COEUR d’ALENE — The city of Coeur d’Alene settled a lawsuit — filed by the Hitching Post over the city’s anti-discrimination law — for $1,000.01 on Friday.

According to city attorney Mike Gridley, the city felt the settlement offer would save taxpayers money.

“Rather than using the taxpayers' money on defending our ordinance, we felt spending $1,000 was worth it to get out of it,” Gridley said on Monday. “One of the things they wanted was for us to amend the ordinance, but that won't happen now. The ordinance will remain unchanged.”

The settlement and attorney fees will be covered by the city’s insurance policy under ICRMP.

On June 4, 2013, the city of Coeur d’Alene passed an ordinance that said it was illegal “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.” The ordinance made an exception for religious organizations.

Shortly following a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Oct. 16, 2014, that deemed Idaho’s same-sex-marriage ban unconstitutional, the Hitching Post filed paperwork with the state declaring itself a religious organization.

One day later, the Alliance Defending Freedom brought suit on behalf of the owners of Hitching Post Weddings, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, alleging the city had repeatedly informed them the ordinance applies to the Hitching Post even though they had consistently declined to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

The Knapps said they sued the city because the ordinance was a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, a violation of the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act and a violation of their 14th Amendment right to due process.

The majority of the case brought against the city of Coeur d’Alene by the Hitching Post was dismissed last month.

However, the court denied a motion to dismiss the Hitching Post’s standing to “bring a claim for economic injuries” that occurred on the day of Oct. 15, 2014.

In that ruling, the judge wrote: “… 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.”

Jonathan Scruggs, attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, said he considers accepting the “defendant's offer of judgment” a victory for his client.

“From my perspective, it’s definitely a win,” he said. “I equate the defendant's offer of judgment to a forfeit.”

Scruggs said his clients have now been compensated for the damages they incurred due to the city’s alleged claims and actions that caused the Knapps to close their business on that day to avoid enforcement of the city’s anti-discrimination laws.

“We view that as a great win,” he said.