Posted on 12/02/2012 6:00:51 AM PST by reaganaut1
LYNDONVILLE, Vt. (BP) -- A Vermont bed and breakfast has settled a lawsuit brought by the state's Human Rights Commission and two women who wanted to have a same-sex wedding reception on the inn's property.
The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville agreed to pay $10,000 to the Vermont Human Rights Commission as a civil penalty for violating Vermont's Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act as well as $20,000 in a charitable trust to be controlled by the couple, the Burlington Free Press reported Aug. 23.
"The Wildflower Inn has always served -- and will continue to serve -- everyone in our community. But no one can force us to abandon our deeply held beliefs about marriage," owner Jim O'Reilly, a Catholic, said in a statement. "Our beliefs haven't changed, but we do have lives to live, a family to love, a business to grow, and a community to serve.
"Small businesses like ours cannot match the limitless resources of the government and the [American Civil Liberties Union]," O'Reilly said. "Ongoing litigation like this can cripple any small business and the livelihood of its owners, so we're relieved to put this ordeal behind us."
The story dates back to 2005 when two other women asked Wildflower to host their civil union ceremony and O'Reilly said he would be willing to host the ceremony in compliance with state law but disclosed his belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at bpnews.net ...
Do they have a pool there? If so, agree to marry them underwater without scoba gear at the deep end. Or, get them a reservation at the chapel at West Point, I believe they had such a crime against God and nature there yesterday.
The Pandora’s box is now opened for the LGBT mafia the use lawfare and ‘Civil Rights/Human Rights’ shake-down tactics against those who stand up to it.
Freedom from establishment of religion? Even if that religion allows gays to marry?
Instead, the inn has to pay a bunch of money out so someone else isn’t “offended.”
Why could the “couple” have found another place to have their “ceremony” performed?
I don’t agree with the idea of a “public accommodation”. If it is privately owned, the owner should be able to refuse to do business with any person, without needing a reason other than “this is my property”.
Sodom deserves an apology.
I would lay off my staff, shut my doors and go out of business. Sell the house to someone who just wants to live in it and move to another state where they want small businesses.
After reading the whole article it looks like one of the Inn Keepers employees sent an e-mail stating their ceremony was flatly refused at the Inn - that wasn’t the case...the Inn keepers - even though they verbally disapproved of gay marriage - would hold ceremonies for gays.
This looks like a case of liberals eating their own and a poorly phrased e-mail from an employee.
The two women who sued the inn said they didn’t do it to get money, etc., yet they sued, with the ACLU, on the basis of an email from a former employee of the inn. The owners of the inn were complying with the law. The ones suing never had contact with the owners. Of course it is always about the money, but the underlying motive is expressed in a statement from ADF.
The Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF) represented the inn.
Byron Babione, senior counsel for ADF, said, “Every American should be free to live and do business consistent with their deeply held beliefs. It is unfortunate when a state agency teams up with the ACLU to harass and punish a private family business over its owners’ constitutionally protected thoughts and beliefs. Legal attacks like this one are not pursuits for justice, but attempts to coerce and police private expression.”
Now they don’t host wedding receptions, they’ve publically stated they are on good terms with the enemies of God, and they’re still in business.
My experience and observation as regards the B&B industry is that there are plenty of homosexuals that own/operate them and it should be no problem to find a like-minded host. This situation is merely using the state as the enforcement arm of a group’s Alinskyite methods.
We lost that battle during the civil rights era. It’s one thing to say government cannot discriminate based on the color of someone’s skin (or sexual preference). It’s something different to say private business owners cannot do what they want with their own property. I think the constitutional rights of freedom of association, freedom of religion, and private property protect the latter. However, people gave up those rights in the civil rights era due to outrage over the discrimination against blacks.
The problem would have probably fixed itself in time without shredding the constitution, because what business turns away a good portion of it’s customers? Nevertheless, what’s done is done. It’s why the federal government can now pretty much tell a business to do anything, like what kinds of handicap accommodations it must have, what kinds of free stuff (contraceptives) it must give away as a price for doing business, etc.
It has always sounded like it was a set up. It wasn’t about the money but another case of libs slapping down those who don’t agree with them and getting a few years of MEEEE! attention. Business owners should never give a reason other than “sorry, we are otherwise occupied that date.”
they should of told them "We think you are vile sick disgusting and perverted and that you would like it much better where the host is as nasty as you are or at least OK with you filthy lifestyle... that said, if you still want it here fine, we will put up with you but, you are not welcome and will not feel that way while here!"no laws broken, just telling them how it is...
It’s always about the money.
And for the ACLU it’s about their perceived victory over Christian ethical behavior/beliefs.
I think Bgill’s answer in #14 is better.
And the b&b owners SHOULD have scheduled some other customer
on that date.
How would the two ladies know until the day of their event that the b&b was really booked?
And if it wasn’t, then how would they know whether or not the other customers had cancelled?
(Remember the signs in many businesses “we reserve the right to refuse service”)
Hopefully the Innkeepers have learned their lesson and will be moving out of VT. Libs there have zero tolerance for anything closely resembling conservatism like a business owner. I have family (in laws) there and they’re all left wing nut job a$$holes. If your car has the wrong bumper sticker...punctured tire. If your lawn has the wrong yard sign...it’s stolen. Gas guzzling SUV’s get keyed.
There are some areas that are removed where people are still civil but Burlington, Montpelier, Rutland are all goners.
if they can prove otherwise they will sue you anyway and those signs mean nothing today... tell them what you think of them and that they are NOT welcome but you are merely obeying the law and let them decide if they want to have their little dog and pony show where they know they are not welcome
. . and all the while; Obama’s snickering (pronounce as you wish) in the corner . .
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.