Posted on 09/01/2012 6:26:52 AM PDT by IbJensen
A chill has just fallen upon the markets in Vermont as business owners can now be forced to do business against their consciences. A Roman Catholic family was recently sued by two lesbians from New York who wanted to use The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont as the site for a homosexual “wedding” reception. An employee from the inn informed the inquirers of the owners’ feeling about hosting such a reception and politely turned them down.
That polite refusal brought down the wrath of the ACLU and Vermont Human Rights Commission upon Jim and Mary O’Reilly, who could not match the resources the two giants brought against them. They settled out of court, giving $10,000 to the commission and $20,000 to a charitable trust run by two lesbians. They also agreed not to host any more receptions.
It seems painfully clear that liberals are content with abrogating the freedoms of some in order to enforce the “freedoms” of others in the name of equality. The implications of this decision are chilling.
Business can only operate in an atmosphere of freedom, and contract without coercion. The recent decision against the O’Reilly’s demonstrates how government is dictating the terms of a contract to owners and with whom they must do business. If owners insist upon honoring their consciences, they must either conform, or get out the business altogether.
Another consequence of this decision is that it sends the message that owners can expect to see an array of disproportional powers brought against them. Small owners now know they can be punished by government and have legal action taken against them if they dare disagree with the homosexual agenda. So much for land of the free.
Finally, business owners are now feeling the tyranny of an ideological agenda that has entered into the markets and violates all the rules, exercising a kind of commercial “terrorism” against any who oppose it. Business owners in Vermont now know that all it takes is a single phone call from an out of state activist to shut down their operations. As in the case of O’Reilly’s Wildflower Inn, an activist need not even speak to the owners but to a mere employee, and they may see their life’s work threatened.
In such an atmosphere of intimidations, markets cannot be free. The chilling message taken from this case against the Wildflower Inn is that the free market in Vermont is no longer free.
Why don't these weasels understand what a danger these pervets and their stinking agenda are to America?
It's all about our children!
I guess perversions come before religion now.
0bama’s legacy.
We concluded the other day that writing a provision into the contract that a portion of the cost of each reception would be donated to an organization like the National organization for Marriage, which supports one man-one woman, would be a good way of dissuading the same sex crowd.
Sadly too the people of VT, many transplanted New Yorkers, strongly support such policies against the independent and free businesspeople. The state is heavily anti-business, nothing like Ethan Allen presumably would have envisioned.
They want the votes. They could care less about the humanity they so tout.
They should immediately get a restraining order and work on getting this all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary. FIGHT THIS CRAP - “gay rights” is an oxymoron and has no place in our society. I don’t hate homosexuals, some are friends of mine, but I loathe and despise their political agenda
Good idea, and it goes to my point that people of faith just need to be smarter about how they do business. Why did the manager need to disclose the owner's religious leanings? She didn't, a mere "sorry, we're booked" would have sufficed.
Another example of “Lawfare”. The use of the high cost of justice to bully people into doing whatever you want, whoever can afford to spend the most money wins. This is one of the reasons we had a Revolution in 1776.
This article really says it all: A polite refusal which ought to have been met with simply seeking one of the many, many inns which would accomodate gay wedding receptions, turns into punitive litigation and a warning to others. Scary and depressing both. Needs to be reversed.
simple problem actually.
the day before the wedding just pull up the carpet, set off an fumigation bomb, and then repaint the interior. They can have their wedding and the Inn will get some well deserved upkeep.
Combine the state’s involvement with marriage with the state’s ability to decide who one will or will not do business with, and this is what you get.
Freegards
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
Stupid. All they had to say is that the venue was not available that day. Period.
Exactly.
This is a first amendment issue. Freedom to practice your religion, and freedom of assembly. Freedom of association conversely implies a freedom to DISASSOCIATE with those who you choose to NOT associate in the first place.
When will someone get some nutz and fire back at these pigs?
Never settle.
I would close my business and move elsewhere before I gave perverts one cent
The O’Reilly’s should have never backed down, ever. There are a wealth of conservative legal organizations who would have been willing to defend their case, much of it pro bono.
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.