Posted on 08/26/2012 5:22:38 AM PDT by scottjewell
...the ACLU and the ACLU of Vermont announced a fantastic settlement that we obtained in Baker & Linsley v. Wildflower Inn. We brought the case on behalf of a same-sex couple who were told they could not have their wedding reception at a Vermont resort called Wildflower Inn because of the owner’s personal religious beliefs about marriage. As part of the settlement agreement, Wildflower Inn agreed that Vermont’s public accommodations law prohibits unequal treatment of same-sex couples, which includes turning away same-sex couples seeking to have a wedding reception, failing to respond to inquiries from those couples, or discouraging those couples from using the facilities. The resort also agreed to pay $10,000 to the Vermont Human Rights Commission as a civil penalty and to place $20,000 in a charitable trust to be disbursed by the couple. The plaintiffs, Kate Linsley (nee Baker) and Ming Linsley, will not be retaining any of the money for themselves.
If you have not already heard Kate and Ming’s story, here’s what happened. Kate and Ming wished to hold their wedding ceremony at a Buddhist retreat in Vermont and have their reception at a nearby inn. Ming’s mother, Channie Peters, contacted the Vermont Convention Bureau to locate a facility and received information on the Wildflower Inn. The 24-room inn described itself as an award-winning resort and an ideal destination-wedding location. Baker and Ming were excited about holding the reception there, but when the events manager learned that the reception was for a lesbian couple, Peters was told that due to the innkeepers’ “personal feelings,” the inn does not host “gay receptions.”
It was a shocking and hurtful experience, not only for Kate and Ming, but also for Channie and the rest of their family. Kate and Ming were ultimately able to have their reception at another venue, but the experience cast a cloud over their celebration. Kate and Ming brought this case to make sure that the same experience doesn’t happen to anyone else.
As the case went forward, we discovered that other couples had also been turned away by Wildflower Inn and that many more were discriminated against without even realizing it. It turns out Wildflower Inn had a policy of not responding to initial inquiries or phone calls about wedding receptions if it was clear that the reception would be for a same-sex couple. In other cases, the owners of Wildflower Inn admitted they would discourage same-sex couples from using the facilities by telling those couples that hosting the reception would violate their religious beliefs. As part of the settlement, Wildflower Inn has agreed to change its policies and will not engage in any of these discriminatory practices.
This settlement has important ramifications beyond the actions of a single Vermont resort. In recent years, other couples have experienced similar discriminatory treatment based on the personal beliefs of a business owner. In New Jersey, the owner of a wedding dress shop refused to sell a woman a wedding dress when she learned that she was marrying another woman. In Illinois, a bed and breakfast turned away a couple who asked to have a civil union reception at the facility, and then urged the couple to repent for their sins. In Hawaii, the owners of a hotel refused even to rent a room to a same-sex couple. And in Colorado, a bakery recently refused to sell wedding cakes to gay customers for their marriage celebration. In all of these states, businesses are barred by state law from discriminating against customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or religion, among other protected categories. But the owners of these businesses have claimed that they do not have to follow those laws because of their personal religious beliefs.
Kate and Ming’s settlement with Wildflower Inn sends an important message to business owners that when you decide to enter the commercial sphere and open your doors to the general public, you have to follow the same rules that apply to everyone else and can’t use your own personal religious beliefs to pick and choose who you want to serve. This is not a new idea.
Many people believe that owning a business means that the business owner has the absolute right to serve, or refuse to serve, whomever they like, but that’s simply not true. In fact, our legal system has for hundreds of years treated inns and hotels as public accommodations that have a duty to serve all customers on equal terms. We do not let business owners rely on their religious beliefs to turn away customers based on their race, or to refuse to hire women, or to avoid complying with laws about fair labor standards. When business owners argued that federal civil rights laws violated their religious beliefs by requiring them to stop racially segregating their customers, the courts rightly rejected those claims as frivolous.
We do not let wedding-reception businesses – or any other business – turn away customers because of the couple’s race, or because the reception is for an interfaith couple, or because the husband is divorced, or because the couple uses birth control. The same principles apply when the customer is a same-sex couple. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business in the public sphere those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.
"Vermont Inn, 2 Lesbians settle gay marriage case"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2922119/posts
If anything is to be learned, its that voting on LGBT rights, discrimination laws, and gay marriage has to be taken very seriously, because once on the books there is no further recourse.
We need to overturn the civil rights act and allow people to run their private businesses as they wish.
If a business doesn’t want to serve straight white Christians, so be it. I’ll find one that does.
Back in the 1950s, some lunch counter owners said that they did not want to serve Negroes. "It's my business, and I can serve who I want." Society made the decision then that collective rights of some privileged classes were more important than property rights of individual business owners. It was a mistake.
It's a dumb business decision to say "I don't serve your kind" but in a society which values property, it is an essential right to say exactly that.
Interesting that they are now called “Public Businesses”. I suppose “Private Enterprise” is also an antiquated notion in the era of “You didn’t build that”.
I wish I could exclaim “Unbelievable!” alas, that day is long past.
Indeed - People are taught that 'civil rights' is the holy grail of life except it is anything but that. It is a tool that Marxist use to get what they want. Just who has these civil rights? Do I have civil rights? Obviously the owners of the Wildflower Inn don't have civil rights.
The next step? Force a church to perform a gay wedding.
One of my favorite presidents.
key words: “in Vermont”
I suspect that if anti discrimination laws were overturned minority owned businesses that discriminate would blossom and thrive far better than white owned racist businesses. The left simply cannot allow the world to see that.
In my personal opinion it would be a good thing because it would be good for the economy. As it is now, its doing more harm than good for minorities.
He doesn’t have the integrity to include the fact that the inn will refrain from this”discriminatory policy” by not hosting any wedding receptions, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Thus a vast majority’s rights to a chosen venue are abrogated. I suppose the same thing will happen when motel swimming pools begin to close down because of inability to afford the chair lift dictated by ADA fiats.
Actually, I think there were state laws requiring segregation. It was not up to the lunch counter. But, I could be wrong.
Another abuse of the courts......If my business is my property, I accept who I wish.
Communies and Leftists always see the world as a zero sum game. They steal something from you to give it to someone else. If that can’t do that, then they prevent you from earning what they want to steal. In this case, it’s wedding receptions.
Of course.
Yes, sadly, it seems long past.
“Obviously the owners of the Wildflower Inn don’t have civil rights.”
Perhaps one day all of this will be reversed on that premise.
Of course, there’s another way to skin a cat; the owners could give an interview to a Baptist Sunday school paper declaring that they will continue to contribute to supposedly anti-gay marriage (actually pro-family) charities, then the homosexuals will boycott them.
Right, yours is the common-sense approach with a respect for liberty - but we both know who will not allow this view to prevail.
“Actually, I think there were state laws requiring segregation. It was not up to the lunch counter. But, I could be wrong.”
You are absolutely correct. The laws mandated segregation in virtually all spheres of public life. So now we have gone to the other extreme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.