They have to drag the rest of us into their disgusting lifestyles.....and demand
we subsidize them, as well.
WILD FLOWER INN
Posted on 08/19/2011 8:04:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
I haven’t been to the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, VT, but it sounds like a beautiful place. A glimpse at their website shows a near-definitive New England setting of clapboard buildings with panoramic views of rolling, tree-covered hills and blossoming meadows.
And families. Wildflower Inn was voted Best Family Resort by Yankee magazine last year, and the word “family” pops up repeatedly on the website and in the Inn’s brochures. Clearly, that’s the favored clientele, although the Inn’s owners allow that their place is also ideal for romantic weekends. The Inn used to offer its facilities for weddings, too.
Not anymore. That aspect of Wildflower hospitality ended several months before a young couple filed a lawsuit against the Inn. According to the complaint, an employee refused the mother of the bride’s request to hold the wedding reception at the Inn, once she revealed that there were two brides and no groom.
The women’s motive for the lawsuit seems, shall we say, mixed. On the one hand, the two New Yorkers insist that they both just love Vermont, travel there often, and saw the Wildflower Inn as the perfect embodiment of what they enjoy about the state. But they also say that the courage of other same-sex couples who’ve braved the courts to secure and defend the right to practice homosexual behavior anywhere, anytime, inspires them to take a similar brave stand for the cause.
One can’t really help but wonder who the courageous ones are here – a same-sex couple who’ve managed to trap one of the most popular resorts in the state into an expensive lawsuit, at a time when homosexual behavior is surfing huge waves of legal, social, and cultural indulgence … or the Wildflower owners, who—according to the complaint—operate their family’s business in line with their personal moral convictions.
Moral convictions! One can hear the outrage now, from the activists pressing the homosexual agenda. What’s moral about refusing service to two people in love? Would the owners of the Wildflower Inn be just as justified in turning away blacks? In refusing a reception for a mixed-race couple?
No. For one thing, homosexual behavior, unlike race, is a choice. And there’s nothing intrinsically threatening to the families Wilflower caters to in being black, or of any other ethnic origin. Same-sex “marriage,” on the other hand, like any other open practice of homosexual behavior, undermines the basis of family relationships.
Says who? The Bible, for one, and the thousands of years of civilized behavior based on the biblical delineations (and the common sense conclusions of other cultures) of what’s morally right and acceptable and healthy for families and society. The Vermont legislature may have finally decided that same-sex “marriage” is a-okay, but the Bible and the history of Western Civilization still trump their authority in the courts that ultimately matter.
That probably sounds rather quaint to the young couple suing the Wildflower Inn, and things like the Bible and human history are unquestioningly passe’ in the eyes of the ACLU, which is pressing their case through the courts. It always feels braver to “change the world” than it does to admit that, on some things, the world was right all along.
And like it or not, most of us know that’s true. If a heterosexual couple freely admitted they were checking in to a family inn to consummate their adulterous affair away from the prying eyes of their spouses, few would flinch at the Wildflower management for deciding there was no room in the inn.
If a man inquired if he could bring a neighbor’s 11-year-old girl in, so as to have sex with her, the law would race to the side of the proprietors. If a dedicated polygamist was turned away from his plans for a romantic weekend with his five wives, his lawsuit wouldn’t have a chance. (At least this year, before activist courts decree those to also “just be another way to love.”)
The moral sensibilities that balk at such outrageous assaults on conviction spring from the same eternal passages of truth, the exact same enduring social traditions, that tell us that marriage is and should be the union of a man and a woman, not two people of the same gender.
To deny that, as the courts and legislature of Vermont seem so determined to do, is not to embrace a more malleable morality, or to codify a new definition of love – but to deny a truth we know in our bones. And, ultimately, to impoverish a society we think we’re enriching, and destroy the lives of those we believe we protect.
It doesn’t take courage to ride the wave of support for same-sex ‘marriage.’ It takes courage to stand against the surging tide. At the Wildflower Inn, so high in the Vermont hills, the water is rising fast.
It doesn't have to be a formal, organized effort. Instead, we should individually commit to spending our money at businesses that we KNOW are more aligned with us and consciously avoid known homosexual-run concerns like their restaurants, bed and breakfasts, clothing designers, florists, hair salons, etc.
There is no reason why we can't extend this to popular entertainment as well. Avoid movies written, directed and starring homosexuals, homosexual musicians like Elton John, homosexual TV stars (Ellen DeGeneres comes to mind), etc. Don't watch "Glee". It's a queer-fest.
If your church employs a homosexual choir director or organist, get involved with the elders or vestry and push to exclude those living in an open homosexual lifestyle from serving in ministry, including music ministry, as a key component of Christian doctrine. Let 'em go work at the mainline apostate churches.
In general, we need to push back against the tide of homosexual activism by voting with our feet and our dollars. If nothing else, we can drive some of them back into the closet.
What of it? There are plenty of inns catering to fornicators. Let the market work.
In Canada, they are. IIRC, there was a lesbian couple who wanted to have a reception at a church hall and sued the church in order to do it. I'll see if I can find this.
I was speaking of the sacramental life of the Church. I know about church-related adoption agencies (see my first post); receptions in church halls are (but should not be) a gray area.
Perhaps churches should get out of the civil marriage business. Then if an Orthodox couple (man and woman, of course) wanted to get married, they would first go to a justice of the peace and have a simple, low-cost civil “wedding”, after they would NOT be considered married by the Church. Then they would have a Big Fat Greek (or Serbian, Russian, OCA, etc.) Orthodox Wedding in the Church, presided over by an Orthodox Priest. Then they would be considered REALLY married. Receptions in church halls could be restricted to celebrations of Sacramental Weddings.
Such a system was how it was in communist countries, and is still followed in several countries today. It would tend to devalued civil “weddings”. But it is not Christians who have devalued them, but the disgusting “gay” activists and their parasite lawyers, judges, and liberal protestant clergy.
With all due respect, friend, I cannot imagine a more wicked solution. Marriage is a sacrament established by God for His people. It is first and foremost and only the business of the Church.
If anything it is the state that should get out of the marriage business. The state can render no other sacrament, nor would the Church have permitted them to, when the Church still had the power to constrain. Will the state now render all the sacraments? Of course not! Why then should they be permitted to officiate at marriage?
Read the post again. It says that perhaps churches should get out of the CIVIL marriage business (i.e., stop acting as agents of the state), but NOT out of administering the SACRAMENT of Marriage.
This already is the case in quite a few other countries, and the Church has lived happily with it. The state has an interest in promoting marriage, regulating divorce, etc., so will not get out of these area. Sacraments are for the Church, however.
So the state will not recognize marriages officiated by the Church, and the Church will not recognize marriages oficiated by the state? It sounds equitable, but in this country the state will use the equal protection clause to compel the Church (and all other entities) to recognize state marriages. In America you gain nothing by this arrangement.
Let me begin by saying I feel a business that receives no state accomadation should be allowed to discriminate. A business that engages in discriminatory behavior should not be compelled by the state to end the practice. Rather, changing a business’ behavior should be done by boycott or other civil action. Refusing to accomadate same sex couples is undoubtedly discrimination. Sexual orientation is no less voluntary than religious identification and if one is allowed to discriminate based on one’s choice of sex partner, so too should a business be allowed to discriminate on ones choice of religion. It appears the “wise” people of Vermont elected a legislature that believes same sex couples deserve to be treated the same as couples of the opposite sex. It’s likely the state’s judiciary will concur. Sadly, the Wildflower Inn finds itself in business in Vermont. It seems the choice is simple, do business within the rules of the State in which they are doing business (and work to have the rules changed) or do business in a state that allows discrimination (I do not use the term perjoratively). My suggestion to the good folks at the Wildflower would be to accomadate the lesbians and if down the road there is a review on a website complaining of the quality of service provided to lesbian couples, well maybe other same sex couples would think a second time before choosing the Wildflower as their destinantion. Sometimes it’s better to be subtle about one’s convictions.
This is no exaggeration.
In the beginning, they whine and pout about being "victims" of discrimination and want "only" to get out of the closet and be treated like everyone else. Then before you can say "pink powder puff" they're tearing down the culture to make it over into a gay paradise.
Gay hatred for traditional culture is virulent and deep-seated. A major homo goal is to force religions, and religious people, to accept the gay life style; they will destroy anyone who dares suggest homosexuality is wrong. Decimating Western civilization is the name of their game.
=========================================
WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT Ohaha has catered to the gay vote from day one....he has done everything but be a flower girl at gay weddings.
Obama says he's not for same sex marriage-----b/c this is a critical issue with Black churchgoers and he needs to con them into believing he is not a gay suck-up. Ohaha picked GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings as Ohaha's "Safe Schools" czar and gave him almost a billion dollars to do his dirty work....inculcating American youth so that chicken hawk gays can have a lot of practiced young partners.
Omao's "Safe Schools" czar Kevin Jennings left his federal job (to make Omao look more palatable to voters). As a going away present, Omao gifted "fisting expert" Jennings with $400M tax dollars in the 2011 federal budget ON TOP OF $400M in 2010 budget. Jennings can now has riches beyond imagination to continue his dirty work with our tax dollars.......to inculcate homosexual practices into our classrooms.
WILD FLOWER INN
Can I steal you’re excellent post to post in another blog? It is so very accurate.
This right died with the enactment of "civil rights" laws of the 60's, which were legitimate and right in their intent, but have been perverted and misappropriated beyond all sanity. All the faggots had to do was get a few legislatures to equate their despicable behavior with being black, and they achieved carte blanche to do what they want.
I'm now all for rescinding all civil rights laws pertaining to "discrimination" in service and hiring. They've done their job, though not very effectively, concerning racial minorities, who should be able to stand on their own by now. They've now been hijacked, and must be done away with.
The problem is that the State will construe almost anything as accommodating a business's existence as subsidization. My own home town now requires that homos be given special treatment or you can't get a license to operate.
Thank you f/ catching my spelling error. What specilal treatment?
Treatment as sexually normal people when they aren’t. Treatment as being the sex opposite of their sexual reality (men using women’s room, etc.)
The ecstatic loonies dug out all of their rainbow colors and it was a festival!
There is also at least one “Lavender Seminary.”
I have heard that at least one young man, who felt called to the priesthood had to leave the “Lavenders.” A Lavender Seminary is not a Godly seminary unless you are lavender. I understand the Church of England is pretty much the same. And you get double points if the religious is a lesbian.
If homosexuals want to bond, they can have ‘civil (somethings)’ but they can't have a ‘civil marriage’.
“Marriage” is “marriage”. Between one man and one woman. To call a relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage is to dilute “marriage” to the point it no longer means what it did. Maybe it would mean nothing at all.
Not sure that made sense...someone may need to throw me a lifeline or give me one call to clear it up...heh.
Of course same-sex “marriage” is not marriage, no matter what the law says!!!
But the “gay” activists and their parasites have made such a hash out of civil marriage (and out of marriage in liberal protestant “churches”), that the Church (or even the state) may have to resort to such expedients as to separate civil and Sacramental marriage, as in several European countries. (The state WILL recognize Christian marriage, since Christian couples will obtain both a licensed civil marriage and a Sacramental Marriage.)
I don’t see a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman happening anytime soon. Such an amendment would settle the whole issue in the best way possible.
Ask LBJ. It went out with the "Great Society".
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.