The courts have traditionally (well, at least over the last century) reluctant to judge the validity of personal religious belief. But the law has been pretty good about defining actual churches, for taxation purposes if nothing else.
It appears the "Hitching Post" is not a church in the legal sense of the word. They are a for-profit business, whose advertised service is to carry out weddings of any shape or size (Christian ceremonies, non-Christian ceremonies, civil ceremonies, etc.). Pick up a license across the street at the Kootenai County Courthouse, cross over and pay your money, get some nice words said by one of the "ordained ministers with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel," and there's nothing left but the rice throwing and popping the champagne.
So, no, despite the Blaring Headlines from folk like the AFA, Idaho is not forcing churches to marry Teh Gayz. It's forcing a for-profit wedding chapel to sell its services to all comers equally, the same as a grocery store or a flower shop or an auto mechanic, and without discriminating based on sexual orientation or race or all those other things the law says businesses can't discriminate based on.
And, in fact in recognition of that, the "Hitching Post" seems to be trying to beef up its "cred" as an actual church. And if it actually changes to one, per the legal definitions of same, then I'll be the first to suggest that it can't be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to, any more than my own church can. Until then, they need to follow the law the way any other provider of public service does.
Doesn't seem like much of a reason for controversy.
For-Profit Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
The owners of a for-profit wedding chapel in Idaho are suing for the right to refuse service to same-sex couples because of their religious beliefs.
Eugene Volokh makes a good-sounding counter-case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/18/can-ministers-who-make-a-living-by-conducting-weddings-be-required-to-conduct-same-sex-weddings/), and it's possible I'm being too church-centric in my thinking, but it still strikes me that the Knapps are basically performing a service for money. This is their business. If they choose a business that could violate their religious faith, that doesn't give them a pass, it means they may have chosen the wrong business to be in.
While most ministers will ask for or expect an honorarium to perform a wedding under some circumstances, that strikes me as different from setting up shop and selling sacraments by the hour.
I'm not sure if the "for profit" aspect is all that important. If the Hitching Post were a non-profit that accepted money, presumably the same argument would apply.
There are actually two issues here, but they're intertwined:
1. A requirement that the Hitching Post not discriminate in its service offerings.
2. A requirement that Donald and Evelyn Knapp not discriminate in its services offerings.
Technically, the Hitching Post could stay in compliance with Idaho law by having some other minister(s) perform the ceremony…except that in this case, there are no other ministers employed by the Hitching Post.
One possible solution is subcontracting. The Hitching Post (the entity) could subcontract and get different ministers when couples request a gay wedding ceremony, a Jewish wedding ceremony, or anything else that would not be proper for a Foursquare minister to perform.
That would be a little bit harder for a bakery to do, however…
+John E. Bredehoft I'm willing to distinguish between baking bread and blessing nuptuals, in terms of fungibility of practitioners.
You're correct in how they could get around it, but the "for profit" aspect is important, insofar as they are not recognized as a church, which would carry non-profit status and would allow them to discriminate however they want. Presumably for business and organizational reasons, they didn't decide to do so.
I need to double check that. In some circumstances, I believe that non-profits are prohibited from claiming exemption for anti-discrimination ordinances.
I don't think it's non-profit status per se, but the nature of the organization claiming a status that encompasses being non-profit. Churches are classified as non-profit, and are able to claim exemption for discrimination based on their religious beliefs. Other non-profits, even ones that have a church association, may not (e.g., religious adoption agencies).