary to their religious beliefs, and expressing messages contradicting their religious beliefs.
122. Because the Knapps cannot perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and comply with their personal religious beliefs, they have always operated their wedding business in
16

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 17 of 84
accordance with these religious beliefs by consistently declining to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
123. While the Knapps believe all forms of sexual immorality are contrary to God’s will, they also believe that all people are created in God’s image, and therefore all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
124. Likewise, the Knapps believe Jesus commanded Christians to love their neighbors.
125. Accordingly, the Knapps exhibit love toward every person they meet and treat them with dignity and respect, regardless of who they are, regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless of whether they act in ways the Knapps consider contrary to God’s word.
126. The Knapps also hold a Christian view of vocation and work. 127. Specifically, the Knapps believe that they should honor God in all aspects of their lives, including their work, and that they should seek to serve God and their neighbors through their vocation. 128. As a result, the Knapps exhibit love toward every person they encounter while they work and they treat them with dignity and respect. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church: the Knapps affirm the Church on marriage 129. As ordained ministers in the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, the Knapps have affirmed their agreement with the Church’s religious beliefs. 130. The following documents identify and explain the beliefs of the Foursquare Church: the Foursquare Creedal Statement, the Foursquare Declaration of Faith, and the Corporate Bylaws of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
17

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 18 of 84
131. The Foursquare Church also issues a Handbook for the Operation of Foursquare Churches that contains regulations about ordination for Foursquare ministers.
132. According to the Foursquare Corporate Bylaws, the Board of Directors may revoke the credentials of a Foursquare minister on the following grounds:
• Heresy • Willful failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of the “Declaration of
Faith,” the Articles, or these Bylaws as applicable to the minister’s place of appointment or service Bylaws §12.2.5. 133. These Bylaws also require persons do the following to be entitled to membership in a Foursquare Church: • Subscribe and adhere to the “Declaration of Faith,” compiled by Aimee Semple McPherson. • Agree to comply with the Articles and these Bylaws. Bylaws §13.6.1. 134. Church membership can be revoked for the following reasons: • Refusal to adhere to the “Declaration of Faith,” or to comply with the provisions of the Articles or these Bylaws • Willful unchristian or unscriptural conduct. Bylaws §13.6.7. 135. These Bylaws later specify: “Marriage is a biblical covenant relationship between a man and a woman established initially by God…. High standards of marriage are very essential to the individual, to the family, and to the cause of Christ.” Bylaws §13.6.8. 136. The Bylaws also require Foursquare pastors to “[e]vangelize the community, strive for the salvation of souls, edify the church, and build up Christian life throughout the
18

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 19 of 84
church by preaching, teaching, conducting services, and administering ordinances, including
marriage only between a man and a woman.” Bylaws §14.4.
137. At the end of the Bylaws is an appendix entitled “Minister’s Code of Ethics.” This
code requires Foursquare ministers to affirm the following:
• As an ordained or licensed minister or Christian worker, I subscribe in full to the contents of the “Declaration of Faith,” compiled by Aimee Semple McPherson, Founder of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
• I declare myself in harmony with and bind myself to the objects, purposes and provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and bylaws of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
• I agree that I am obligated by my divine call as a Christian and as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to abide by, in ministry and life, the biblical standards of integrity and morality to which all Christian leadership is accountable.
• I agree to comply with the foundational principles, processes and procedures of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, as set forth in the following Board approved documents: “The Declaration of Faith,” “Articles of Incorporation and bylaws of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.” I will exhort my fellow Foursquare ministers to uphold the principles of a holy life and to adhere to the foundational principles, processes and procedures of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
138. Ministers of the Foursquare Church must subscribe and adhere to this Code of
Ethics as “a prerequisite for licensing and/or ordination.” Handbook for the Operation of
Foursquare Churches §12.1.
139. In their ordination vows, the Knapps pledged to abide by the Foursquare
Statement of Faith and Bylaws.
140. If the Knapps performed a same-sex wedding ceremony, they would violate their
ordination vows and risk Church discipline, including the possible revocation of their credentials
as ministers.
19

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 20 of 84

141. Because the Knapps cannot perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and comply

with their ordination vows, they have always operated their wedding business in accordance with

these religious beliefs.

The Knapps form Hitching Post Weddings LLC

142. The Knapps view their work and business at Hitching Post as ministry. Thus, they

operate every aspect of the Hitching Post for a religious purpose and based on their religious

beliefs.

143. When the Knapps bought the Hitching Post, they initially incorporated the

business as a “profit corporation” in Washington State and filed the federal tax return for the

Hitching Post as an S corporation.

144. Eventually, the Knapps incorporated in Idaho, remaining a for-profit corporation.

145. This Limited Liability Company is called Hitching Post Weddings, LLC.

146. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC, is a for-profit corporation.

147. Idaho recognizes the following corporate forms: a sole proprietorship, a general

partnership, a profit corporation, a non-profit corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), an

unincorporated nonprofit association, a limited partnership (LP); and a limited liability

partnership

(LLP).

See,

e.g.,

http://www.sos.idaho.gov/corp/typecorp.htm;

http://www.sos.idaho.gov/corp/index.html (outlining business structures allowed in Idaho).

148. Idaho does not recognize a “religious corporation” as an official corporate form.

149. Due to the fact that an Idaho district court judge had ruled in May 2014 that

Idaho’s laws stating that marriage is a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional,

and that the Ninth Circuit had ruled in an earlier case that such laws violate the Constitution, the

Knapps believed it was imminent that same-sex marriage would become legal in Idaho.

20

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 21 of 84
150. In light of the imminence of same-sex marriage becoming legal and the City’s repeated threats that the Knapps would be in violation of Ordinance §9.56 if they declined to perform same-sex marriages, the Knapps decided to memorialize what was already the religious purpose of The Hitching Post and the fact that they run the business according to their religious beliefs.
151. In incorporating in Idaho as the Hitching Post Weddings, LLC, the Knapps did not convert their business into a formal “religious corporation.” Idaho does not even recognize a corporate form called a “religious corporation.”
152. Rather, the Knapps simply exchanged one for-profit corporate form for another, and incorporation from one state to another.
153. The Knapps have always operated their business in accordance with their religious beliefs.
154. The Knapps have always offered to perform and have always performed civil wedding ceremonies at the Hitching Post and will continue to do so because they view all wedding ceremonies as religious ceremonies since God created the institution of marriage.
155. The Knapps only perform civil wedding ceremonies if those ceremonies are consistent with the Knapps’ religious beliefs and contain principles drawn from the Bible.
156. The Knapps began to operate the Hitching Post as a for-profit business entity in 1989, they have always operated the Hitching Post as a for-profit business, and they continue to operate the Hitching Post as a for-profit business entity now.
157. The Knapps do not operate Hitching Post Weddings, LLC as a non-profit entity and have not requested a 501(c)(3) tax status for Hitching Post Weddings, LLC.
21

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 22 of 84
158. The Knapps have received permission from the Internal Revenue Service to
designate the Hitching Post Weddings, LLC as a for-profit S Corporation, and the Knapps will
file their federal and Idaho 2014 tax returns for the Hitching Post Weddings, LLC as a for-profit
S Corporation.
159. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC has the same tax status as D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc.
D/B/A the Hitching Post.
160. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC has the same goals that D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc.
D/B/A Hitching Post had, and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC operates according to the same
religious principles and practices that D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post operated
by.
161. The Operating Agreement of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC identifies the
company’s character, ethos, and goals. See Exhibit 2.
162. Section 3.1 of this Agreement is entitled “Purpose.”
163. This section reads as follows:
The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs and in accordance with their vows taken as Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.
The Christian religion requires that all its adherents, and especially its ministers, apply their religious precepts and doctrines to all facets of their lives, including their work and the operation of their businesses. For this reason, the Hitching Post reserves the right to refuse a request for services that would require the entity to engage in conduct that conflicts with its owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and the ministerial vows taken by the owners.
The Hitching Post engages in its own expression through the services that it provides. In so doing, The Hitching Post intentionally expresses public messages that promote aspects of its owners’ Christian religion and those are not inconsistent with those sincerely held beliefs. For this reason, The Hitching Post
22

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 23 of 84
reserves the right to refuse a request for services that would require the entity to engage in or host expression that violates its owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Only Hitching Post’s owners and employees perform the weddings at Hitching Post Chapel and other locations scheduled by the Hitching Post. They have ultimate control over the content of the ceremony and will not conduct a ceremony that expresses messages that are inconsistent with their Christian faith.
The Hitching Post provides wedding and marriage-related services for the purpose of publicly expressing and promoting that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, which is consistent with its owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and with their ministerial vows. Any request for wedding and marriage-related services not within this identified purpose is outside the scope of services offered by the Hitching Post.
The Hitching Post, consistent with its owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs, provides wedding and marriage-related services also for the purposes of promoting the social institution of marriage as a fundamental building block of our society and promoting the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By furthering these purposes, the Hitching Post endeavors to instill and promote this biblical understanding of marriage and marriage-related values in the communities where it operates. Achieving these goals is important to ensure that marriage remains a vital social institution that uniquely promotes the raising of children by their mother and father.
164. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC abides by its Operating Agreement.
165. The purpose of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC is to help people create, celebrate,
and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.
166. The purpose of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC is also to maximize profit in ways
consistent with its stated religious goals.
167. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC engages in its own expression when its owners and
employees perform the weddings at Hitching Post Chapel and other locations scheduled by the
Hitching Post Weddings, LLC.
168. Hitching Post Weddings, LLC reserves the right to refuse a request for services
that would require the entity to engage in or host expression that violates its owners’ sincerely
held religious beliefs.
23

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 24 of 84
Hitching Post Weddings LLC practices what it preaches
169. To ensure that Hitching Post Weddings LLC achieves its stated goals and follows
its corporate documents, the Knapps implemented certain policies and practices.
170. For example, Hitching Post Weddings LLC requires all its employees to sign the
“Hitching Post Employee Policy, Rules, and Regulations Regarding Marriage Ceremonies.”
171. A true and correct copy of this Employee Policy is attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit 3.
172. This Employee Policy recites the “Purpose” section in the Hitching Post
Weddings LLC Operating Agreement.
173. Then, the Employee Policy specifies the following Rules and Regulations:
• Only the Hitching Post owners and employees may perform wedding ceremonies at the Hitching Post Chapel and other locations scheduled by the Hitching Post. Outside ministers may not perform wedding ceremonies at the Hitching Post Chapel or other locations scheduled by the Hitching Post. Brides and grooms may not invite outside ministers to perform such ceremonies. Outside ministers may come and stand alongside the Hitching Post owner or employee who performs the wedding ceremony. But only the Hitching Post owner or employee may perform the ceremony.
• In accordance with the religious beliefs and ministerial vows of the
Hitching Post owners, Hitching Post owners and employees will only perform wedding ceremonies for couples entering into a one biological male and one biological female union. Hitching Post owners and employees will not conduct wedding ceremonies or their equivalent (i.e. commitment ceremonies, etc.) for same-sex, polyamorous, bigamous, or any other relationship that is inconsistent with the Hitching Post owners’ religious belief that marriage is a union between man and woman.
• In accordance with the religious beliefs and ministerial vows of the Hitching Post owners, Hitching Post owners and employees will perform ceremonies for those of different faiths and religious beliefs (so long as those marriage ceremonies are consistent with the beliefs set forth herein) because marriage is a common grace and creational gift bestowed by God upon all humans for the benefit of human society.
24

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 25 of 84
• Persons of all age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, disability, marital status, and socioeconomic status are welcomed and encouraged to stand with brides and grooms and to attend wedding ceremonies.
• Persons of all age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, disability, marital status, and socioeconomic status are welcomed and encouraged to obtain any resource about marriage provided by the Hitching Post.
174. After these rules, the Employee Policy states:
As an employee of the Hitching Post, I agree to perform my job-related activities in accordance with the rules specified above. I agree that I will not perform wedding ceremonies or their equivalent at the Hitching Post Chapel or at any locations scheduled by the Hitching Post in a way that violates the rules specified above.
175. The Employee Policy finally requires Hitching Post Employees to affirm that they
have read and agree to abide by this policy.
176. Employees do so by signing this Policy.
177. Every current employee and owner of Hitching Post Weddings LLC has signed
this Employee Policy.
178. Hitching Post Weddings LLC also requires every wedding ceremony customer to
sign its “Hitching Post Wedding Customer Policy, Rules, and Regulations Regarding Marriage
Ceremonies.”
179. A true and correct copy of this Customer Policy is attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit 4.
180. This Customer Policy states the following:
The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned by Christian ministers for a religious purpose. If you would like to read a full description of the Hitching Post’s purpose and character and a full description of the wedding ceremonies the Hitching Post will perform, a document outlining these is available upon request. Because of its religious purpose and character, the Hitching Post will only perform wedding ceremonies consistent with the owners’ religious beliefs.
25

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 26 of 84
Therefore, Hitching Post owners and employees will not conduct wedding ceremonies or their equivalent (i.e. commitment ceremonies, etc.) for same-sex, polyamorous, bigamous, or any other relationship that is inconsistent with the Hitching Post owners’ religious belief that marriage is a union between one biological male and one biological female. As a Hitching Post wedding customer, I affirm and promise that I am not requesting the Hitching Post to provide any services that violate the rules specified above. I affirm and promise that I am requesting the Hitching Post to perform a wedding service between one biological male and one biological female. If I have any questions about how these rules apply in my particular instance, I agree to ask a Hitching Post owner or employee before the Hitching Post performs my wedding ceremony at the Hitching Post Chapel or at locations scheduled by the Hitching Post.
Please sign that you have read this policy and agree to abide by it: 181. Hitching Post Weddings LLC will not perform a wedding ceremony for customers until they sign a copy of the Customer Policy. We are gathered here today to join this man and this woman: services at the Hitching Post Chapel 182. Since the Knapps bought the Hitching Post in 1989, the Hitching Post has offered and charged for Hitching Post employees to officiate weddings. 183. The Knapps have performed nearly every one of these wedding since the time they first bought The Hitching Post. 184. The Knapps have hired other ministers to officiate weddings for the Hitching Post. 185. Before hiring any minister, the Knapps ask the minister to perform a wedding service in front of them. That way, the Knapps ensure that the minister performs ceremonies consistent with their religious beliefs. 186. The Hitching Post does not allow customers to use their own ministers to perform weddings at the Hitching Post Chapel.
26

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 27 of 84
187. The Hitching Post offers wedding services at the Hitching Post Chapel at 524 N Government Way and at other venues when requested. For example, the Knapps have performed wedding ceremonies in parks, churches, and private homes.
188. But almost all Hitching Post wedding ceremonies occur at the Hitching Post Chapel.
189. This chapel offers three rooms for wedding ceremonies: the western room, the Victorian style sitting room, and the main chapel room.
190. The Knapps display religious messages, religious symbols, religious books, scripture quotes, and inspirational Christian-based poems or phrases throughout The Hitching Post Chapel.
191. On the door frame to the main chapel where the Knapps perform most weddings is a sign that says “CHAPEL”.
192. Above that sign is another larger sign that states: “ALL BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE FELL IN LOVE….”
193. On the back of the door into the main chapel is a sign that reads: “WEDDING CEREMONY IS BEING PERFORMED, Please Take a Seat, The Minister will be Right with you, Thank You.”
194. The above sign is placed on the back of the main chapel door because that side of the door faces the Hitching Post Chapel’s front room, where prospective customers enter.
195. The Ten Commandments from the Book of Exodus in the Bible is displayed in the main chapel.
196. In two, separate framed pictures, the Knapps also hang documents displaying the Bible’s teaching about the attributes of love from I Corinthians 13.
27

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 28 of 84
197. The document in the picture frame states the following: Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. 1 Corinthians. 13. 198. The Knapps also display a plaque that expresses their belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior in the Hitching Post Chapel’s front room where they first welcome customers. 199. This wooden plaque contains an icthys: a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish. 200. Throughout history, Christians have used the ichtys as a symbol to greet and recognize each other. 201. Inside the ichtys on the Knapps’s plaque are the following Greek letters: Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma. 202. Below the ichtys on the plaque, the following English text appears: JESUS CHRIST SON OF GOD SAVIOR. 203. This English text translates what the Greek text above it stands for. 204. The Knapps also place Bibles and books that provide biblically-based guidance for marriage in the front room where they first welcome customers. 205. Also, prominently displayed on the Knapps’s main desk in the front room is “The Star Book for Ministers” by Edward T. Hiscox. 206. This book is a resource for evangelical pastors regarding any number of religious functions and duties they may be called upon to perform, including religious ceremonies like marriages.
28

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 29 of 84
207. Most ceremonies at the Hitching Post Chapel occur in the main chapel room. 208. Most ceremonies begin with soft, instrumental music played over a speaker. 209. Then the Hitching Post minister directs the ceremony. 210. While each Hitching Post minister adds personal touches to their wedding ceremonies, they perform substantially the same ceremony for every ceremony they perform, whether that ceremony is labeled religious or civil. 211. For example, a sample ceremony is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 5. This sample is a true and correct description of the ceremony Mrs. Knapp performs. 212. Mrs. Knapp begins her ceremony this way: Mrs. Knapp: We're gathered here to join this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony, which is honorable among all men and is not to be entered into unadvisedly, or lightly, but reverently, discretely and in the fear of God. 213. Mrs. Knapp proceeds to ask the groom questions and have him repeat vows to his bride: Mrs. Knapp: Do you take the lady whom you now hold by the hand, to be your lawful and wedded wife? (I Do). Do you promise to love and cherish her in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better for worse, and forsaking all others keep you only unto her so long as you both shall live? (I do) Groom repeats vows: I ___ take you ____, to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this Day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part. 214. Mrs. Knapp asks similar questions to the bride and has her repeat vows to the groom. 215. Mrs. Knapp then asks the couple joint questions: Mrs. Knapp: Do you both promise in the presence of God that you will at all times and in all circumstances treat each other with respect as is appropriate for a husband and a wife. (I Do). That you will love, cherish and stay with one another until separated by death. (I Do)
29

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 30 of 84
216. Mrs. Knapp then proceeds to give a homily that directly references 1 Corinthians 13.
217. This homily includes the following: I'd like to talk to you about Love. Love is a very small word, but there is a lot of meaning to it. God has told us something about love and since He created marriage and love, I think that He has some great advice for us and if we follow what he says, you will have a great marriage. He tells us that Love is kind, is not selfish, Love keeps no record of wrongs, works to please, trusts, hopes, perseveres. 218. After applying these scriptural principles to the bride and groom, Mrs. Knapp explains the significance of wedding rings and instructs the couple to exchange rings. 219. Mrs. Knapp then prays over the couple: Dear Lord, Bless ____ and ____, help them as a husband and wife to do things that will build a marriage, that ____ would often tell ____ how much she respects him and appreciates him, and that ____ will give ____ the Love and tenderness and kindness that she needs. Help them to be not only lovers, but best friends, sharing what is in their hearts with each other. Thank you for this Lord, in Jesus Name, Amen. 220. Finally, Mrs. Knapp pronounces the couple married: Forasmuch as ____ and ____ have consented together in Holy wedlock and have witnessed the same before God and have given and pledged their commitment to each other and have declared the same by the giving and receiving of rings and joining of hands. I pronounce that you are Husband and Wife in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. You may now kiss the bride. 221. Mrs. Knapp performs this precise ceremony for most ceremonies she performs. 222. Mrs. Knapp has consistently performed wedding ceremonies this way since 1989. 223. Mrs. Knapp occasionally varies the ceremony in minor ways. For example, sometimes she focuses on God’s forgiveness and encourages the couple to forgive each other just as God forgives them. Other times, she references the Golden Rule rather than 1 Corinthians 13.
30

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 31 of 84
224. More rarely, Mrs. Knapp explains the concept of love described in 1 Corinthians 13 without explicitly referencing that text. Mrs. Knapp tries to personalize the service to the couple as much as she can.
225. In this way, Mrs. Knapp includes biblical principles and biblical content in every ceremony she performs, including the civil ceremonies she performs. Mrs. Knapp considers every ceremony she performs to have religious significance.
226. For ceremonies she performs, Mrs. Knapp decides what to say about marriage and how to say it.
227. Mrs. Knapp’s ceremonies convey her religious expression as an ordained minister.
228. Mrs. Knapp conveys religious messages and religious concepts through her wedding ceremonies. Mrs. Knapp intentionally creates a wedding service that honors God and that conveys God’s intention for marriage. Through her ceremonies, Mrs. Knapp also communicates that God loves marriage and people should follow God’s guidance about marriage.
229. Every one of these ceremonies had been consistent with her religious beliefs. 230. Mr. Knapp typically performs ceremonies with similar structure, format, and substance as Mrs. Knapp’s ceremonies. 231. A ceremony Mr. Knapp performed is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QY21qg6Y4M. A copy of this video is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6. 232. This video reflects a typical ceremony Mr. Knapp performs. Most ceremonies Mr. Knapp performs are similar to this video.
31

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 32 of 84
233. Mr. Knapp has consistently performed wedding ceremonies this way since 1989. 234. As this video suggests, Mr. Knapp usually relies on the Golden Rule to form the basis for his homilies. Mr. Knapp also prays and references God and the Bible. 235. Mr. Knapp tries to personalize his services to each couple as much as he can. 236. For ceremonies he performs, Mr. Knapp decides what to say about marriage and how to say it. 237. Mr. Knapp’s ceremonies convey his religious expression as an ordained minister. 238. Mr. Knapp conveys religious messages and religious concepts through his wedding ceremonies. Mr. Knapp intentionally creates a wedding service that honors God and that conveys God’s intention for marriage. Through his ceremonies, Mr. Knapp also communicates that God loves marriage and people should follow God’s guidance about marriage. 239. Every ceremony has been consistent with his religious beliefs. 240. The wedding services the Hitching Post offers are religious ceremonies. 241. When they perform wedding ceremonies, the Knapps express messages on their own behalf and on behalf of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC. 242. When they perform wedding ceremonies, the Knapps express their religious messages and religious messages on behalf of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC. 243. The Hitching Post charges between $80 and $102 for their wedding services. 244. This charge varies based on the date of the wedding (weekday or weekend) and whether the couple wants photographs taken.
32

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 33 of 84
245. If a couple wants photographs, the presiding Hitching Post minister photographs the couple six to ten times after the ceremony using a Hitching Post owned digital camera. If another Hitching Post employee is present, that employee will take pictures of the ceremony.
246. The Hitching Post then gives the couple the photographs on a secure digital card. 247. The Hitching Post only provides photography services for wedding ceremonies performed by Hitching Post ministers. 248. To every wedding customer, the Hitching Post provides some resources about marriage. 249. These resources offer advice about how to foster a successful marriage. 250. These resources reference and rely on the Bible or rely on biblical principles. 251. The Knapps provide these resources to every customer because they believe that exposing them to God’s love and design for marriage provides the best chance for the customers to have a successful and lasting marriage. 252. The Knapps hope and frequently pray that wedding customers will read and view these resources and come to believe in Jesus Christ and come to base their marriage on biblical principles. 253. For example, the Hitching Post provides a CD to every wedding customer. This CD contains two audio files of the Knapps’s pastor at Life Center Foursquare Church, Joe Wittwer. 254. The first audio file on the Hitching Post CD contains a message entitled “Proven Ideas for Building Strong Marriages.” This message is also available at http://hitchingpostweddings.com/advice/. 255. Pastor Wittwer recorded this message specifically for the Hitching Post.
33

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 34 of 84
256. Around 1994, Mr. Knapp went to Pastor Wittwer and asked him to create a message the Hitching Post could distribute to its customers.
257. Mr. Knapp wanted to do this to give customers a resource they could reference repeatedly to strengthen their marriages.
258. Pastor Wittwer gave Mr. Knapp this message around 1994, and the Hitching Post began distributing it on cassettes at first and then on CDs. Wittwer updated this message around 2005, and the Hitching Post placed it on their website in summer of 2014.
259. In this message, Wittwer asserts that “God designed and created marriage, and nobody knows better than God how to make a marriage work well.” Wittwer then encourages the listeners to seek wisdom from the Bible to foster their marriage.
260. Wittwer also encourages the listeners to love their spouses. And Wittwer defines love not as a feeling but as a commitment to do what is best for the other person no matter what it costs.
261. Wittwer does not hide what this love looks like: “I can’t think of a better example of love than the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible says that it was love that made him die on the cross for you and me.”
262. Likewise, Wittwer encourages the listeners to forgive each other in their marriages. Wittwer again points to Jesus as the example: “The Bible says that in Jesus God has forgiven all of our sins, every sin, past, present, future are all forgiven in Christ.”
263. Wittwer also cites Luke 6:38 and Ephesians 5 and concludes by praying to God for the couples listening to the recording: “I pray that they could put you, Jesus, at the very center of their relationship. That as they love you more, their love for each other will grow as well.”
34

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 35 of 84
264. The second audio file on the Hitching Post CD contains a 47 minute sermon from Wittwer entitled “Commitment — A Superglue of Marriage.”
265. A copy of this sermon is also available at http://hitchingpostweddings.com/advice/.
266. Pastor Wittwer originally gave this sermon at his church. 267. In his “Commitment — A Superglue of Marriage” sermon, Pastor Wittwer cites the following Bible verses:
• Genesis 2:24: “For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
• John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
• Romans 5:8: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
• 1 John 3:16: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.”
• 1 John 4:9-10: “This is how God showed his love among us: he sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. And this is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
• Leviticus 19:32: “Rise up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God.”
268. Wittwer also emphasizes that God intends every marriage to be permanent. Wittwer then provides some skills and values that will help married couples stay together and highlights commitment as the most important value for a permanent marriage: “Marriage is a covenant between two people based on promises we make before God and keep with his help.”
35

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 36 of 84
269. To emphasize commitment’s importance for marriage, Wittwer cites sample marriage vows and explains them through the prism of Jesus’ actions and words. Wittwer also has married couples in his audience recite these marriage vows line by line to each other.
270. Wittwer finishes his sermon this way: “These are big promises, and we need God’s help. So help me God. Help me. Want a superglue marriage? Make the promises. Repeat them often to each other. And ask God for his help. So help me God. I choose us.”
271. In addition to the CD with Pastor Wittwer’s messages about marriage, the Hitching Post also provided a book to every wedding customer until the Hitching Post ran out of copies.
272. This book is entitled “Marriage Building It to Last” by Bob and Page Bingham. 273. This 283 page book provides advice about how to maintain and develop a marriage, including advice about sex, love, decision making, and the differences between men and women, that is consistent with biblical teaching regarding marriage. 274. Besides wedding ceremonies, the Hitching Post also sells postcards with pictures of the Hitching Post Chapel. The Hitching Post has sold postcards for approximately 10 years. 275. The Hitching Post has sold and will continue to sell these postcards to anyone regardless of their race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, or veteran status. 276. With respect to wedding ceremony services, the Hitching Post has offered and will continue to offer its services to anyone regardless of their race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, or veteran status.
36

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 37 of 84
Hitching Post promotes marriage online: Hitchingpostweddings.com 277. The Knapps also pay a company to maintain a website for the Hitching Post. The
website is accessible at http://hitchingpostweddings.com/. 278. The Knapps decide what content to place on this website. 279. This website explains the history of the Hitching Post and provides customers
information about pricing, the Hitching Post staff, and wedding reservations. 280. The website also contains an “Advice” section with a host of free resources about
how to develop a successful and lasting marriage. See http://hitchingpostweddings.com/advice/. 281. For example, this advice section provides a link to a 45 minute sermon Pastor
Wittwer originally gave at his church. This sermon is entitled “The Essence of Marriage.” 282. A true and correct copy of a video of Wittwer’s “The Essence of Marriage”
sermon is available at http://vimeo.com/79140854. A true and correct copy of this video is also located on the CD attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 7.
283. In this video, Pastor Wittwer cites the following Bible verses: • Ephesians 5:31: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” • Deuteronomy 10:20: “Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.” • Exodus 19:4-6: “‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” • John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” • Romans 5:8: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
37

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 38 of 84
• 1 John 4:10: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
284. Wittwer then defines marriage as “a covenant between a man and a woman based on promises they make before God and keep with his help.” He exhorts his audience to spurn the consumerist model of marriage, where spouses leave a marriage when it does not meet their needs, and adopt a covenantal model of marriage that mimics God’s relationship with his church: a permanent relationship where the partners are fully known by each other yet fully loved by each other. He finally concludes with prayer, thanking God because “you are the covenant keeping God, that you are the one who said, I will never leave you, I will always love you, I will always forgive you. I promise.”
285. Below the link to Wittwer’s sermon, the advice page on the Hitching Post website then contains a section of “Love Quotes.”
286. The following quotations appear in this section: • So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you…. – Matthew 7:12 • However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. – Ephesians 5:33 • Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-serving (selfish), it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. I Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)
287. The advice page next contains a “Recommended Listening” section with two recordings.
288. The first recording contains Wittwer’s “Proven Ideas for Building Strong Marriages” message. The second recording contains Wittwer’s “Commitment - A Superglue of Marriage” sermon.
38

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 39 of 84
289. The same message and sermon also appears on the CD the Hitching Post gives to every wedding ceremony customer. The content of this message and sermon are described above.
290. Finally, the advice page on the Hitching Post website contains a “Recommended Reading” section. This section contains links to the Amazon webpage where viewers can buy particular books about marriage.
291. The Recommended Reading section contains links to the following books: • “The Meaning of Marriage” by Timothy Keller • “Love and Respect” by Emerson Eggerichs • “The 5 Love Languages” by Gary Chapman • “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” by Dr. Laura Schlessinger • “His Needs, Her Needs” by William Harley • “Communication, Key To Your Marriage” by H. Norman Wright • “Before You Say I DO” by N. Wright • “For Better or For Best” by Gary Smalley • “Love For A Lifetime” by James Dobson • “Love Is A Decision” by Gary Smalley
292. Timothy Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. 293. Emerson Eggerichs was the senior pastor of Trinity Church in East Lansing, Michigan. 294. Gary Chapman is the senior associate pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
39

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 40 of 84
295. H. Norman Wright is the Research Professor of Christian Education at Talbot School of Theology.
296. James Dobson is founder and chairman emeritus of Focus on the Family. 297. Gary Smalley is the founder of the Smalley Relationship Center and the author of books on family relationships from a Christian perspective. 298. Six books listed on the Hitching Post website cite the Bible to provide advice about marriage. 299. Those that do not are, in the view of the Knapps, consistent with the Bible’s teachings concerning marriage. 300. The Knapps recommend these resources on the Hitching Post website because they want everyone to access these resources and come to believe in Jesus Christ and base their marriage on biblical principles. 301. On the Hitching Post website and in many resources linked on this website, the Hitching Post promotes the message that God created marriage to be a one-man-one-woman covenant. 302. The Hitching Post website and many resources linked on this website encourage couples to base their marriages on the Bible. 303. If the Knapps performed a same-sex marriage ceremony, they would be expressing a message about marriage that contradicts the messages they promote on their website.
40

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 41 of 84
Hitching Post refuses to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies before same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho
304. For as long as the Knapps have owned it, the Hitching Post has never allowed its ministers to officiate same-sex weddings because doing so would violate the Knapps’s religious beliefs.
305. As a result, Hitching Post employees have refused requests to perform same-sex wedding and commitment ceremonies.
306. Mr. Knapp has refused to perform same-sex ceremonies at least 15 separate times since 1989.
307. For example, a woman called the Hitching Post Chapel in the 1990s and asked Mr. Knapp if the Hitching Post married women.
308. Confused, Mr. Knapp asked what she meant. The woman then asked does the Hitching Post marry lesbians.
309. Mr. Knapp responded no. 310. Another incident occurred around May 2014. 311. At that time, two women came to the Hitching Post Chapel together and asked in person to be married. One woman was elderly and the other was much younger. They appeared to be 20 years apart in age difference. 312. The Hitching Post employee working the front desk at the time declined their request. The couple then left. 313. That employee told Mr. Knapp about the incident after the fact, and Mr. Knapp agreed that the employee followed company policy by denying the request.
41

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 42 of 84
Coeur d’Alene passes Ordinance §9.56; Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit businesses, including the Hitching Post
314. The Coeur d’Alene City Council passed Ordinance §9.56 on June 4, 2013, by a 5-
1 vote.
315. During testimony before the vote, business owners raised concerns that the
ordinance would force them to compromise their faith and expose them to costly litigation.
316. Councilman Steve Adams publicly warned that “[i]nevitably the ordinance will be
used as a sword more than a shield.”
317. Councilwoman Deanna Goodlander publicly stated that the ordinance sends “the
message that intolerance does not belong in Coeur d’Alene.”
318. The Ordinance states that “[t]he following acts are prohibited and shall constitute
a misdemeanor: … To deny to or to discriminate against any person because of sexual
orientation and/or gender identity/expression the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or
amusement.”
319. Ordinance 9.56 defines “public accommodation” as follows:
PLACE OF PUBLIC RESORT, ACCOMMODATION, ASSEMBLAGE OR AMUSEMENT: Includes, but is not limited to, any public place, licensed or unlicensed, kept for gain, hire or reward, or where charges are made for admission, service, occupancy or use of any property or facilities, whether conducted for the entertainment, housing or lodging of transient guests, or for the benefit, use or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or for the sale of goods and merchandise, or for the rendering of personal services, or for public conveyance or transportation on land, water or in the air, including the stations and terminals thereof and the garaging of vehicles, or where food or beverages of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, or where public amusement, entertainment, sports or recreation of any kind is offered with or without charge, or where medical service or care is made available, or where the public gathers, congregates, or assembles for amusement, recreation or public purposes, or public halls, public elevators and public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two (2) or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more
42

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 43 of 84
tenants, or any public library or any educational institution wholly or partially supported by public funds, or schools of special instruction. 320. The Hitching Post Chapel qualifies as a “public accommodation” under the Ordinance. 321. The Hitching Post qualifies as a “public accommodation” under the Ordinance for at least three reasons: (1) it is a public place; (2) it is operated for a profit (i.e. “kept for gain”); (3) it charges for the wedding ceremonies and other marriage-related services it offers. 322. Ordinance §9.56 exempts certain entities from its prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination. 323. Specifically, §9.56.040(B)(1) exempts “[r]eligious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.” 324. Ordinance §9.56 does not define what constitutes a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society. 325. The City has interpreted §9.56.040(B)(1) to encompass only non-profit entities. 326. Under the city’s stated interpretation, for-profit entities do not qualify for the exemption in §9.56.040(B)(1). 327. Therefore, Ordinance §9.56’s bar on sexual orientation discrimination was applied to The Hitching Post and its operations, and the Hitching Post was not exempt under §9.56.040(B)(1) because the Hitching Post operates for profit. 328. The City interprets Ordinance §9.56, and specifically its bar on sexual orientation discrimination, to bar a public accommodation from declining to provide a service to same-sex couples that it would provide to opposite-sex couples or to anyone else. 329. The Ordinance provides that a “violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in title 1, chapter 1.28 of this code.”
43

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 44 of 84
330. Chapter 1.28 states that a misdemeanor is punishable “by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
331. Chapter 1.28 further provides that “[e]ach such person is guilty of a separate offense or liable to a separate penalty for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the ordinances of the city is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, and he shall be punished accordingly.”
332. Accordingly, the Knapps commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor each day they continue follow their religious beliefs and decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony.
333. Each of those misdemeanor violations is punishable by jail time, a fine, or both. Coeur d’Alene officials confirm that Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit businesses, including the Hitching Post
334. Coeur d’Alene officials have also informed Mr. Knapp and the public that City Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit businesses and requires the Hitching Post to perform samesex wedding ceremonies.
335. On May 13, 2014, a federal district court judge invalidated the Idaho laws defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
336. A few days after that ruling, a reporter with the Spokesman-Review newspaper called Mr. Knapp and asked whether he and the Hitching Post would begin performing same-sex wedding ceremonies in light of the judge’s ruling.
337. Mr. Knapp responded: “I cannot in good conscience perform same-sex marriages.”
44

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 45 of 84

338. Around the same time, upon information and belief, a reporter with the

Spokesman-Review newspaper talked to Coeur d’Alene city attorney Warren Wilson about the

scope of Ordinance §9.56.

339. Upon information and belief, that reporter asked Wilson whether Ordinance §9.56

would apply to the Hitching Post and would force the Hitching Post to perform same-sex

wedding ceremonies.

340. The day after Mr. Knapp talked to the reporter, Mr. Knapp read an article in the

Spokesman Review that discussed whether Ordinance §9.56 would require the Hitching Post to

perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

341. That article stated the following (emphasis added):

Wedding venues that turn away gay couples may violate local laws, such as Coeur d’Alene’s prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The provision adopted by the City Council last year applies to housing, employment and places of public accommodation, including businesses that render public services. “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.

342. This

newspaper

article

is

available

online

at

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/15/ministers-diverge-in-opinion-on-lifting-of-

idahos/.

343. This newspaper article contains some statements attributed to Coeur d’Alene

Deputy City Attorney Warren Wilson.

45

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 46 of 84
344. The statements attributed to Wilson in this newspaper article accurately reflect statements Wilson made.
345. These statements accurately reflect the position of the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Office.
346. These statements accurately reflect the position of the City of Coeur d’Alene. 347. Upon information and belief, Wilson never mentioned the corporate form of the Hitching Post or conditioned his statements about the Hitching Post upon the corporate form of the Hitching Post during his discussions with the Spokesman-Review reporter. 348. Wilson has continued to state that Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit businesses including the Hitching Post. 349. For example, around May 15, 2014, a reporter with a local television station created a report about same-sex marriage and the Hitching Post. 350. This report is available at http://www.kxly.com/news/north-idaho-news/hitchingpost-owners-will-close-before-performing-samesex-marriages/26006066. A written article also accompanies the video report. 351. A true and correct copy of this video report is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 8. 352. The reporter interviewed Wilson for this report and asked him about the Hitching Post Chapel. 353. Upon information and belief, the reporter asked Wilson whether Ordinance §9.56 would apply to the Hitching Post and force the Hitching Post to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies.
46

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 47 of 84
354. In response, Wilson made the following statements on camera during his interview:
• “For profit wedding chapels in this city now are in a position where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit.”
• “If you turn away a gay couple or refuse to provide services to them that you would provide for anyone else, then in theory you violated our code and you're looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”
355. These statements accurately reflect statements Wilson made. 356. These statements accurately reflect the position of the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Office. 357. These statements accurately reflect the position of the City of Coeur d’Alene. 358. Upon information and belief, Wilson never mentioned the corporate form of the Hitching Post or conditioned his statements upon the corporate form of the Hitching Post during his discussions with the Spokesman-Review reporter. 359. As Mr. Wilson’s statements to the public show, Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Office interpreted Ordinance §9.56 to apply to all for-profit businesses, including the Hitching Post. 360. The Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Office is responsible for enforcing Ordinance §9.56. 361. After reading Wilson’s media statements, Mr. Knapp became deeply concerned. 362. Mr. Knapp wanted clarification whether the Hitching Post was violating the law because the Hitching Post had declined requests to perform same-sex ceremonies in the past.
47

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 48 of 84
363. Mr. Knapp also knew the Hitching Post would receive these requests in the future because the Hitching Post is so popular and so close to the county clerk’s office where marriage licenses are issued.
364. Moreover, the local media widely reported about the Hitching Post’s religious goals, reliance on religious ministers, and unwillingness to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
365. Therefore, City officials knew about the Hitching Post’s unwillingness to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and knew that the Knapps viewed the Hitching Post as a business with religious goals.
366. In light of this general knowledge and officials’ comments in the media, Mr. Knapp decided to call the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office on two separate occasions to clarify whether Ordinance §9.56 applied to the Hitching Post.
367. As explained at ¶¶ 5-30, supra, the City confirmed during both phone calls that the Knapps and The Hitching Post would violate Ordinance §9.56 and be subject to jail time and criminal fines if they declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. Court decisions about same-sex marriage place Hitching Post in crosshairs; Hitching Post loses income because of Ordinance §9.56
368. Although the Hitching Post declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in the past, the Hitching Post did not receive many requests to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies because same-sex marriage has been illegal in Idaho.
369. That changed on May 13 when a Federal District Court judge enjoined Idaho’s law defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union. See Latta v. Otter, 1:13-CV-00482CWD, 2014 WL 1909999 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014).
48

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 49 of 84
370. The Ninth Circuit stayed that order on May 20, 2014 until the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling on October 7, 2014. See Latta v. Otter, 14-35420, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014).
371. The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in Latta the same day, thereby allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in Idaho for a short time.
372. On October 7, 2014, the Knapps heard the news about the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and they immediately closed the Hitching Post on October 7 and 8, 2014 because they had been informed by the City that they would be in violation of the Ordinance.
373. By closing the Hitching Post on October 7 and 8th, the Knapps lost the opportunity to receive new clients and therefore lost income.
374. Later in the morning on October 8, 2014, United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stayed the Ninth Circuit’s mandate until the Supreme Court could receive briefing from the parties about the need for a longer stay. See http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14A374-Kennedy-order.pdf.
375. The Supreme Court ultimately denied the Idaho Governor’s request to stay the Ninth Circuit ruling on the afternoon of October 10. See http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/Idaho-marriage-SCt-stay-denial-10-10-14.pdf.
376. On October 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit then issued an order allowing same-sex marriages to begin in Idaho at 9:00 a.m. on October 15, 2014.
377. So county clerks throughout Idaho began to routinely issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on October 15, 2014.
49

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 50 of 84
378. The Knapps kept the Hitching Post closed October 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 because of the City’s warning that they would be in violation of the Ordinance because they chose not to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
379. The Knapps lost clients on October 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and therefore lost income on those days. Hitching Post re-opens and refuses to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies
380. The Knapps knew they could not stay closed forever. 381. They had to continue to earn a living. 382. They also believed they had a constitutional right to control their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. 383. So the Knapps re-opened the Hitching Post on October 16, 2014 with this lawsuit ready to be filed. 384. Mrs. Knapp also packed her and Mr. Knapp’s luggage in anticipation that Coeur d’Alene would arrest them and send them to jail for violating Ordinance §9.56 after they declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. 385. On October 17, 2014, a customer called and asked if The Hitching Post would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. 386. In accordance with their sincerely held religious convictions and ministerial vows, Mrs. Knapp politely responded that The Hitching Post does not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. 387. Mrs. Knapp also informed the individual that the county clerk’s office could provide him a list of places where he could get married. 388. The Knapps do not intend to change this decision.
50

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 51 of 84
389. That same day, another customer called The Hitching Post and asked Mr. Knapp if The Hitching Post would perform his same-sex wedding ceremony.
390. In accordance with their sincerely held religious convictions and ministerial vows, Mr. Knapp politely explained that the Hitching Post does not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. The Knapps and the Hitching Post file this lawsuit to protect their religious freedoms
391. Because City officials had repeatedly said publicly and directly told the Knapps that Ordinance §9.56 applies to the Hitching Post and because the Knapps had consistently in the past and present declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, the Knapps had no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect their religious freedoms rather than be subject to jail time and substantial fines.
392. The Knapps filed this lawsuit on October 17, 2014 and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that same day.
393. The Knapps and the Hitching Post continue to decline same-sex wedding ceremonies.
394. With their lawsuit filed, the Knapps now felt they had done everything they could to protect their right to decline requests to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and to operate their business in accordance with their religious beliefs, although they still were in a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony.
395. On October 23, 2014, three separate individuals called the Hitching Post about same-sex wedding ceremonies.
51

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 52 of 84
396. One of those individuals talked to Mrs. Knapp and asked about same-sex wedding ceremonies.
397. Mrs. Knapp asked if the individual was seeking a same-sex wedding ceremony. 398. The individual responded yes. 399. In accordance with her sincerely held religious convictions and ministerial vows, Mrs. Knapp politely declined and explained that the Hitching Post does not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. 400. Mrs. Knapp also directed the individual to a list at the County Clerk’s office that identifies persons and entities that will perform wedding ceremonies. 401. The individual then responded that the Hitching Post had to do his wedding ceremony because he had a constitutional right to have his ceremony. 402. Mrs. Knapp then reiterated that the Hitching Post does not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and said good-bye. 403. Another individual called and asked Mrs. Knapp if the Hitching Post would perform a wedding ceremony for him and his husband. 404. Mrs. Knapp asked if they wanted a wedding ceremony for two men. 405. The individual responded yes. 406. In accordance with her sincerely held religious convictions and ministerial vows, Mrs. Knapp then politely declined and explained that the Hitching Post does not perform samesex wedding ceremonies. 407. Mrs. Knapp also directed the individual to a list at the County Clerk’s office that identifies persons and entities that will perform wedding ceremonies. 408. A woman also called twice on October 23, 2014 from a Massachusetts area code.
52

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 53 of 84
409. Each time, this woman screamed at Mrs. Knapp, calling her a redneck, a bigot, and other hateful slurs because the Hitching Post did not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
410. This woman never requested that the Knapps perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, and therefore Mrs. Knapp never declined a request from this woman to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.
411. Despite the woman’s attack, Mrs. Knapp politely thanked her for her opinion, said goodbye, and hung up the phone.
412. On October 26, 2014, the Hitching Post received an email that stated: “WE NEED TO PUT YOU OUT OF BUSINESS QUICKLY. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO PERFORM A HOMOSEXUAL WEDDING. PLEASE REPLY WITH WRITTEN REASON AS TO WHY NOT SO WE CAN GET THE COURT PROCEEDINGS STARTED.” 413. Mrs. Knapp responded in an email saying that she would forward the request to her attorneys. 414. The initial emailer replied with another email saying: “I can see why the national media is portraying you in a negative light. I will ask you for a second time. I would like to have a homosexual wedding at your chapel. What day can you perform this service? These are rocket scientist questions. Please Respond.” 415. Lynn responded politely via email: “We have to decline your request as we are a business that is owned by Christians and we only do weddings for 1 woman 1 man couples. If you would like a wedding in Coeur d' Alene Id. there is a list of other places that you can choose from at the Kootenai Co. Marriage License office. You may read our wedding policy on our website under reservations and information.”
53

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 54 of 84

416. Refusing to give up, the initial emailer again responded: “I'm in contact with the

ACLU. I need to know your lawyers name. Are you willing to talk to the ACLU voluntarily?

please respond.”

417. Mrs. Knapp never responded.

418. On October 28, 2014, the Hitching Post received an email from an individual who

asked the Hitching Post to perform a wedding ceremony between two men.

419. Lynn responded to this request via email: “Thank you for your request. It appears

from the information provided that you are seeking a same-sex wedding ceremony. If so, we

will have to decline due to our religious beliefs and ministerial vows, which prevent us from

performing anything other than one-man, one-woman wedding ceremonies. You can, however,

find

a

list

of

local

wedding

providers

at

http://www.kcgov.us/departments/recorder/marriageforms/officiants.pdf.”

420. The initial requestor then responded via email: “That is discrimination. What

gives you people the right to judge people. Same sex marriage is legal in idaho. Religious views?

You mean, bigoted and hateful views. You are not Christians. I will be reporting you to HRC.

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so hateful.”

421. Lynn did not respond to this email.

422. Around the end of January 2015, two women entered the Hitching Post and asked

Mr. Knapp if he would marry them at the Hitching Post. The two women presented an Idaho

marriage license to Mr. Knapp.

423. In accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs and ministerial vows, Mr.

Knapp politely declined and responded that the Hitching Post does not perform same-sex

wedding ceremonies.

54

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 55 of 84
424. Mr. Knapp then directed the two women to a list of entities and persons who perform wedding services. The County Clerk’s office provides this list to those receiving marriage licenses.
425. In accordance with their sincerely held religious convictions and ministerial vows, the Knapps intend to decline any other requests they receive to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies at The Hitching Post.
426. Because same-sex marriage is now legal in Idaho, the Hitching Post faces the prospect of frequently receiving requests to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
427. Likewise, the Hitching Post faces the prospect of frequently denying requests to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies because of the Knapps’ religious beliefs.
428. Despite the City’s knowledge that the Knapps declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies several times since same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho, Coeur d’Alene has not enforced Ordinance §9.56 against the Hitching Post only because of this pending lawsuit, the pending temporary restraining order, and the media firestorm that followed the filing of this lawsuit.
429. Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Idaho and the Hitching Post has already denied and will continue to deny requests to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, the Knapps fear that the City of Coeur d’Alene will enforce Ordinance §9.56 against the Hitching Post if not for this lawsuit.
430. The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive, and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines for declining to speak a message and perform a wedding service that contradicts their religious beliefs and ministerial vows.
55

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 56 of 84
431. Any amount of jail time or criminal fines could seriously curtail the Knapps’s ability to engage in their desired religious expression and to perform the wedding ceremonies they are called by God to perform.
432. The Knapps are in a constant state of fear that they may have to go to jail, pay substantial fines, or both, resulting in them losing the business that God has called them to operate and which they have faithfully operated for 25 years.
433. The Knapps also cannot effectively plan their business because of this imminent threat.
434. For example, the Knapps seven-year lease to use the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel ended on October 31, 2014.
435. The Knapps wanted to enter into another seven year lease and gain seven years of certainty for planning purposes, but they did not do so because they feared that Coeur d’Alene would require them to perform same-sex weddings ceremonies before a seven year lease would expire.
436. For this reason and because of the statements made by Coeur d’Alene officials, the Knapps decided to enter into a new one year lease that ends on October 31, 2015.
437. The Knapps have already lost income for standing up for their religious beliefs against the threats from City officials to enforce Ordinance §9.56 against the Hitching Post.
438. Around October 2014, two separate opposite-sex couples called and cancelled their scheduled wedding ceremonies at the Hitching Post.
439. The two couples told Mr. Knapp that they were cancelling because the Hitching Post did not perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
56

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 57 of 84
440. Another individual emailed the Hitching Post and cancelled their scheduled wedding ceremony between a man and a woman because of the Hitching Post’s decision to marry only opposite sex couples. Coeur d’Alene affirms that Ordinance §9.56 applies to every for-profit business
441. After the Knapps filed suit, Coeur d’Alene attempted to backtrack and avoid liability by claiming that the Hitching Post was a “religious corporation” and therefore exempt from Ordinance §9.56.
442. But when doing so, Coeur d’Alene stated that Ordinance §9.56 applies to forprofit business (like the Hitching Post) –– the same interpretation the City communicated many times publicly and personally to the Knapps in the past.
443. On October 20, 2014, Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Michael Gridley sent a letter to counsel for the Knapps and the Hitching Post. See Exhibit 1.
444. In this letter, City Attorney Gridley affirmed four times that that Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit entities and not to non-profit entities.
445. City Attorney Gridley did not take this position in haste. He did so only after he reviewed the documents filed in this lawsuit.
446. Thus, when City Attorney Gridley stated that Ordinance §9.56 applies to forprofit businesses, he knew that the Hitching Post operated for profit and that the Hitching Post had formed an LLC. All this information was available to Mr. Gridley in pleadings.
447. Gridley’s October 20 letter increased the Knapps’ fear that they would be prosecuted under Ordinance §9.56 because they have always operated the Hitching Post as a forprofit business and they continue to do so.
57

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 58 of 84

448. Therefore, according to Gridley’s October 20, 2014 letter, Ordinance §9.56 does

apply to the Hitching Post and Ordinance §9.56 does not exempt the Hitching Post as a religious

corporation because the Hitching Post operates as a for-profit business.

449. Outsiders read Gridley’s letter the same way. According to one law professor,

Gridley’s October 20 letter confirmed that Ordinance §9.56 applied to ministers performing

wedding ceremonies for profit. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-

conspiracy/wp/2014/10/22/couer-dalene-city-attorney-confirms-conservative-christian-ministers-

wedding-chapel-business-must-provide-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies/.

The media begins to scrutinize Coeur d’Alene for requiring the Hitching Post to comply with Ordinance §9.56.

450. When the Knapps filed this lawsuit to protect their religious freedom, Coeur

d’Alene began receiving intense criticism from national and local news outlets and from citizens.

451. For example, Fox News quickly reported on the Knapps’ predicament. See

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-

to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html.

452. Many local news outlets, like the Spokesman-Review Newspaper, reported on the

lawsuit as well. See http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/oct/17/hitching-post-sues-coeur-

dalene-after-declining-ma/.

453. A headline from another local news outlet, the Coeur d'Alene Press, stated the

following:

“Hitching

Post

suit

sparks

outrage.”

See

http://www.cdapress.com/news/political/article_d1a7f821-351f-5b1b-943e-1515bb43a3ef.html.

454. People held demonstrations in front of the Hitching Post and at Coeur d’Alene

City Hall to express support for protecting the Knapps’ religious freedoms.

58

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 59 of 84
455. The Coeur d’Alene Mayor and Idaho Governor Butch Otter received over 30,000 emails and phone calls criticizing Coeur d’Alene for applying Ordinance §9.56 to the Hitching Post.
456. Legal commentators opined on Ordinance §9.56 and concluded that applying Ordinance §9.56 to the Hitching Post would violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/18/can-ministers-whomake-a-living-by-conducting-weddings-be-required-to-conduct-same-sex-weddings/.
457. In a press release, Idaho Governor Butch Otter cited this lawsuit as a reason for appealing the Ninth Circuit ruling against the Idaho Constitution’s definition of marriage. See http://gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/press/pr2014/10%20October/pr_63.html. After the Knapps and the Hitching Post filed this lawsuit, Coeur d’Alene claims, for the first time, that the Hitching Post is exempt from Ordinance §9.56.
458. After the Knapps and the Hitching Post filed this lawsuit, after Coeur d’Alene affirmed that Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit entities, and after the media storm, counsel for Coeur d’Alene sent a letter to counsel for the Knapps and the Hitching Post on October 23, 2014.
459. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 9. 460. According to this three sentence letter, counsel for Coeur d’Alene declared, for the first time, that the City would not apply Ordinance §9.56 to the Knapps or to the Hitching Post because Coeur d’Alene now considered the Hitching Post a “religious corporation” exempt from Ordinance §9.56. 461. When adopting this new interpretation, Coeur d’Alene did not change any language in Ordinance §9.56.
59

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 60 of 84
462. When adopting this new interpretation, Coeur d’Alene did not issue any type of regulation binding on city officials.
463. When adopting this new interpretation, Coeur d’Alene did not explain why the Hitching Post now qualified as a religious corporation under Ordinance §9.56.
464. When adopting this new interpretation, Coeur d’Alene never explained why city officials declared earlier that Ordinance §9.56 applies to for-profit business, including the Hitching Post.
465. Coeur d’Alene has already changed its mind once regarding the proper application of Ordinance §9.56.
466. At any time and for any reason, Coeur d’Alene can change its mind again and enforce Ordinance §9.56 against the Hitching Post.
467. Coeur d’Alene has never acknowledged that applying Ordinance §9.56 to the Hitching Post would be unconstitutional.
468. Coeur d’Alene changed its position on whether Ordinance §9.56 applies to The Hitching Post because of this lawsuit filed by the Knapps and the Hitching Post.
469. Without a court order, the Knapps and the Hitching Post will not know when and if Coeur d’Alene will apply Ordinance §9.56 against them.
470. This uncertainty will chill and deter the Knapps and the Hitching Post from conducting wedding ceremonies in accordance with their religious beliefs. Many Coeur d’Alene venues perform same-sex wedding ceremonies
471. While the Knapps and the Hitching Post, LLC do not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, many other wedding chapels and venues in Coeur d’Alene do.
60

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 61 of 84

472. The website for the Kootenai County Clerk’s office contains a document with a

non-exhaustive list of local wedding facilities and providers.

473. This

document

is

available

at

http://www.kcgov.us/departments/recorder/marriageforms/officiants.pdf. A true and correct copy

of this document is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 10.

474. This document lists 26 Coeur d’Alene venues that perform wedding ceremonies.

475. In a May 15, 2014 newspaper article in the Spokesman-Review, two Coeur

d’Alene ministers publicly confirmed they will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

476. This

newspaper

article

is

available

at

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/15/ministers-diverge-in-opinion-on-lifting-of-

idahos/.

477. This article contains the following statements:

Gay couples will have other options to mark their unions once they obtain a marriage license. One person who said she’s happy to marry gay couples is Christine Taysan, who is ordained through the Universal Life Church and has presided over about a dozen weddings in Idaho. “I’ve put it out there since we’ve gotten this good news (that) if anybody wants to get married on Friday that I would offer my services free of charge,” said Taysan, who operates as Custom Ceremonies by Christine. She expects same-sex couples will be excited to take advantage of the opportunity to marry now in the Gem State. “It’s something that a lot of them have been waiting a long time for.” Tracy Springberry, minister of the North Idaho Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, said she looks forward to presiding over same-sex weddings. “I will absolutely be performing them,” said Springberry, who lives in Spokane and married her partner in Washington last July. “It means I can really live out my faith.” So far she hasn’t been asked to marry a same-sex couple in Idaho. “I’m interested in making sure people know we’re there and are willing to do it,” Springberry said.

478. In light of the numerous wedding venues in Coeur d’Alene and the willingness of

many Coeur d’Alene ministers to perform same-sex ceremonies, same-sex couples will have

61

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 62 of 84
many venues to choose from besides the Hitching Post Chapel if they want a same-sex wedding ceremony.
479. The Knapps will refer those seeking a same-sex marriage ceremony at the Hitching Post to the Kootenai County Clerk’s office for its document listing other local wedding providers. The Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC will continue to follow their religious beliefs and refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies
480. The Knapps do not want to disobey the law. They are hardly fit for jail. Mr. Knapp is 68, and Mrs. Knapp is 67.
481. Nor can the Knapps afford to pay $1,000 a day for violating Ordinance §9.56. The Knapps will quickly go broke and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC will become insolvent.
482. But the Knapps do not want to shut down Hitching Post Weddings, LLC either. This business provides their primary source of income. This prospect frightens the Knapps given their age.
483. Moreover, the Knapps feel called by God to continue their ministry at the Hitching Post. They are compelled by their religious beliefs and their ordination vows to perform wedding ceremonies and to encourage couples to foster Godly marriages.
484. Specifically, the Knapps feel compelled to express and promote the biblical definition of marriage by performing wedding ceremonies for opposite-sex couples.
485. So if the Knapps stopped performing wedding ceremonies at the Hitching Post, they would violate God’s call to them and violate their religious duty to follow God’s call.
486. But the Knapps do not want to and will not perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. The Knapps will not violate the religious beliefs they have followed for over 60 years or the ordination vows they have followed for over 35 years.
62

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 63 of 84
487. Therefore, in choosing between the options open to them, no option is viable. For each option, the Knapps and the Hitching Post, LLC either violate their religious beliefs, suffer extreme financial hardship, or risk fines and jail time.
488. Therefore, the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC are currently suffering irreparable harm and need immediate relief from this Court.
ALLEGATIONS OF LAW 489. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each and all of the acts alleged were attributed to Coeur d’Alene which acted under color of a statute, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of Idaho. 490. The Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC are suffering imminent and irreparable harm from Coeur d’Alene’s policy and practice. 491. The Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC have no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivation of its rights by Coeur d’Alene. 492. Unless the conduct of Coeur d’Alene is enjoined, the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC will continue to suffer irreparable injury.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech: Compelled Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, Unconstitutional Conditions, and Unbridled
Discretion 493. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1– 492 of this Complaint. 494. Religious speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. 495. Plaintiffs engage in religious speech in their operation of The Hitching Post.
63

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 64 of 84
496. The owners of The Hitching Post, Plaintiffs Donald and Evelyn Knapp, are ordained ministers who run the business according to their sincerely held religious beliefs and their vows taken as Christian ministers.
497. The Knapps and their employees are the only persons permitted to perform wedding ceremonies at The Hitching Post Chapel.
498. In accordance with the Knapps’ religious beliefs and ministerial vows, The Hitching Post Weddings, LLC and its owners and employees will only perform wedding ceremonies that are consistent with the Christian religion.
499. Thus, among other things, The Hitching Post and the Knapps will only perform wedding ceremonies for couples entering into a one biological male and one biological female union.
500. The Hitching Post and the Knapps’ wedding ceremonies generally involve references to God, the invocation of God’s blessing on the union, the exchange of religiousbased vows, prayer, and brief remarks drawn from Holy Scripture designed to encourage the couple and help them to have a successful marriage.
501. The Hitching Post and the Knapps provide wedding and marriage-related services for the additional purposes of publicly expressing the biblical message that marriage is between one man and one woman, promoting the idea that marriage is a fundamental building block of society, and instilling this biblical understanding of marriage in the communities in which it operates.
502. The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause prohibits the government from compelling citizens to express or support a message not of their own choosing.
64

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 65 of 84
503. In accordance with the Knapps’ religious beliefs and ministerial vows, The Hitching Post will only perform wedding ceremonies for couples entering into a one biological male and one biological female union.
504. The City’s anti-discrimination ordinance, Chapter 9.56, requires The Hitching Post and the Knapps to engage in expression that they do not desire to convey, namely, performing a wedding ceremony that solemnizes marital unions that are not one-man-onewoman unions, like the same-sex marriage ceremony request that was the catalyst for the filing of this lawsuit.
505. Because The Hitching Post and the Knapps declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies pursuant to the Knapps’ religious convictions and ministerial vows, The Hitching Post and its owners are now subject to criminal prosecution by the City and if convicted could be imprisoned for up to one hundred eighty (180) days, or fined up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.
506. For each day they persist in declining requested same-sex wedding ceremonies, Plaintiffs are guilty of a separate offense and thus subject to rapidly escalating fines and jail terms.
507. In addition, if convicted The Hitching Post and the Knapps could be ordered to undergo “sensitivity training.”
508. The effect of the ordinance is to compel two Christian ministers to perform samesex wedding ceremonies in direct violation of their religious convictions and ministerial vows or, if they decline to do so, to fine and imprison them for their unwillingness to speak in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
509. This speech compulsion violates the First Amendment.
65

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 66 of 84
510. The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause also prohibits viewpoint discrimination against protected expression.
511. The City enforces Chapter 9.56 in a viewpoint discriminatory manner in relation to the topic of marriage.
512. The City will not prosecute or threaten to prosecute under Chapter 9.56 those expressive businesses that provide wedding services and that are willing to express a message in favor of same-sex marriage, but it will prosecute or threaten to prosecute those expressive businesses, like The Hitching Post, that provide wedding services and that are not willing to foster such a message but rather promote the message that marriage is between one man and one woman.
513. Thus, an expressive business must hold and express a view favorable to same-sex marriage in order to avoid prosecution by the City and potential fines and jail time if convicted; this is rank viewpoint discrimination.
514. The effect of Chapter 9.56—especially considering the criminal fines and jail time it imposes on those convicted of violating it—is to impose a viewpoint-based litmus test on the ability of residents of Coeur d’Alene to own a business, which is anathema to the First Amendment.
515. The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause also prohibits the government from conditioning a benefit on the relinquishment of a constitutional right.
516. The Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC retain the right to chose the content of their expression, to promote religious messages they choose, to participate in religious ceremonies they choose, and to exercise their religion by performing religious ceremonies in
66

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 67 of 84
their capacities as ordained ministers and by operating their ministry without having to suffer jail time, fines, sensitivity training, and other arbitrary limitations on those rights.
517. By mandating that the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC perform samesex wedding ceremonies, Chapter 9.56 unconstitutionally conditions the receipt of state benefits — specifically the right to speak, the right to remain silent, and the right to exercise their religion by performing religious ceremonies and operating a ministry in accordance with their religious beliefs — on the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC surrendering, suspending, or limiting their constitutional rights to free speech.
518. The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause also prohibits the government from regulating expression based on vague guidelines that give officials unbridled discretion to arbitrarily allow some expression and prohibit other expression.
519. Chapter 9.56 grants unbridled discretion because Chapter 9.56 prohibits sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by a public accommodation, Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1) exempts “[r]eligious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies” from this prohibition, and Chapter 9.56 never defines a religious corporation, association, educational institutions, or society.
520. This vague exemption language in Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1) has allowed the Defendant to define a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society in different ways at different times, thereby altering the scope of the expressive entities exempt from Chapter 9.56.
521. Sometimes, Defendant has claimed that an entity must be a non-profit to constitute an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society. Other
67

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 68 of 84
times, Defendant has claimed that a for-profit entity can be an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society.
522. In fact, Defendant has inconsistently applied the vague exemption language in Chapter 9.56 to the Hitching Post at different times. Specifically, Defendant has claimed that the Hitching Post is not an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society because the Hitching Post operates for profit, and Defendant has later claimed that the Hitching Post is an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society.
523. Chapter 9.56’s vague exemption for religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies, Defendant’s arbitrary and shifting interpretation of what constitutes a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society, and Defendant’s inconsistent application of the exemption in Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1) gives officials unbridled discretion to apply Chapter 9.56 to the expression of some entities based on dislike of that expression.
524. Defendant’s policies and practices — including Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1)’s vague exemption language and any unwritten policy interpreting that language –– provide Defendant and City officials with unbridled discretion to determine what entities qualify as an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society. Therefore, the fundamental rights of the Hitching Post, the Knapps, and other citizens now turn on the whim of government bureaucrats.
525. Defendant’s policies and practices — including Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1)’s vague exemption language and any unwritten policy interpreting that language –– thus violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, both facially and as-applied to the Hichting Post, the Knapps, and third parties not before the Court, because Defendant’s policies and practices
68

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 69 of 84
provide no binding guidelines and give City officials unbridled discretion to arbitrarily apply Chapter 9.56 based on the viewpoints expressed by the Knapps, the Hitching Post, and other citizens.
526. Chapter 9.56 and the City’s enforcement thereof chill, deter, and restrict Plaintiffs and other religiously-owned expressive businesses from freely expressing their religious beliefs.
527. Chapter 9.56, on its face and as interpreted and as applied by the City to mandate speech promoting same-sex wedding ceremonies, to punish those unwilling to express a message that violates their own convictions, to condition the ability to earn a living and operate a ministry on forfeiting First Amendment freedoms, and to give City Officials unbridled discretion is not the least restrictive means of serving any compelling interest the City seeks to promote.
528. Chapter 9.56, facially and as applied to Plaintiffs, accordingly violates their right to Free Speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief specified in the Prayer for Relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion 529. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1– 492 of this Complaint. 530. The Knapps’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman.
69

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 70 of 84
531. The Knapps’ sincerely held religious beliefs are derived from the Bible’s teachings about the God-ordained institution of marriage, from their ministerial vows, and from the doctrinal teachings of the Church in which they are ordained.
532. The Knapps operate The Hitching Post pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.
533. The Knapps’ compliance with their religious convictions constitutes a religious exercise.
534. The right to the free exercise of religion encompasses the right to preach, proselytize, and perform other religious functions, or, in other words, to be a Christian minister.
535. The Knapps act as Christian ministers in their capacity as owners and operators of The Hitching Post, and perform the religious function, among others, of officiating weddings on behalf of The Hitching Post.
536. Chapter 9.56 as applied by the City is not facially or operationally neutral. 537. Chapter 9.56 violates the Knapps’ right to the free exercise of religion by conditioning their right to own and operate a wedding ceremony business on their willingness to violate their religious beliefs by performing same-sex wedding ceremonies. 538. Chapter 9.56 bars the Knapps from simultaneously owning a wedding ceremony business and adhering to a key aspect of their religious faith. 539. Chapter 9.56 forces Plaintiffs to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs by declining to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and being punished with criminal fines and jail time, or abandoning their free exercise rights by performing same-sex wedding ceremonies in order to avoid criminal fines and jail time. 540. Chapter 9.56 thereby substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.
70

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 71 of 84
541. Chapter 9.56 also imposes special disabilities on Plaintiffs due to their religious beliefs.
542. Chapter 9.56 and the City’s enforcement thereof impermissibly prefers some religious views over others by permitting those whose religious beliefs support same-sex marriage to own and operate a marriage-related expressive business according to their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, while punishing with criminal fines and jail time those who own and operate marriage-related expressive businesses according to religious beliefs that bar them from supporting same-sex marriage, like the Knapps.
543. The City’s preference for some religious views over Plaintiffs’ religious views violates the Free Exercise Clause.
544. Chapter 9.56, facially and as applied by the City, is not generally applicable because it contains categorical exemptions to the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for “[r]eligious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.”
545. Given Chapter 9.56’s broad exemption for religious corporations, associations, schools, and societies of all types, the City has no legitimate basis for refusing to extend a religious exemption to the Knapps who are Christian ministers engaged in a religious function.
546. Chapter 9.56 also contains the following, additional exemptions to its ban on sexual orientation discrimination: (a) An expressive association whose employment of a person protected by this chapter would significantly burden the association’s rights of expressive association under Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000); (b) The United States government, any of its departments or agencies, or any corporation wholly owned by it; (c) the state of Idaho or any of its departments, agencies, or political subdivisions, other than the city of
71

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 72 of 84
Coeur d’Alene; (d) the rental of a housing accommodation in a building which contains housing accommodations for not more than two (2) families living independently of each other, if the lessor or a member of his family resides in one of the housing accommodations, or (e) to the rental of a room or rooms in a single-family residential housing accommodation by an individual if he or a member of his family resides therein.
547. The enforcement of Chapter 9.56 against the Knapps, with its promise of criminal fines, jail time, or both, imposes severe coercive pressure on the Knapps to change or violate their religious beliefs.
548. Chapter 9.56 also violates Plaintiffs’ free exercise rights under the hybrid rights doctrine because it implicates Plaintiffs’ free exercise rights in conjunction with other constitutional protections, like their right to free speech and their due process right to earn a livelihood free from unreasonable governmental interference.
549. The City has no compelling interest in forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs.
550. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs does not further any legitimate interests the City might assert.
551. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs is not the least restrictive means available to the City of furthering any legitimate interests it might assert.
552. Chapter 9.56 and the City’s enforcement thereof unconstitutionally chills Plaintiffs’ freedom of religious exercise and expression, both of which are fundamental rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs’ by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
72

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 73 of 84
553. Chapter 9.56, as applied to Plaintiffs, accordingly violates their right to freely exercise their religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief specified in the Prayer for Relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act
(FERPA) 554. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1– 492 of this Complaint. 555. The Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA) provides that “[f]ree exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.” 556. FERPA also provides that the “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 557. The Knapps’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman. 558. The Knapps’ sincerely held religious beliefs are derived from the Bible’s teachings concerning the God-ordained institution of marriage, from their ministerial vows, and from the doctrinal teachings of the Church in which they are ordained. 559. The Knapps operate The Hitching Post pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.
73

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 74 of 84
560. The Knapps’ compliance with their religious convictions constitutes an exercise of religion under FERPA.
561. Chapter 9.56 forces Plaintiffs to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs by declining to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and being punished with jail time and criminal fines, or abandoning their free exercise rights by performing same-sex wedding ceremonies in order to avoid criminal fines and jail time.
562. Chapter 9.56’s severe penalties effectively prevent the Knapps from simultaneously owning and operating a wedding ceremony business and adhering to a key aspect of their religious faith.
563. The enforcement of Chapter 9.56 against the Knapps, with its promise of jail time, criminal fines, or both, imposes severe coercive pressure on the Knapps to change or violate their religious beliefs.
564. Chapter 9.56 thereby substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion. 565. FERPA provides that the government must show that its substantial burden on a person’s exercise of religion is “[e]ssential to further a compelling governmental interest” and the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 566. The City has no compelling interest in forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs. 567. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs does not further any legitimate interests the City might assert. 568. Forcing the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their religious beliefs is not the least restrictive means available to the City of furthering any legitimate interests it might assert.
74

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 75 of 84
569. Chapter 9.56, as applied to Plaintiffs, accordingly violates their right to freely exercise their religion as guaranteed by the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief in the Prayer for Relief.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection 570. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1– 492 of this Complaint. 571. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws, which prohibits the City from treating Plaintiffs differently than similarly situated persons and businesses. 572. The government may not treat someone disparately as compared to similarly situated persons when such disparate treatment burdens a fundamental right. 573. Plaintiffs are similarly situated to other persons and expressive businesses that provide marriage-related services. 574. Chapter 9.56 and the City’s enforcement thereof treats Plaintiffs’ religious speech and exercise of religion differently than those similarly situated to Plaintiffs by permitting those whose religious beliefs support same-sex marriage to own and operate a marriage-related expressive business according to their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, while punishing with criminal fines and jail time those who own and operate marriage-related expressive businesses according to religious beliefs that bar them from supporting same-sex marriage. 575. The City’s discriminatory enforcement of Chapter 9.56 violates several fundamental rights of Plaintiffs, such as their freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
75

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 76 of 84
576. When the enforcement of government regulations, like Chapter 9.56, infringe on such fundamental rights, discriminatory intent is presumed.
577. In this case, the presumption of discriminatory intent is borne out by the City’s intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs’ religious speech and free exercise of religion.
578. The City lacks a rational or compelling state interest for such disparate treatment of Plaintiffs.
579. The City’s disparate treatment of Plaintiffs is not narrowly tailored to further any legitimate government interest the City may allege.
580. Chapter 9.56, as applied to Plaintiffs, thus violates their right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief in the Prayer for Relief.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process 581. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1– 492 of this Complaint. 582. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees Plaintiffs the right to due process of law, which includes the right to own and operate a business and earn a livelihood free from unreasonable governmental interference. 583. Chapter 9.56 unreasonably interferes with the Knapps due process rights by threatening them with jail time, criminal fines, or both, if they continue to operate their business in accordance with their religious convictions. 584. Chapter 9.56, as applied to Plaintiffs, thus violates their right to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
76

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 77 of 84
585. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits the government from censoring speech or criminalizing behavior pursuant to vague standards that grant unbridled discretion to city officials.
586. Chapter 9.56 contains vague standards because Chapter 9.56 prohibits sexual orientation and gender identify discrimination by a public accommodation, Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1) exempts “[r]eligious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies” from this prohibition, and Chapter 9.56 never defines a religious corporation, association, educational institutions, or society.
587. This vague exemption language in Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1) has allowed the Defendant to define a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society in different ways at different times, thereby altering the scope of the entities exempt from Chapter 9.56.
588. Sometimes, Defendant has claimed that an entity must be a non-profit to constitute an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society. Other times, Defendant has claimed that a for-profit entity can be an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society.
589. In fact, Defendant has inconsistently applied the vague exemption language in Chapter 9.56 to the Hitching Post at different times. Specifically, Defendant has claimed that the Hitching Post is not an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society because the Hitching Post operates for profit, and Defendant has later claimed that the Hitching Post is an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society.
590. Chapter 9.56’s vague exemption for religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies, Defendant’s arbitrary and shifting interpretation of what
77

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 78 of 84
constitutes a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society, and Defendant’s inconsistent application of the exemption in Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1) violates due process.
591. Citizens of common intelligence must guess and will differ in their views as to what constitutes a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society. Citizens of common intelligence must also guess at what Defendant considers a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society under Defendant’s vague and constantly changing interpretation.
592. Defendant’s policies and practices — including Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1)’s vague exemption language and any unwritten policy interpreting that language –– provide no warning or notice as to what expression and what conduct will qualify for an exemption and be permitted and what speech and conduct will not qualify for an exemption and be banned.
593. Instead, Defendant’s policies and practice provide Defendant and City officials with unbridled discretion to determine what entities qualify as an exempt religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society. Therefore, the fundamental rights of the Hitching Post, the Knapps, and other citizens now turn on the whim of government bureaucrats.
594. Defendant’s policies and practices — including Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1)’s vague exemption language and any unwritten policy interpreting that language ––thus violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, both facially and as-applied to the Hitching Post, the Knapps, and third parties not before the Court, because Defendant’s policies and practices provide no binding guidelines prescribing what protected expression and conduct City officials may permit or deny.
78

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 79 of 84
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant the relief in the Prayer for Relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter judgment against Defendant and provide Plaintiffs with the following relief: (A) Compensatory and nominal damages for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights, for lost income, and for other losses; (B) A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction
prohibiting the City, its agents, officials, servants, employees, and any other persons acting in its behalf, from enforcing Chapter 9.56 against Plaintiffs based on their decision not to perform, officiate, or solemnize same-sex marriages; (C) A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting the City, its agents, officials, servants, employees, and any other persons acting in its behalf, from enforcing Chapter 9.56 on its face because of the vague exemption language in Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1), Defendant’s arbitrary interpretation of this language, and additional stated constitutional violations; (D) A declaratory judgment that Chapter 9.56, as-applied to Plaintiffs, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (E) A declaratory judgment that Chapter 9.56.040(B)(1) facially and as interpreted by Defendant violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
79

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 80 of 84
(F) That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declarations shall have the force and effect of final judgment;
(G) That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing any Orders;
(H) That the Court award Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses of this action, including a reasonable attorneys’ fees award, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and with Idaho Code. § 73-402(4);
(I) That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or other security being required of Plaintiffs; and
(J) That the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just in the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of March, 2015,

DAVID A. CORTMAN* dcortman@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 188810 KEVIN H. THERIOT* ktheriot@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 373095 RORY T. GRAY* rgray@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Georgia Bar No. 373095 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D1100 Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043 (770) 339-0774 (770) 339-6744 Fax

By: /s/Virginia McNulty Robinson VIRGINIA MCNULTY ROBINSON vrobinson@robinsonlaw-pllc.com Idaho Bar No. 7380 ROBINSON LAW, PLLC 1910 Northwest Blvd., Suite 200 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 (208) 664-1139 (208) 664-1171 Fax
*Admission pro hac vice.

80

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 81 of 84 JEREMY D. TEDESCO* jtedesco@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 023497 JONATHAN A. SCRUGGS* jscruggs@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Arizona Bar No. 030505 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480)-444-0020 (480)-444-0028 Fax
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
81

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 82 of 84

14th

Coeur d'Alene

82

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 83 of 84

14th

Coeur d'Alene

83

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 29 Filed 03/16/15 Page 84 of 84
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of March, 2015, I filed the foregoing electronically through the CM/ECF system, which caused the following parties or counsel to be served by electronic means, as more fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing: Kirtlan G. Naylor Jacob H. Naylor Landon S. Brown NAYLOR & HALES, P.C. 950 Bannock Street, Suite 610 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 383-9511 (208) 383-9516 Fax
By: /s/Virginia McNulty Robinson VIRGINIA MCNULTY ROBINSON vrobinson@robinsonlaw-pllc.com Idaho Bar No. 7380 ROBINSON LAW, PLLC 1910 Northwest Blvd., Suite 200 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 (208) 664-1139 (208) 664-1171 Fax
84

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 32 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DONALD KNAPP; EVELYN KNAPP; HITCHING POST WEDDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF COEUR D’ALENE, Defendant.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00441-REB
ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Docket No. 3)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docket No. 24)

Plaintiffs originally filed their Complaint on October 17, 2014. (Docket No. 1). Also on that date, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction. (Docket No. 3). On three subsequent occasions, the parties stipulated to a brief stay of proceedings, representing to the Court that a settlement of the action was a distinct possibility. (Docket Nos. 15, 19, & 21). The action did not settle and, on February 23, 2015, Defendant filed its first Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 24). On March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 29). On March 19, 2015, Plaintiffs responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, asserting that their First Amended Complaint adds new factual allegations and new legal claims, thus mooting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 30). On March 30, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 31).

ORDER - 1

Case 2:14-cv-00441-REB Document 32 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2
With this procedural backdrop, the Court HEREBY ORDERS THAT: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 3) is DENIED as moot. The passage of time since its original filing, coupled with the multiple stays and, now, a First Amended Complaint, paints a different landscape than the one prompting the Motion originally. Plaintiffs may file an updated motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction in the event they feel it is necessary, considering the current status of the action as reflected by the First Amended Complaint and Defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss. 2. With the filing of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss supersedes its first Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, Defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24) is DENIED as moot.
DATED: March 31, 2015
Honorable Ronald E. Bush U. S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER - 2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DONALD KNAPP; EVELYN KNAPP; HITCHING POST WEDDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF COEUR D’ALENE, Defendant.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00441-REB
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Docket No. 31)

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 31). Having carefully considered the record, participated in oral argument, and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order:
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF DECISION Donald and Evelyn Knapp (the “Knapps”) are the owners of Hitching Post Weddings, LLC, a business located in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, which provides wedding services. Such services generally involve wedding ceremonies performed at their business location (the “Hitching Post”) and usually performed by one of the Knapps as the officiant. The Knapps contend that their rights have been violated because a local anti-discrimination ordinance places them into a Hobson’s choice of choosing between violating their religious beliefs by performing same-sex wedding ceremonies, or violating City Ordinance § 9.56 (the “Ordinance”) by refusing to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. In this lawsuit against the City of Coeur d’Alene (the

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

“City”), the Knapps seek (1) compensatory damages for the seven days they say they were forced to close the Hitching Post due to the City’s alleged threats to enforce the Ordinance against them; and (2) to enjoin any enforcement by the City of the Ordinance, as unconstitutional in violation of “the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act.”
The City seeks dismissal of the case, claiming that Hitching Post Weddings, LLC is a religious corporation and therefore specifically exempt from the Ordinance’s authority. According to the City, because the Ordinance does not apply to either Hitching Post Weddings, LLC or the Knapps, each of them lacks standing to bring this lawsuit and their claims are not ripe for review.
Through this Memorandum Decision and Order, the Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, the City’s Motion to Dismiss. The Knapps have standing to bring a claim for compensatory damages associated with the Hitching Post’s closing on the single date of October 15, 2014; in this respect only, the Motion to Dismiss is denied. However, the Knapps do not have standing (1) to bring a claim for compensatory damages associated with the Hitching Post’s closing on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2014, or (2) bring a pre-enforcement challenge to the Ordinance; in these respects, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.
That the Knapps have standing to bring a claim for compensatory damages associated with the Hitching Post’s closing on October 15, 2014 does not mean that they prevail as a matter of law on such a claim; rather, they are simply permitted to move forward in asserting such a claim through this legal action. The actual merits and scope of this discrete claim are not addressed at this time.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND1 A. The Knapps and the Hitching Post
1. Plaintiffs Donald and Evelyn Knapp are Christians and ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 51, 54, 77, 83 (Docket No. 29). Mr. Knapp first officiated a wedding in 1969. See id. at ¶ 79.
2. Mr. Knapp learned about the Hitching Post in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho around 1975 from a member of his church, John Green; Mr. Green worked at the Hitching Post and eventually purchased it. See id. at ¶ 86.
3. Mr. Knapp began working at the Hitching Post in 1987, which included officiating weddings there one day a week. See id. at ¶ 89. Mr. Knapp continued to work at the Hitching Post in this capacity for one and a half years. See id. at ¶ 90.
4. In 1989, the Knapps purchased the Hitching Post from Mr. Green. See id. at ¶ 94. For their newly-acquired business, the Knapps formed a new Washington state corporation, named D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. See id. at ¶¶ 95, 96. D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post was organized as a “profit corporation,” under Washington law. See id. at ¶¶ 97, 143, 156. The Knapps also elected to file their federal and Idaho tax returns for “D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post” as an S-Corporation. See id. at ¶¶ 101, 143.
5. The Knapps continued to operate the business as an S-Corporation until September 12, 2014, when they created a new business entity known as Hitching Post Weddings,
1 This section discusses not only the instant action’s backdrop, but also other legal proceedings taking place over the same period of time. These proceedings sometimes overlap, creating a somewhat disjointed factual landscape to this Memorandum Decision and Order. To help reduce any confusion stemming from this overlapping patchwork of events, this section contains various topical headings, followed by numbered paragraphs, organized in chronological format (for each particular heading). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

LLC (another Plaintiff in this action) by filing a certificate of organization with the Idaho
Secretary of State. See id. at ¶¶ 144-145; see also Gridley Decl., ¶ 8 (Docket No. 31, Att. 2).
Hitching Post Weddings, LLC is a for-profit enterprise; the Knapps are its members, owners, and
operators. See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 53, 56, 146, 156 (Docket No. 29).2
6. On October 6, 2014, the Knapps executed the “Operating Agreement of Hitching
Post Weddings, LLC.” See id. at ¶ 161; see also Op. Agmt., attached as Ex. 2 to Pls.’ First Am.
Compl. (Docket No. 29, Att. 2). According to the Operating Agreement:
The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs and in accordance with their vows taken as Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible. . . . .
The Hitching Post provides wedding and marriage-related services for the purpose of publicly expressing and promoting that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, which is consistent with the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and with their ministerial vows. Any request for wedding and marriage-related services not within this identified purpose is outside the scope of services offered by the Hitching Post.
The Hitching Post, consistent with its owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs, provides wedding and marriage-related services also for the purposes of promoting the social institution of marriage as a fundamental building block of our society and promoting the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By furthering these purposes, the Hitching Post endeavors to instill and promote this biblical understanding of marriage and marriage-related values in the communities where it operates. Achieving these goals is important to ensure that
2 Elsewhere within this Memorandum Decision and Order, references are made to, simply, “Hitching Post.” Unless otherwise mentioned, such a reference includes both the D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC business entities. See, e.g., Pls.’ Am. Compl., ¶ 160 (Docket No. 29) (“Hitching Post Weddings, LLC has the same goals that D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Hitching Post had, and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC operates according to the same religious principles and practices that D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post operated.”).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

marriage remains a vital social institution that uniquely promotes the raising of children by their mother and father. See Pls.’ Compl., ¶ 163 (Docket No. 29); see also Op. Agmt., attached as Ex. 2 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶ 3.1 (Docket No. 29, Att. 2). Around that same time, Plaintiffs created new employee and customer policies, identifying the Hitching Post as a “religious corporation” with a “religious purpose.” See Pls.’ Compl., ¶¶ 169-174, 178-181 (Docket No. 29); see also Employee Policy, attached as Ex. 3 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl., p. 1 (Docket No. 29, Att. 3) (“The Hitching Post is a religious corporation . . . . The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”); Customer Policy, attached as Ex. 4 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl., p. 1 (Docket No. 29, Att. 4) (“The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned by Christian ministers for a religious purpose.”). 7. For as long as the Knapps have owned the Hitching Post, the business has never allowed its ministers to officiate same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies because doing so would violate the Knapps’ religious beliefs. See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 303, 304, 337. Mr. Knapp says that since 1989, he has refused to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies at least 15 separate times. See id. at ¶ 306. B. Coeur d’Alene City Ordinance § 9.56 8. On June 4, 2013, the city of Coeur d’Alene passed Ordinance § 9.56, which makes it a misdemeanor crime “[t]o deny to or to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.” See id. at ¶¶ 314, 318; see also COEUR D’ALENE,
IDAHO ORDINANCES ch. 9.56.030(B).
9. The Ordinance defines “place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or
amusement” as follows:
PLACE OF PUBLIC RESORT, ACCOMMODATION, ASSEMBLAGE OR AMUSEMENT: Includes, but is not limited to, any public place, licensed or unlicensed, kept for gain, hire or reward, or where charges are made for admission, service, occupancy or use of any property or facilities, whether conducted for the entertainment, housing or lodging of transient guests, or for the benefit, use or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or for the sale of goods and merchandise, or for the rendering of personal services, or for public conveyance or transportation on land, water or in the air, including the stations and terminals thereof and the garaging of vehicles, or where food or beverages of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, or where public amusement, entertainment, sports or recreation of any kind is offered with or without charge, or where medical service or care is made available, or where the public gathers, congregates, or assembles for amusement, recreation or public purposes, or public halls, public elevators and public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two (2) or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants, or any public library or any educational institution wholly or partially supported by public funds, or schools of special instruction, or nursery schools, or daycare centers or children’s camps; nothing herein contained shall be construed to include, or apply to, any institute, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is by its nature distinctly private, provided that where public use is permitted that use shall be covered by this section; nor shall anything herein contained apply to any educational facility operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution.
Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶ 319 (Docket No. 29); see also COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO ORDINANCES
ch. 9.56.020. Plaintiffs contend that the Hitching Post is a “public accommodation” under the
Ordinance. See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 320-321 (Docket No. 29).
10. The Ordinance also contains certain “exceptions,” exempting particular entities
from its prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination; and specifically relevant here, the
Ordinance “does not apply to [r]eligious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or
societies.” See id. at ¶¶ 322, 323; see also COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO ORDINANCES ch.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

9.56.040(B)(1).3 The Ordinance does not define what constitutes “religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies.” See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶ 324 (Docket No. 29); see also generally COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO ORDINANCES ch. 9.56. C. The Recent Evolution of Same-Sex Marriage in Idaho
11. On May 13, 2014, U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale ruled that “Idaho Marriage Laws” (identified as “the Constitution and laws of the State of Idaho”) were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and permanently enjoined the State of Idaho from enforcing its laws to the extent the laws would prohibit same-sex marriage in Idaho or not recognize same-sex marriages celebrated outside Idaho. See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 335, 369 (Docket No. 29); see also Latta v. Otter, 19 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (D. Idaho 2014) (“Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental right to marry and relegate their families to a stigmatized, second-class status without sufficient reason for doing so. These laws do not withstand any applicable level of constitutional scrutiny.”).
12. On May 14, 2014, Judge Dale denied the Latta defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal and entered judgment in the Latta plaintiffs’ favor, consistent with the May 13, 2014 decision. The Latta defendants appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, on May 20, 2014, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal. See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶ 370.
3 From the Court’s perspective, there is no practical difference on this record (or, if so, any difference of any legal consequence) between being “exempt from” or “excepted from” a particular application, noting that the parties appear to have used such terminology interchangeably in both their briefing and during oral argument. Therefore, this Memorandum Decision and Order’s also uses such terms interchangeably. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

13. On October 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Dale’s decision in Latta.
See id. The Ninth Circuit reasoned:
Idaho[‘s] . . . marriage laws, by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated elsewhere, impose profound legal, financial, social and psychic harms on numerous citizens of those states. These harms are not inflicted on opposite-sex couples, who may, if they wish, enjoy the rights and assume the responsibilities of marriage. Laws that treat people differently based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional unless a “legitimate purpose . . . overcome[s]” the injury inflicted by the law on lesbians and gays and their families. . . . . Because defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456, 476 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted); see also Pls.’ Am.
Compl., ¶ 371 (Docket No. 29).
14. Upon application by Latta’s defendants, on October 8, 2014, the Supreme Court
temporarily stayed the Ninth Circuit’s mandate in Latta; that same day, the Ninth Circuit
withdrew its mandate, pending further order of the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. See Pls.’
Am. Compl., ¶ 374 (Docket No. 29).
15. On October 10, 2014, the Supreme Court formally denied the application for stay,
effectively vacating its October 8, 2014 order staying the proceedings; that same day, Latta’s
plaintiffs moved for dissolution of the May 20, 2014 stay pending appeal. See id. at ¶ 375.
16. On October 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit granted the Latta plaintiffs’ motion to
dissolve the May 20, 2014 stay pending appeal, effective at 9 a.m. on October 15, 2014
(effectively allowing county clerks throughout Idaho to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples as of October 15, 2014). See id. at ¶¶ 376-377.
17. On October 15, 2014, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Latta defendants were no longer entitled to a stay of this Court’s May 13, 2014 order. See Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 496 (9th
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

Cir. 2014) (finding support, in part, on Supreme Court’s October 6, 2014 decision to deny review of seven petitions arising from lower court decisions striking down bans on same-sex marriage in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia). Even so, the Ninth Circuit afforded the Latta defendants a second opportunity to obtain an emergency stay from the Supreme Court. Id. at 501.4
18. On October 21, 2014, the Latta defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit.
19. On November 6, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed five consolidated district court cases upholding challenges to marriage restrictions on same-sex couples in four Sixth Circuit states. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) (holding that involved states have no constitutional obligation to license same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state).5 Soon thereafter, the plaintiffs in the underlying district court cases submitted petitions for certiorari, requesting that the Supreme Court review the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
20. On December 30, 2014 and January 1, 2015, the Latta defendants submitted petitions for certiorari, requesting that the Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit’s October 7, 2014 judgment affirming Judge Dale’s May 13, 2014 decision in Latta.
4 It does not appear that the Latta defendants ever attempted to obtain a second emergency stay from the Supreme Court.
5 Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The plaintiffs in those cases (two cases from Ohio) filed suits in federal district courts in their home states, claiming that the defendant state officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another state given full recognition. Each district court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, but, on the defendants’ appeal, the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the judgments of the district courts. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

21. On January 9, 2015, the Ninth Circuit denied the Latta defendants’ petition for
rehearing en banc.
22. On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted review of the Sixth Circuit’s
November 6, 2014 decision in DeBoer, limited to these questions: (1) whether the Fourteenth
Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex; and (2)
whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed
and performed in a state which does grant that right.
23. On January 21, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate, stating that its October
7, 2014 judgment affirming Judge Dale’s decision in Latta became effective that same date.
24. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit in DeBoer,
holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between same-sex
couples and to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. See
Obergefell v. Hodges, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015). In doing so, Justice Kennedy,
writing for the majority, concluded:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Id. at 2608.
25. On June 30, 2015, consistent with its holding in Obergefell, the Supreme Court
denied the Latta defendants’ December 30, 2014 and January 1, 2015 petitions for certiorari.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10

D. The Knapps, Hitching Post, and Ordinance § 9.56 in the Wake of Latta 26. After learning that the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Dale’s decision in Latta, the
Knapps closed the Hitching Post on October 7 and 8, 2014, claiming that they had been informed by the City that they would be in violation of the Ordinance. See First Am. Compl., ¶ 372 (Docket No. 29). For these same reasons, the Knapps kept the Hitching Post closed on October 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 2014 as well. See id. at ¶ 378. The Knapps claim they lost clients on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 2015 and therefore lost income on these same days. See id. at ¶¶ 373, 379, 437.
27. On October 16, 2014, the Knapps re-opened the Hitching Post, but declined requests to perform any same-sex wedding ceremonies due to their sincerely held religious convictions and ministerial vows. See id. at ¶¶ 383-390. The Knapps and the Hitching Post continue to decline requests to perform same-sex wedding and commitment ceremonies. See id. at ¶¶ 304-306, 393, 395-407, 412-427.
28. On October 17, 2014, the Knapps filed this lawsuit as well as a motion for a temporary restraining order, alleging that (1) the City repeatedly informed them that the Ordinance applies to the Hitching Post, and (2) they had consistently declined to perform samesex wedding ceremonies,. See id. at ¶ 391, 392; see also Compl. (Docket No. 1); Mot. for TRO (Docket No. 3).
29. Since this action’s filing, the City has not enforced the Ordinance against either the Knapps or the Hitching Post. See First Am. Compl., ¶ 428 (Docket No. 29). Still, the Knapps claim to be in a “constant state of fear” that they may one day have to go to jail and/or pay substantial fines if they or the Hitching Post is determined to have violated the Ordinance.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11

See id. at ¶¶ 429-432. According to the Knapps, they cannot effectively plan the Hitching Post’s
business because of this imminent threat of prosecution. See id. at ¶¶ 433-436.
30. On October 20, 2014, Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Michael Gridley sent a letter
to Plaintiffs’ counsel, addressing the allegations made in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint.6 See id.
at ¶¶ 38, 443. Mr. Gridley’s letter states in relevant part:
I am the city attorney for the City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. As we discussed today by telephone I have reviewed the 63 page complaint and the attached exhibits filed by your clients in their lawsuit against the City. While I appreciate your clients’ concerns, it appears from the documents filed in their lawsuit that they are claiming to be operating a “religious corporation.” If they are truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City’s antidiscrimination ordinance, Municipal Code 9.56.010 et seq.
My office has responded to questions from your clients in the past and told them that, based on the facts presented and their corporate status at the time, they would likely be governed by the anti-discrimination ordinance if a complaint was made against them. Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation. However it now appears that on or about October 6, 2014, they filed with the Idaho Secretary of State as a religious corporation. These are new facts. If they are operating as a legitimate not-for-profit religious corporation then they are exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association. On the other hand, if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.
I want to be clear that absent a change in the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable state or federal law, the City will not prosecute legitimate, nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion. In addition to specifically exempting religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and societies, section 9.56.040 of the anti-discrimination ordinance state that the ordinance “shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with first
6 After multiple stays in the action and an earlier motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on March 16, 2015. See Stay Orders (Docket Nos. 16, 20, 22); see also Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 24); Pls.’ First Am. Compl. (Docket No. 29); infra.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12

amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.”
I believe that given the current facts your clients’ lawsuit is premature and not ripe for adjudication. As such, I would ask that you review this letter with your clients and urge them to dismiss their lawsuit before any more time and resources are expended. Please call me if you have any questions.
10/20/14 Ltr. from Gridley to Cortman, attached as Ex. 1 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl. (Docket No.
29, Att. 1) (emphasis in original).7
31. On October 9, 2014, Mr. Gridley sent a second letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel. See
Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶ 458 (Docket No. 29).8 Mr. Gridley’s letter states in relevant part:
This letter is intended as clarification of my letter to you on October 20, 2014 regarding the above referenced case.
Based on the facts presented to the city by your clients’ pleadings in the above referenced lawsuit and further review and analysis of the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance (MC 9.56.010, et seq.) It is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by the Hitching Post Weddings L.L.C. 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.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
10/23/14 Ltr. from Gridley to Cortman, attached as Ex. 9 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl. (Docket No.
29, Att. 9).
7 Plaintiffs claim that the for-profit/not-for-profit distinction raised within Mr. Gridley’s October 20, 2014 letter is consistent with earlier representations made by Coeur d’Alene Deputy City Attorney Warren Wilson to media outlets in May 2014 (after Judge Dale’s May 13, 2014 Latta decision). See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 6, 7, 338-360, 442 (Docket No. 29) (“ . . . Coeur d’Alene stated that Ordinance § 9.56 applies to for-profit business (like the Hitching Post) – the same interpretation the City communicated many times publicly and personally to the Knapps in the past.”). Following such representations, Mr. Knapp called the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office on two separate occasions to clarify whether the Ordinance applied to the Hitching Post. See id. at ¶¶ 9-13, 21-24, 366. Plaintiffs assert that they were told that they and the Hitching Post would violate the Ordinance and be subject to jail time and criminal fines if they declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. See id. at ¶¶ 14-19, 25-27, 367.
8 Plaintiffs imply that this second letter followed public outcry to Mr. Gridley’s October 20, 2014 letter. See Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 449-457 (Docket No. 29).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13

32. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint against the
City, alleging in part:
The First Amendment does not allow the government to force regular citizens or religious corporations much less ordained ministers to choose between suffering escalating fines and jail time for following their religious beliefs and ordination vows or forsaking their religious beliefs and ordination vows and perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. But that is exactly the choice City Ordinance § 9.56 required, and is still requiring, the Knapps to make. For these reasons, the Knapps and Hitching Post Weddings, LLC ask this Court to award them compensatory damages for the days they were forced to close due to the City’s threats to enforce Ordinance § 9.56 against them, and to enjoin the Ordinance and declare it unconstitutional as applied to them because this application violates the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act.
Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶ 45 (Docket No. 29). In turn, Plaintiffs assert the following causes of
action: (1) “Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech: Compelled
Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, Unconstitutional Conditions, and Unbridled Discretion”
(First Cause of Action); (2) “Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of
Religion” (Second Cause of Action); (3) “Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the Idaho Free
Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA)” (Third Cause of Action); (4) “Violation of
Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection” (Fourth Cause of Action); and (5)
“Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process” (Fifth Cause of Action).
See id. at ¶¶ 493-594; see also supra.
33. On March 30, 2015, the City filed the at-issue Motion to Dismiss, arguing that
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint should be dismissed because they lack standing and their
claims are not ripe for review. See MTD, p. 1 (Docket No. 31). More to the point, the City
submits that, because the Hitching Post qualifies as a religious corporation, it is exempt from its
mandate; and, because the Ordinance does not apply to the Hitching Post or the Knapps, they
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14

necessarily lack standing to bring this lawsuit and their claims are not ripe for review. See Mem. in Supp. of MTD, pp. 2, 9-20 (Docket No. 31, Att. 1).
III. TIMELINE OF IMPORTANT EVENTS As apparent from the factual background, there are many moving parts to this dispute. Hence, the Court will crystallize here the above-referenced factual backdrop into the following timeline, outlining the most integral events which inform the issues raised within Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and by Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:

Date 1989
June 4, 2013 May 13, 2014
May/June 2014
September 12, 2014
October 6, 2014
October 7, 2014 October 7-11, 14-15,
2014 October 15, 2014

Event
The Knapps purchase the Hitching Post, creating a new corporation in Washington named D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. The Knapps incorporate D.L.K. Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A the Hitching Post as a “profit corporation” under Washington law.
The City of Coeur d’Alene passes Ordinance § 9.56.
Judge Dale invalidates the Idaho laws defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman in Latta v. Otter.
The City indicates to media outlets and to Mr. Knapp that the Ordinance applies to places of public accommodation, including the Hitching Post.
The Knapps create a new business entity – Hitching Post Weddings, LLC – by filing a certificate of organization with the Idaho Secretary of State. Hitching Post, LLC is a for-profit corporation.
The Knapps execute an “Operating Agreement” and new employee and customer policies, identifying the Hitching Post as a “religious corporation” with a “religious purpose.”
The Ninth Circuit affirms Latta.
The Hitching Post closes.
County clerks throughout Idaho are permitted to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15

October 16, 2014 October 17, 2014 October 20, 2014
October 23, 2014
March 16, 2015

The Hitching Post re-opens.
Plaintiffs file their original Complaint against the City.
Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Michael Gridley writes his first letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Michael Gridley writes his second letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Plaintiffs file their First Amended Complaint against the City.

IV. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards: Standing and Ripeness
Article III of the Constitution confines the work of a federal court to adjudication of actual “cases” or “controversies.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separate of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). To satisfy Article III’s “case” and “controversy” requirement, a plaintiff must have standing to bring the complaint, and the claims asserted must be “ripe for review.” See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). The City’s Motion to Dismiss raises both standing and ripeness issues.
The focus of an Article III standing analysis rests “on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 (1968). To establish standing under Article III, the party in question must prove: (1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a fairly traceable causal connection between the injury alleged and the conduct in dispute; and (3) a sufficient likelihood that the relief sought will redress the injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).9

9 In addition to these constitutional requirements, courts must also consider a prudential component to standing. “[P]rudential standing . . . embodies judicially self-imposed limits on
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 16

As a corollary to the standing requirement, the claim itself must be ripe for review. The
“ripeness inquiry is often treated under the rubric of standing,” and “in many cases, ripeness
coincides squarely with standing’s injury-in-fact prong.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Com’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000). Indeed, ripeness can be understood as standing on a
timeline. See id. (“Ripeness is peculiarly a question of timing, designed to prevent the courts,
through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract
disagreements. Our role is neither to issue advisory opinions nor to declare rights in
hypothetical cases, but to adjudicate live cases or controversies consistent with the powers
granted the judiciary in Article III of the Constitution.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “And, in measuring whether the litigant has asserted an injury that is real and concrete
rather than speculative and hypothetical, the ripeness inquiry merges almost completely with
standing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
To determine whether a case is ripe, courts consider two factors: (1) the fitness of the
issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties stemming from the withholding of court consideration. See Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174, 1179 (9th Cir.
2010).
the exercise of federal jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)). These limits include “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights . . . .” Id. (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)); see also Alaska Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Feldman, 504 F.3d 840, 848-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[P]rudential standing concerns require that we consider, for example, whether the alleged injury is more than a ‘mere generalized grievance,’ whether the plaintiff is asserting her own rights or the rights of third parties, and whether the claim ‘falls within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the constitutional guarantee in question.’”) (quoting Johnson v. Stuart, 702 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1983)). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 17

B. Plaintiffs’ Standing to Bring Claims for Economic Injury and a Pre-Enforcement Challenge to the Ordinance The allegations contained within Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint unquestionably
describe important constitutional issues that arouse sincere and strongly-held convictions among various cross-sections of the public. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind what this Memorandum Decision and Order speaks to, and what it does not.
To be clear, the substantive legal merits of Plaintiffs’ underlying allegations and the corresponding reactions arising therefrom are not addressed here. Instead, before even reaching such a juncture, the question of whether Plaintiffs have standing to bring the claims asserted in their First Amended Complaint must be answered. See supra. It is in this latter, more fundamental respect, that this Memorandum Decision and Order is focused upon.
Framed thusly, it is worth reiterating that even though the background of this case dates back to 1989 (when the Knapps first purchased the Hitching Post), the actual time period giving rise to Plaintiffs’ particular claims is a relatively short one – only 16 days (the period from October 7, 2014 when Plaintiffs closed the Hitching Post, to October 23, 2014 when City Attorney Michael Gridley wrote his second letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel). During that time, neither the Knapps nor the Hitching Post was ever cited or prosecuted pursuant to the Ordinance. Even so, Plaintiffs contend that they have standing to (1) seek compensatory damages for the seven days the Hitching Post was closed, owing to the City’s alleged threats (both public and private) to enforce the Ordinance and prosecute the Knapps for following their religious convictions and refusing to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies; and (2) prospectively enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance as unconstitutional. Each of these arguments vis à vis standing responds to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and is addressed in turn below.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 18

1. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Bring Claims for Certain Economic Injuries “[P]alpable economic injuries have long been recognized as sufficient to lay the basis for standing.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733-34 (1972); see also San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1130 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Economic injury is clearly a sufficient basis for standing.”). As with any injury that is alleged for purposes of establishing standing for purposes, economic injuries must be “concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Central Arizona Water Conservation Dist. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 990 F.2d 1531, 1537 (9th Cir. 1993); see also National Audubon Soc’y, Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 856 (9th Cir. 2002) (economic harm must be “actual, discrete, and direct.”). Here, Plaintiffs – as the members, owners, and operators of the Hitching Post – contend that, due to the City’s alleged threat to enforce the Ordinance against them, they had no choice but to close the Hitching Post for seven days in October 2014 to avoid being prosecuted. See Opp. to MTD, pp. 8-9 (Docket No. 33) (citing Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶ 372 (Docket No. 29)). Further, according to Plaintiffs, for each day the Hitching Post was closed, they lost income. See id. at p. 9 (citing Pls.’ First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 373, 378-79 (Docket No. 29)). The City does not dispute that lost income can represent an injury-in-fact for the purposes of conferring Article III standing. Rather, the City argues that Plaintiffs’ alleged economic injuries are speculative and without the requisite level of particularity. See Mem. in Supp. of MTD, p. 13 (Docket No. 31, Att. 1) (“Plaintiffs never allege that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates. Instead, their allegation is purely speculative and hypothetical. Plaintiffs merely assume that they would have had a customer had they remained open.”). The undersigned disagrees.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 19

For purposes of deciding the City’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs’ allegations that they lost business and income as a result of being closed for seven days must be accepted as true. See City of Los Angeles v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 22 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“When a motion to dismiss attacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) on the face of the complaint, the court assumes the factual allegations in the complaint are true and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor.”) (citing Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009)). Besides, it does not stretch the boundaries of reasonableness to conclude that, in closing for seven days an otherwise open and operating business catering in part to walk-in trade, lost income would understandably follow. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (in terms of Article III standing, complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact in the form of economic injury and therefore have satisfied the first prong of Article III standing.
Article III’s second prong – a fairly traceable causal connection between Plaintiffs’ alleged economic injury and the City’s alleged conduct – is more problematic. Not surprisingly, the parties are in significant disagreement on this issue. On one hand, the City argues that between May 2014 and early September 2014, it had no reason to believe that the Hitching Post was a religious corporation excepted from the Ordinance. See Mem. in Supp. of MTD, p. 3 (Docket No. 31, Att. 1) (“At the time, city officials had no knowledge or information which would lead them to believe that the Knapps operated a ‘religious corporation.’ In fact, the Knapps still operated the Hitching Post as the S-Corporation and had not yet memorialized their purpose, character, ethos, and goals.”). Hence, during this period of time, the City argues that it
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 20

reasonably commented that the Ordinance applies to places of public accommodation, such as, for instance, the Hitching Post, in the event same-sex marriages were to be made legal by decision of the courts. See id. The City then contends that it was unaware that the Knapps created a new business entity around September 12, 2014, and, around October 6, 2014, took further action intending to confirm that the Hitching Post’s purpose was, at least in part, to promote biblical marriages (intending, it would seem, to seek a safe harbor under the Ordinance as a religious corporation by virtue of its Operating Agreement and employee/customer policies). See id. at pp. 4-5, 13-14. The ultimate result of such acts, according to the City, was that the Hitching Post was obviously a religious corporation exempt from the Ordinance as of October 6, 2014, such that any decision to close for business thereafter was a unilateral decision of the Knapps, independent of any actual or perceived threat on the City’s part to prosecute Plaintiffs for violating the Ordinance. See id. at pp. 5, 14.
On the other hand, Plaintiffs take issue with the City’s back-in-time assessment of the record. Plaintiffs assert that to now claim in a motion to dismiss that the Hitching Post was a religious corporation as of October 6, 2014 (and therefore absolutely not subject to the Ordinance as of that same date) ignores what actually took place during this time and which prompted the Knapps to close the Hitching Post for seven days beginning on October 7, 2015. According to Plaintiffs, the City squarely positioned the Hitching Post within the cross-hairs of the Ordinance in May and June of 2014, when the City indicated that for-profit wedding chapels like the Hitching Post would be in violation of the Ordinance if they declined to perform samesex wedding ceremonies should same-sex marriage become legal. See Opp. to MTD, pp. 1-4 (Docket No. 33). Hence, the Knapps contend, they did what any reasonable business owner
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 21

would have done; they closed down the Hitching Post on October 7, 2014 when the Ninth Circuit affirmed Latta. See id. at p. 1 (“The City cannot now disclaim responsibility for causing the Knapps to close the Hitching Post given that, in addition to the threats of criminal liability, the city made clear multiple times that it is the Hitching Post’s status as a for-profit corporation that makes them subject to [Ordinance] § 9.56.”) (emphasis in original).
In this setting, the City’s position that Plaintiffs received no threats of prosecution leading up to October 7, 2014 is not persuasive. The allegations contained within the First Amended Complaint plausibly describe that Plaintiffs believed that they faced prosecution under the Ordinance based upon what the City had said in May and June of 2014 (comments made by City employees to the media and in telephone conversations with Mr. Knapp himself). That the City may not have been completely aware of (or more fully scrutinized) the apparent religious underpinnings of the Hitching Post’s business plan may explain the City’s frame-of-mind when taking the positions it did leading up to October 7, 2014; however, such a misunderstanding cannot insulate it from any argument that its conduct led to the Knapps’ decision to close the Hitching Post. And, significantly, while the City now claims that the Hitching Post was a religious corporation exempt from the Ordinance as of October 6, 2014,10 nothing in the record indicates that it ever made this position clearly known to anyone – at least not before Mr. Gridley’s second letter dated October 23, 2014. In fact, Mr. Gridley’s first letter of October 20, 2014 carries a reasonable inference at the minimum that Plaintiffs could be prosecuted under the
10 Separately, this position ignores any distinction the City may have made at that time about for-profit religious corporations and not-for-profit religious corporations. See, e.g., See 10/20/14 Ltr. from Gridley to Cortman, attached as Ex. 1 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl. (Docket No. 29, Att. 1); but see Gridley Decl., ¶ 10 (Docket No. 31, Att. 2) (indicating that Hitching Post’s for-profit status “did not alter my conclusion that Plaintiffs operated a religious corporation exempt from the ordinance.”). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 22

Ordinance – even after the Hitching Post had closed down for seven days and re-opened on October 16, 2014 – particularly in its reference to “if they are truly operating...as a legitimate not-for-profit religious corporation....” (Emphasis supplied.) See 10/20/14 Ltr. from Gridley to Cortman, attached as Ex. 1 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl. (Docket No. 29, Att. 1) (“If they are truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation they would be specifically exempted from the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance . . . . If they are operating as a legitimate not-for-profit religious corporation then they are exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association. On the other hand, if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”) (bold in original, italics added).11
At best, until October 23, 2014, the City’s position on whether the Ordinance applied to Plaintiffs was less than clear. See, e.g., Gridley Decl., ¶ 10 (Docket No. 31, Att. 2) (“[R]ecognizing that my first letter may have caused confusion, I sent a second letter to Plaintiffs’ attorney on October 23, 2014 . . ., clarifying that Plaintiffs were exempt from the antidiscrimination ordinance and would not be subject to prosecution under the ordinance.”).
At the same time, Plaintiffs’ arguments are not without their own peculiarities that, alongside the City’s sometimes problematic arguments (see supra), create the entire lens through which this action is viewed. To begin, in the month immediately preceding the Hitching Post’s closing, the Knapps created a new business entity and executed documents explicitly identifying
11 Plaintiffs point to Mr. Gridley’s two letters as evidence of the City’s threats to prosecute them under the Ordinance. See, e.g., Opp. to MTD, pp. 5-6, 13-16 (Docket No. 33). The connection is absent, however, as it would have been impossible for these later-in-time letters to have been part of the Knapps’ decision to close the Hitching Post on October 7, 2014. Nonetheless, these letters are helpful at testing the City’s characterization of threats directed at Plaintiffs. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 23

the Hitching Post as a religious corporation with a religious purpose. Yet, the Knapps never informed the City of these actions, even though Mr. Knapp’s had telephone conversations with City employees in May and June of 2014 about the City’s view of the Ordinance and its impact upon the Hitching Post. By not bringing such information to the attention of the City at that time, the Knapps arguably chose to forgo the possibility of an informal resolution (after a more thorough examination of the changed procedural and legal landscape). Instead, they decided to close the Hitching Post – yet, they did so on the day after the Hitching Post formalized its status as a religious corporation and described its religious purpose.
Of course, Plaintiffs were not obligated to convey such information to the City and their decision not to do so does not direct the Court’s decision as to the merits of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. But, even so, Plaintiffs’ own conduct and motivations during this time are not without their own set of questions. Nonetheless, any such concerns do not overcome the fact that, when accepting the allegations raised within Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as true, Plaintiffs plausibly have identified conduct on the part of the City that allegedly contributed to the Knapps’ decision to close the Hitching Post which, in turn, allegedly caused Plaintiffs to suffer economic losses.
The inquiry, however, has yet more layers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for the seven days the Hitching Post was closed. However, as the City emphasizes, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho until October 15, 2014 at 9 a.m. – after the Ninth Circuit granted the Latta plaintiffs’ motion to dissolve the then-pending May 20, 2014 stay pending appeal. See Mem. in Supp. of MTD, p. 14 (Docket No. 31, Att. 1). In other words, even if the Ordinance applied to Plaintiffs, there could have been no violation (by anyone) for refusing to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies until October 15, 2014. Accordingly, Plaintiffs could not have violated the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 24

Ordinance by refusing to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2014. Their claim was not factually choate until October 15, 2014, and therefore their claim for economic injury allegedly caused by the City’s alleged conduct could only exist as of that same date.
Hence, Plaintiffs have standing to bring such a claim for economic injury, but it is limited to that single day of October 15, 2014; in this respect, the City’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. However, Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a claim for economic injuries on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2014; in this respect, the City’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
2. Plaintiffs Do Not Have Standing to Bring a Pre-Enforcement Challenge to the Ordinance
In the context of establishing standing, the Supreme Court has explained that “[a] plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement.” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979); see also Libertarian Party v. Bowen, 709 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013). Still, “[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending, that is enough.” Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298.
First Amendment challenges, like Plaintiffs’ pre-enforcement challenge here, “present unique standing considerations” such that “the inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing.” Ariz. Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). That is so because, as the Supreme Court recognized, a chilling of the exercise of First Amendment rights is, itself, a constitutionally sufficient injury. Id.; see also Human Life of Wash. Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen a challenged statute risks chilling the exercise of First Amendment rights, the Supreme
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 25

Court has dispensed with rigid standing requirements and recognized ‘self-censorship’ as a harm that can be realized even without an actual prosecution.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]here a plaintiff has refrained from engaging in expressive activity for fear of prosecution under the challenged statute, such self-censorship is a constitutionally sufficient injury as long as it is based on an actual and well-founded fear that the challenged statute will be enforced.” Human Life, 624 F.3d at 1001 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To satisfy Article III’s injury-in fact requirement (see supra), courts must evaluate whether a claimed threat of prosecution is genuine. Doing so requires the examination of three factors: “(1) whether the plaintiffs have articulated a ‘concrete plan’ to violate the law in question, (2) whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and (3) the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute.” McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1021 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Each of these factors weighs against a finding that Plaintiffs have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to the Ordinance.
First, the Knapps’ insistence that they will refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies does not describe a “concrete plan” to violate the Ordinance. See Opp. to MTD, pp. 10-11 (Docket No. 33) (“[Plaintiffs] continue to receive and decline specific requests to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, thus leaving no doubt that they will violate § 9.56 in the future.”). To the contrary, where the City does not dispute Plaintiffs’ status as meeting the safe harbor of a “religious corporation” under the Ordinance (see supra), the fact that Plaintiffs do not (and will not) perform same-sex wedding ceremonies does not amount to a violation (or a plan to
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 26

violate) the Ordinance. Simply put, there is no past or future actionable violation of the
Ordinance on these facts given the Knapps’ assertion that their business if a religious corporation under the Ordinance, and the City’s stipulation to the same upon the facts of this case.12
Plaintiffs’ concern that the Hitching Post’s protected status may change in the future (to the point
that it would then be unequivocally violating the Ordinance) is not sufficiently actual or
imminent. See id. at pp. 3, 6, 11-12, 15-16, 19 (arguing that the City has “flip-flopped” on
question of wether Hitching Post is religious corporation exempt from the Ordinance). It is true
that the City’s position as to the Hitching Post’s status as a protected religious corporation under
the Ordinance can be characterized as a position that has evolved over time. See supra.
However, the Court is satisfied that such an evolution reflects only the unsettled nature of events
surrounding both the Hitching Post’s identity and purpose as it pertained to the manner in which
the Ordinance would apply to their business operations as of Fall 2014. Such a denouement in
the City’s legal position – premised as it was upon imperfect fact-gathering and arguably
reflexive legal analysis – is hardly unusual. As such, and on this record, that change does not
cast into doubt and unwind the City’s ultimate decision on the issue. The fact remains that since
Mr. Gridley’s October 23, 2014 letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel, there has been no suggestion that
12 The Court does not adopt Plaintiffs’ strict position that, even though the Hitching Post may be an excepted religious corporation, it nonetheless violates the Ordinance when it refuses to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies. See Opp. to MTD, p. 11 (Docket No. 33) (“It is plain that the Knapps violate the ordinance when they decline to perform a same-sex ceremony because they are a for-profit business, a fact the city confirmed multiple times both before and after the lawsuit was filed. It is a separate question whether an organization is exempt from the organization.”) (emphasis in original). Any technical distinction in this regard still does not amount to the sort of concrete plan to violate the Ordinance that would be required in order for Plaintiffs to pursue a pre-enforcement challenge here. Even if incorrect, other factors apply to preclude Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue their pre-enforcement challenge. See infra. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 27

Plaintiffs do not remain an excepted religious corporation under the Ordinance.13 As a result,
there can be no legitimate “concrete plan” to violate the Ordinance.
Second, it likewise cannot be said that prosecuting authorities have communicated a
specific warning or threat to prosecute Plaintiffs for violating the Ordinance. For example, on
March 23, 2014, Mr. Gridley said in a perfectly clear fashion, that:
Based on the facts presented to the city by your clients’ pleadings in the above referenced lawsuit and further review and analysis of the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance (MC 9.56.010, et seq.) It is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by the Hitching Post Weddings L.L.C. 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.
10/23/14 Ltr. from Gridley to Cortman, attached as Ex. 9 to Pls.’ First Am. Compl. (Docket No.
29, Att. 9) (emphasis added); see also Gridley Decl., ¶ 11 (Docket Nos. 24, Att. 2 & 31, Att. 2)
(after being notified that Plaintiffs would not perform same-sex wedding ceremony, “I informed
the Police Department that Plaintiffs had committed no legal wrong and would not be prosecuted
for any violation”). Moreover, Mr. Gridley on behalf of the City has said to the Plaintiffs that
“they will not be prosecuted for refusing to perform same-sex marriages” and that “[s]o long as
Plaintiffs remain a religious corporation, [they] will not be prosecuted pursuant to [the
Ordinance].” Gridley Decl., ¶ 11 (Docket Nos. 24, Att. 2 & 31, Att. 2). See, e.g., Sacks v. Office
13 Because the Hitching Post is understood to be a religious corporation and therefore excepted from the Ordinance, the Court declines Plaintiffs’ invitation to weigh in on the contours of any definition of “religious corporation.” See Opp. to MTD, pp. 6, 12, 15 (Docket No. 33). Perhaps, if the opposite was true and the Hitching Post was not considered to be religious corporation and thus was subject to the Ordinance, such an exercise would be proper and Plaintiffs would have standing to raise the argument. Until then, however, it is patently obvious that the issue is just not ripe for this Court’s consideration. See, e.g., Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1141 (on “prudential component of the ripeness doctrine,” concluding that “[a] concrete factual situation is necessary to delineate the boundaries of what conduct the government may or may not regulate. . . . . This case is a classic one for invoking the maxim that we do not decide constitutional questions in a vacuum.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 28

of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that, although plaintiff
had more than “concrete plan” to violate at-issue restriction, and that defendant had historically
targeted other alleged violators of restriction, he failed to demonstrate requisite “specific
warning or threat to initiate proceedings” given defendant’s decision not to penalize him for
numerous known violations of restriction); but cf. Taylor v. Brasuell, 2015 WL 413940, *6-7 (D.
Idaho 2015) (finding plaintiff’s concerns about possible future harms appropriate, despite
defendant’s cessation of complained-of conduct).14 Ultimately, Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate any specific threat of prosecution for future violations of the Ordinance. See
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000) (noting that
Article III requires plaintiff’s injury to be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical”).15
14 In Taylor, this Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss on mootness grounds, concluding that the defendant’s post-litigation conduct (allowing the plaintiff to be interred with her same-sex spouse at the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery), while consistent with the relief originally sought, did not insulate the plaintiff from potential future harm. See Taylor, 2015 WL 413940 at *6-7. However, after noting the differences between mootness and standing inquiries in the first instance, the undersigned pointed out that, at nearly every turn in the history leading up to (and even subsuming) the case itself, the defendant had vigorously sought to uphold Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban which, if eventually successful, would have necessarily harmed plaintiff on the unusual facts of that case. See id. at *7. Here, the City’s quantum of conduct is not on the same order as the defendant’s conduct in Taylor – the record now before the Court offers no indication that the City would prosecute Plaintiffs for violating the Ordinance if simply given the chance; indeed, had the City wanted to so prosecute Plaintiffs, they would have done so already.
15 To the extent Plaintiffs argue that the City’s conduct in Spring/Fall 2014 represents a sufficient threat of prosecution, it is misplaced for the purposes of any prospective preenforcement challenge. See Opp. to MTD, pp. 13-15 (Docket No. 33). Such arguments speak to the Knapps’ decision to close the Hitching Post for seven days in September 2014 and their corresponding claim for economic damages during that time. See supra; see also Opp. to MTD,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 29

Third, Plaintiffs have not identified any instance in which the City has initiated
proceedings against an individual or business for violating the Ordinance, or prosecuted anyone
for the violating any provision of the entire ordinance. See Gridley Decl., ¶ 5 (Docket Nos. 24,
Att. 2 & 31, Att. 2) (“The anti-discrimination ordinance has been in force for approximately one
and one-half years, and the City has pursued no prosecution pursuant to the ordinance.”). The
lack of any such enforcement history does not support a finding that Plaintiffs have standing to
bring a pre-enforcement challenge to the Ordinance.16
Without the presence of any of the factors necessary to establish standing for a pre-
enforcement challenge, Plaintiffs cannot bring a pre-enforcement challenge to the Ordinance.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is therefore granted in this respect.
///
///
///
p. 14 (Docket No. 33) (“The City cannot retroactively undo the actual and real harm its repeated threats caused the Knapps (namely, loss of clients and income due to business closure) by claiming after suit is filed that it no longer intends to enforce the ordinance against them.”). However, they no longer represent any threat of prosecution in the future, given the City’s clear position that Plaintiffs qualify for the protections afforded a religious corporation and will not be prosecuted for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings. See supra.
16 Plaintiffs assert that, at the very least, the lack of historical enforcement is a neutral factor given that it has only “been on the books for a little over a year.” Opp. to MTD, p. 15 (Docket No. 33) (citing Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1140-41 (9th Cir. 1999)). In Thomas, the Ninth Circuit nonetheless concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. See Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1141 (“Considering the applicable factors, we hold that any threat of enforcement or prosecution against the landlords in this case – though theoretically possible – is not reasonable or imminent. The asserted threat is contingent upon the occurrence of unforeseeable events . . . . The landlords at this time do not confront a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement, and thus this dispute is not justiciable, because it is not ripe for court review.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 30

V. ORDER Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 31) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as follows: 1. Plaintiffs have standing to bring a claim for economic injuries for the single day of October 15, 2014; in this respect, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; 2. Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a claim for economic injuries for other periods, to include October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2014; in this respect, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to Ordinance § 9.56; in this respect, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
DATED: March 25, 2016
Honorable Ronald E. Bush Chief U. S. Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 31

 
 Case 2:14-cv-441 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 1 of 7
CONMAG,LCDG,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 6.2.2 (CDA − Northern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−00441−REB

Knapp et al v. City of Coeur d'Alene Assigned to: Judge Ronald E. Bush Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Donald Knapp

Date Filed: 10/17/2014 Date Terminated: 05/03/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by David Andrew Cortman ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd, NE Suite D−1100 Lawrenceville, GA 30043 770−339−0774 Fax: 770−339−6744 Email: dcortman@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy D Tedesco Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020x8051 Email: jtedesco@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Matthew Sharp Alliance Defending Freedom 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D−1100 Lawrenceville, GA 30043 (770) 339−0774 Email: msharp@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan A Scruggs Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020x8007 Email: jscruggs@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin H Theriot Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480480.444.0020 Email: ktheriot@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case 2:14-cv-441 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 2 of 7

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rory Thomas Gray Alliance Defending Freedom 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D−1100 Lawrenceville, GA 30043 770−339−0774 Email: rgray@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Virginia McNulty Robinson Attorneys Northwest, Inc. 1910 Northwest Blvd, Suite 200 Coeur d' Alene, ID 83814 208−664−1139 Email: vrobinson@attorneysnw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Evelyn Knapp

represented by David Andrew Cortman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy D Tedesco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Matthew Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan A Scruggs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin H Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rory Thomas Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Virginia McNulty Robinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 2:14-cv-441 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 3 of 7

Plaintiff Hitching Post Weddings LLC

represented by David Andrew Cortman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy D Tedesco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Matthew Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan A Scruggs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin H Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rory Thomas Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Virginia McNulty Robinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Coeur d'Alene

represented by Jacob H. Naylor NAYLOR & HALES, P.C. 950 W. Bannock Street Ste. 610 Boise, ID 83702 208−383−9511 Email: jake@naylorhales.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kirtlan G Naylor NAYLOR & HALES 950 W Bannock Ste 610 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 383−9511 Email: kirt@naylorhales.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 2:14-cv-441 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 4 of 7

Landon Scott Brown Naylor & Hales PC 950 W. Bannock St. Suite 610 Boise, ID 83702 208−947−2085 Email: landon@naylorhales.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/17/2014
10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/17/2014 10/20/2014 10/20/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against City of Coeur d'Alene ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0976−1219793.), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Summons to City Attorney, # 3 Summons Summons to Mayor, # 4 Exhibit 1 to Complaint, # 5 Exhibit 2 to Complaint, # 6 Exhibit 3 to Complaint, # 7 Exhibit 4 to Complaint, # 8 Exhibit 5 to Complaint, # 9 Exhibit 6 to Complaint, # 10 Exhibit 7 to Complaint, # 11 Exhibit 8 to Complaint)(Robinson, Virginia) Modified on 10/20/2014 − Exhibit 5 (1 CD), Exhibit 6 (1 CD), and Exhibit 7 (1 CD) received by the Clerk's Office and is on the shelf in the file room (st).
2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. (Robinson, Virginia)
3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Virginia McNulty Robinson appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 11/10/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Robinson, Virginia)
4 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by David A. Cortman. ( Filing fee $ 225 receipt number 0976−1219848.)Virginia McNulty Robinson appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 11/10/2014 (Robinson, Virginia)
5 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Kevin H. Theriot. ( Filing fee $ 225 receipt number 0976−1219878.)Virginia McNulty Robinson appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 11/10/2014 (Robinson, Virginia)
6 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Jeremy D. Tedesco. ( Filing fee $ 225 receipt number 0976−1219884.)Virginia McNulty Robinson appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 11/10/2014 (Robinson, Virginia)
7 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Jonathan A. Scruggs. ( Filing fee $ 225 receipt number 0976−1219886.)Virginia McNulty Robinson appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 11/10/2014 (Robinson, Virginia)
8 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Rory Thomas Gray. ( Filing fee $ 225 receipt number 0976−1219889.)Virginia McNulty Robinson appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 11/10/2014 (Robinson, Virginia)
9 Summons Issued as to City of Coeur d'Alene. (Print attached Summons for service.) (Attachments: # 1 issued summons)(st)
10 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER approving 4 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney David Andrew Cortman for Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, and Evelyn Knapp; approving 5 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Kevin H Theriot for Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, and Evelyn Knapp; approving 6 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Jeremy D Tedesco for Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, and Evelyn Knapp; approving 7 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Jonathan A Scruggs for Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, and Evelyn Knapp; approving 8 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Rory Thomas Gray for Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, and Evelyn Knapp. Per General Order 206, out−of−state counsel shall

Case 2:14-cv-441 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 5 of 7

10/21/2014 10/27/2014 10/28/2014 10/28/2014 10/29/2014
11/10/2014 11/24/2014
12/02/2014 12/03/2014 01/06/2015 01/07/2015 01/28/2015 02/02/2015
02/02/2015 02/23/2015

immediately register for ECF. (Notice sent to CM/ECF Registration Clerk) (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Kirtlan G Naylor on behalf of City of Coeur d'Alene (Naylor, Kirtlan)
12 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for City of Coeur d'Alene, Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp re 11 Notice of Appearance. Consent/Objection to Magistrate due by 12/29/2014. (st)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hitching Post Weddings LLC. City of Coeur d'Alene served on 10/20/2014, answer due 11/10/2014. (Robinson, Virginia)
14 ERRATA re 13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hitching Post Weddings LLC. (Robinson, Virginia) Modified on 10/29/2014 to edit text per Corrective Entry (cjm).
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 14 Summons Returned Executed filed by Hitching Post Weddings LLC was filed incorrectly in this case as the wrong event was used. This document is a corrected version of the document filed at Docket 13 so the correct event is Errata. No action is needed by the filing party as the Clerk's Office will edit the entry. (cjm)
15 Joint MOTION to Stay Pending Potential Settlement Kirtlan G Naylor appearing for Defendant City of Coeur d'Alene. Responses due by 12/4/2014 (Naylor, Kirtlan)
16 ORDER RE: JOINT PETITION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT 15 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proceedings in this matter will be stayed for 60 days from the date of the parties' request; therefore, Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' Complaint is due on or before 1/9/2015.The parties are additionally reminded of the 10/27/2014 Notice of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent 12 . Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
17 Docket entry only − CONSENT to Magistrate Judge filed. (st) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
18 ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED TO PROCEED BEFORE A US MAGISTRATE JUDGE(st) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
19 Second MOTION to Stay Pending Potential Settlement Kirtlan G Naylor appearing for Defendant City of Coeur d'Alene. Responses due by 1/30/2015 (Naylor, Kirtlan)
20 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER GRANTING 19 Second Joint Petition for Stay of Proceedings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proceedings in this matter will be stayed for twenty−one (21) days; therefore, Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' Complaint is due on or before January 30, 2015. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (dg)
21 Third MOTION to Stay Pending Potential Settlement Kirtlan G Naylor appearing for Defendant City of Coeur d'Alene. Responses due by 2/23/2015 (Naylor, Kirtlan)
22 ORDER RE: THIRD JOINT PETITION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS re 21 Third Joint Petition for Stay of Proceedings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proceedings in this matter will be stayed until 2/27/2015, at which time Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Complaint will be due. This being the third stay, no additional stays will be granted. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
23 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 3/4/2015 02:00 PM (Mountain)in Telephonic Hearing − Boise Courtroom 7 before Judge Ronald E. Bush. (Attachments: # 1 Litigation Plan Materials due 3/2/15 at 5pm (Mtn.). * Instructions for preparation of conference are contained in this Notice with attachments.(lc)
24 MOTION to Dismiss Kirtlan G Naylor appearing for Defendant City of Coeur d'Alene. Responses due by 3/19/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Declaration of M. Gridley, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of M. Gridley, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of M. Gridley)(Naylor, Kirtlan)

Case 2:14-cv-441 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 6 of 7

03/02/2015 03/04/2015
03/09/2015 03/09/2015
03/16/2015
03/19/2015 03/30/2015
03/31/2015
04/23/2015 05/11/2015 06/02/2015 06/16/2015 07/07/2015 07/09/2015

25 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FORM − LITIGATION PLAN by Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. (Robinson, Virginia)
26 DOCKET TEXT AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: The TSC set for today is VACATED and reset. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 3/9/2015 11:30 AM( (**MOUNTAIN TIME) in Telephonic Hearing − Boise Courtroom 7 before Judge Ronald E. Bush. *Ms.Robinson shall initiate the Conference Call to (208) 334−1495.(lc)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ronald E. Bush: Scheduling Conference held on 3/9/2015. Case Management Order shall be entered setting forth deadlines. (Court Reporter/ESR lcase.) (lc)
28 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 4/17/2015. Factual Discovery due by 9/4/2015. Joinder of Parties due by 4/17/2015. Judicially Supervised Settlement Conference shall be held by 8/31/2015. Dispositive Motions due by 10/16/2015. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against City of Coeur d'Alene, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Robinson, Virginia) Modified on 3/17/2015 − Exhibit 6 (1 DVD), Exhibit 7 (1 DVD), and Exhibit 8 (1 DVD) received by the Clerk's Office and is on the shelf in the file room (st).
30 RESPONSE to Motion re 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Replies due by 4/6/2015.(Robinson, Virginia)
31 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Kirtlan G Naylor appearing for Defendant City of Coeur d'Alene. Responses due by 4/23/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Declaration of M. Gridley, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of M. Gridley, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of M. Gridley)(Naylor, Kirtlan)
32 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS denying as moot 3 Motion for TRO and denying as moot 24 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
33 RESPONSE to Motion re 31 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Replies due by 5/11/2015.(Robinson, Virginia)
34 REPLY to Response to Motion re 31 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by City of Coeur d'Alene.(Naylor, Kirtlan)
35 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 31 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint : Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2015 01:15 PM (Pacific Time) in Coeur d Alene − District Courtroom before Judge Ronald E. Bush. (lc)
36 DOCKET TEXT *AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 31 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint : * This Hearing requires a TIME CHANGE ONLY to 11:15 am (Pacific) Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2015 11:15 AM in Coeur d Alene − District Courtroom before Judge Ronald E. Bush. (lc)
37 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by J. Matthew Sharp. ( Filing fee $ 225 receipt number 0976−1320357.)Virginia McNulty Robinson appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 7/31/2015 (Robinson, Virginia)
38 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER approving 37 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney John Matthew Sharp for Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, and Evelyn Knapp. Per General Order 206, out−of−state counsel shall immediately register for ECF. (Notice sent to CM/ECF Registration Clerk) (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

Case 2:14-cv-441 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 7 of 7

07/20/2015 07/27/2015 07/28/2015
12/01/2015 03/25/2016
04/04/2016 04/05/2016
04/29/2016 05/03/2016
05/12/2016 05/12/2016
05/13/2016 05/16/2016 05/24/2016

39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ronald E. Bush: Motion Hearing held on 7/20/2015 re 31 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by City of Coeur d'Alene. Argument heard by both parties. The matter is taken under advisement. (Court Reporter/ESR Lynette Parson.) (lp)
40 Joint MOTION to Stay Discovery and to Suspend Deadlines for Fact Discovery, Settlement Conference, and Dispositive Motions Jeremy D Tedesco appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 8/20/2015 (Tedesco, Jeremy)
41 ORDER GRANTING JOINT PETITION AND STAYING DISCOVERY AND SUSPENDING DEADLINES FOR FACT DISCOVERY, SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS re 40 Joint MOTION. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Discovery is stayed and the deadlines for completing fact discovery, holding a settlement conference, and filing dispositive motions are hereby suspended. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
42 NOTICE of Change of Address by Virginia McNulty Robinson (Robinson, Virginia)
43 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
44 STIPULATION re 41 Order, Terminate Motions, Terminate Deadlines,,,,,, by City of Coeur d'Alene. (Naylor, Kirtlan)
45 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES re 44 Stipulation. (Discovery due by 8/30/2016. Mediation or Judicially Supervised Settlement Conference shall be held by 6/24/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 10/17/2016.). Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
46 JUDGMENT Offer Accepted (Notice of Acceptance) by Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tedesco, Jeremy)
47 JUDGMENT. This Court awards Plaintiff $1,000.01, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as to these Defendants prior to the date of the Offer of Judgment in an amount to be set by this Court. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
48 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Nontaxable Costs Jeremy D Tedesco appearing for Plaintiffs Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. Responses due by 6/6/2016 (Tedesco, Jeremy)
49 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER RE 48 MOTION for Extension of Time. Defendant shall file a response by 10:00 a.m. (Mountain) on May 16, 2016. The Court will attempt to resolve the at−issue Motion as soon as practicable thereafter. All deadlines remain in−effect unless otherwise ordered; as such, the parties shall plan accordingly. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (dg)
50 WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT re: 48 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Nontaxable Costs filed by Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Evelyn Knapp, Donald Knapp. (Tedesco, Jeremy)
51 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 48 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush.
52 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 47 Judgment, by Hitching Post Weddings LLC, Donald Knapp, Evelyn Knapp. (Tedesco, Jeremy)