Overview: The Hitching Post Case
The case of Hitching Post Weddings v. City of Coeur d’Alene explores how public accommodations laws may affect churches and religious wedding services.
Background
- A Christian couple, both ordained ministers, purchased the Hitching Post chapel in 1989 and operated it as a for-profit wedding service.
- In 2014, they formed Hitching Post Weddings, LLC, and declared it a religious corporation in their operating agreement.
The agreement stated that:
- They operated the business as an extension of their religious beliefs.
- Its purpose was to promote one-man-one-woman, biblical marriage.
- They did not offer services inconsistent with this purpose.
They implemented policies reinforcing the chapel’s identity as a religious corporation.
Legal Conflict
- The plaintiffs had consistently refused to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, citing religious convictions.
- In 2013, the City of Coeur d’Alene passed Ordinance § 9.56, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Coeur d’Alene Ordinance Explained
Ordinance § 9.56 defines “public accommodation” broadly, covering:
- Venues open to the public for services, events, or rentals
- Places selling food, offering lodging, or providing personal services
- Educational and recreational facilities
It exempts:
- Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies
- Facilities used strictly for religious purposes
However, it does not clearly define “religious corporation.”
Legal Timeline and Responses
- May 2014: A federal judge declared Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
- June 2015: The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must recognize same-sex marriages.
Plaintiff Concerns
- Plaintiffs temporarily closed the Hitching Post in October 2014, fearing prosecution under the ordinance.
- They later reopened but continued declining same-sex ceremonies.
- They filed a lawsuit against the City, alleging violations of their constitutional rights.
City’s Response
The city attorney clarified:
- If Hitching Post was operating as a legitimate nonprofit religious corporation, it was exempt from the ordinance.
- The city would not prosecute any religious organization lawfully exercising First Amendment rights.
- The city argued the lawsuit was premature because no enforcement action had been taken.
Court’s Ruling on Standing
To sue in federal court, plaintiffs must show:
- A concrete, actual, or imminent injury
- A direct connection between the injury and the ordinance
- A likely remedy from court intervention
The court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing because:
- They had no concrete plan to violate the ordinance.
- The city made no threats or enforcement actions.
- There was no history of ordinance enforcement against similar organizations.
The court granted the Motion to Dismiss.
Implications for Church Leaders
Key Legal Questions for Churches
Churches often ask whether public accommodations laws apply to them, especially regarding:
- Sermons or teachings rejecting same-sex marriage or gender identity
- Denying use of church property for same-sex ceremonies
- Limiting access to programs based on gender identity or sexual orientation
To assess risk, consider:
- Is the church a place of public accommodation?
- What forms of discrimination are banned in your jurisdiction?
- Can the church assert a constitutional defense under the First Amendment?
How Public Accommodations Laws Define Churches
There are typically three approaches:
- Full exclusion – Some laws clearly exempt churches.
- Conditional exclusion – Churches are exempt only if they avoid commercial use of their facilities.
- Full inclusion – Some jurisdictions include churches regardless of how facilities are used.
Case Example: Massachusetts
- In 2016, Massachusetts added gender identity to its nondiscrimination laws.
- The state initially classified churches as public accommodations.
- After legal pushback, officials clarified that churches may qualify—but only when hosting public, secular events.
Legal Precedents Supporting Religious Exemptions
Several courts have recognized First Amendment protections for churches:
- Fort Des Moines Church v. Jackson (Iowa, 2016): The court ruled that sermons are protected religious activities.
- Presbytery of New Jersey v. Florio (3rd Cir. 1994): Affirmed that religious practices are exempt from public accommodation laws.
Conclusion
General Guidelines for Churches
- Private Use = Less Risk: Churches not open to the public for secular, revenue-generating events are less likely to be deemed public accommodations.
- Public Invitations = More Risk: Churches offering public access—especially for non-religious events—could fall under public accommodation laws.
- Revenue Matters: Churches charging for use of facilities are at higher risk of classification as a public accommodation.
⚠️ Important:
Laws vary by jurisdiction. Legal counsel should always be consulted to evaluate risk and ensure compliance.
Church leaders must remain informed about local and state laws, especially as they evolve. Legal guidance is essential for navigating these complex issues.
