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.
A “Human Rights Commission” is something that does not belong in America; ideas like that should have died with the Soviet Union.
That sounds like a good strategy - - unless of course the gays decide to bring an anti-discrimination suit which will enforce mandatory diversity training such as the one launched in Illinois by TCRA against Chick-Fil-A.
Actually an even better approach by the owners would be to allow all comers to have their receptions, but to inform that all proceeds of homosexual events will be donated to Family Research Council.
Two gay guys should try to hold a reception as a muslim owned property. I’d bet the government would say nothing if the couple were denied.
LOL yes, the ONLY state in the country without a theater showing ‘2016 the movie’ !
Just noticed link was not appearing :
I’ve been turned away from drinking establishments because I wasn’t wearing a collar. This is insane.
Indeed the HRC took its origin-idea from the former Soviet Union.
The civil rights movement has actually stripped away the important freedoms of association and assembly. People should have the ability to associate and do business with whomever they wish, and if that means “No Gays” or “Black Only” so be it.
Welcome to the USSA, comrades. You will obey the PC commissars, or else!
Instead of simply choosing one of the inns oriented towards adults, the complaining lesbians chose an inn whose owners and atmosphere are inconsistent with their plans. Apparently they never considered, for example, that other inns turn away families with children, or that inns exist which would not welcome a religious group, or a group of bikers, or other groups that would be inconsistent with how the inn wanted to maintain its atmosphere.
A group of religious people with their children should call up one of the "gay friendly" inns in Vermont and try to book the entire inn for a weekend retreat. I'd like to see if the ACLU, etc. wants to take up that lawsuit.
I've never seen the government of Vermont enforce anti-discrimination laws against inns where the discrimination is against families or children. Somehow I doubt they are about to start.
As others have noted inn owners should be able to choose which customers to do business with, particularly when it comes to groups, since the atmosphere of the inn, which is what the innkeeper is really selling, depends on the mix of visitors present.
If businesses have no license to discriminate then government has even less.
Very well said - this information makes the case seem all the more unjust. I wouldn’t doubt that the inn was targeted by the lesbians with a lawsuit in mind, and to make an example of them. Really a disgrace.
I urge Freepers looking to vacation in Vermont to consider the Wildflower Inn, its a great place, and its owners could use our support.
And visit the chapel if you want to!
Next step: no more PRIVATE PROPERTY at all.
Welcome to Obama's AmeriKa.
Yes indeed - a frightening slippery slope.
I believe it was Aloise Hitler that used his half brother’s connections to force his Jewish landlord to allow Aloise to expand his business to take over the entire building.
The landlord ended up fleeing the country.
Notice what one of the lesbians’ mother said about her encounter with the Wildflower Inn, and how she does not see the irony of still pressing a suit and making an example of them, even though it was easy as pie to find another inn:
“Fortunately, I soon found a perfectly beautiful venue for their reception, a place that welcomes my daughter and her fiancée. And fortunately, I also learned that the Wildflower Inn is in the distinct minority in its discriminatory policy. But that doesn’t excuse the Wildflower Inn’s discrimination or make their conduct any less hurtful and humiliating. I hope that by filing their lawsuit Ming and Kate will be able to make sure that other couples will be treated equally by public businesses regardless of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.”
http://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/my-daughter-isnt-good-enough-think-again-wildflower-inn
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.