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.
Coming soon to a church near you...
From your lips to God's ear. Surely that's their next target isn't it?
There is one thing very different here. Black people are not doing anything wrong and should be treated as anybody else. Homosexuals are people doing something wrong. You have no moral obligation to serve them at all. People who include homosexuals as a minority are twisting things way out of proportion.
My son is the assistant pastor at a small, non-denominational, evangelical church and they are VERY concerned about this. They know in this day and age that they could lose a court case and be forced to perform such weddings.
How about PRIVATE BUSINESS instead of PUBLIC business?
Every church in the US will be forced to perform “gay marriages” or lose tax exempt status. They will argue it’s analogous to interracial marriage and if it’s a legal marriage denying it is illegal.
They’ll also try to make any questioning any of the homosexual “hate speech.”. Someone in Canada has already been convicted of quoting the Bible on the topic as a human rights violation.
It would be a nice start, to have a push-back from all of this, which would call for a renewal of liberty in the private sphere, and the importance of such.
Is there not a single social-conservative billionaire willing to put up megabucks to defeat the ACLU in these cases? If not, they will continue to bully small businesses across the land, using the disgraceful legal system with which we are infected: legal costs unaffordable, and loser never pays.
I am not saying that homosexuals are Samsung products, nor am I saying that homosexuals are dogs. I'm just choosing who or what I want at my establishment.
If a business chooses not to serve blacks or homosexuals, the business is not necessarily seeing homosexuals or blacks in a similar way or equating the two groups. I see blacks and homosexuals as two very different collections of humans. But, if I wanted to ban one or both from my lunch counter, I think I should have that right as a property owner.
BS it is exactly the very same premise. The government is forcing you and your business weather you want too or not. In addition to that the same government that is forcing businesses to 'not discriminate' is also the very same government that encourages, allows and protects the likes of the Black Caucus, affirmative action and a whole host of discriminatory race based policies, laws and politics.
Resturaunts and bars are consdered public and subject to smoking bans. I think if I own a bar I should be able to post a sign saying that it is a smoking establishment and if people don’t like smoke they don’t have to come in.
Yeah, make it part of the reception contract that the attendees understand that a certain percentage of all profits get donated to pro-family causes. HA!
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that this is merely the next logical liberal step of “You didn’t build that!” being “You don’t own that!”
In totally unrelated news, many couples looking for a venue for their weddings are finding the selection sparse.
Kate and Ming wished to hold their wedding ceremony at a Buddhist retreat in Vermont and have their reception at a nearby inn.
Oh, so Kate and Ming get to be selective based on their religious beliefs -- they chose a Buddhist retreat -- but the Christian inn owners have no such right.
Yes, it is the height of hypocrisy.
OBVIOUSLY the dykes were seeking to squelch the religious and secular business practices of some really good people who are believers. Conspicuous believers who exercise their First Amendment rights.
I would pursue this. A good PI could find that these two went out of their way to target this institution for the purposes of humiliating them and denying them their First Amendment rights to free religious practice AS THEY SEE IT.
Countersue, get damages and punitives, which for this place, and their good will, and for what they stand for, could easily be several millions.
Alan Dershowitz, where are you?
THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE END OF THE STORY.
And effectively be compelled to recognize "gay" as a protected class. The subsequent step will be when a gay preacher/pastor/minister/teacher is denied a position at a school or (gulp) a church. The next thing you see is a preacher at the pulpit sporting a moustache and a dress. Churches will be ripped apart.
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.