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.
Yeah, I’ve never known about someone having to “come out” about the fact that they are black myself. There is no practical way to conceal or discover your skin color. You can see from your earliest days that there is a difference in how your skin is compared to other people. It’s way different from figuring out who you have an inclination to become intimate with.
Your statement makes way too much sense in this illogical, immoral time we live in.
Gays now want the govt. in their bedroom. They certainly proved that in NYS, and other states.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Very good explanation of how the homosexual agenda really has nothing at all to do with private behavior. It is about societal revolution, and we are the victims - our freedoms of association, religion, speech - our very moral convictions - are being ripped away from us. The only way the left can ruin the US is by forcing everyone to swallow what we don't want to swallow. It's a multi-front war, and unless and until we start fighting back, they will win. And their goals are much worse than being allowed to "marry" or foster and adopt children, as vile as these are. Anyone at this point who says it doesn't affect them, it's just about what people do in their bedrooms (or cesspools or dungeons) is part of the problem and is being willfully blind.
Just wait till the state mandates that all churchs must marry gays.
Allowing one sex into the bathroom of the other sex probably is unwise. Though wouldn’t you prefer a homosexual man in the bathroom where he would not be attracted to the person beside him?
As for treating people with abnormal sexuality the same as those with normal sexuality, in what areas should there be state mandated discrimination?
True, but the hotel should have the right to refuse to marry an interracial couple as well as a gay couple. Would that make them bigots if they refused to? Certainly. But that should be their right, appalling as it seems. The Civil Rights Act of 64 was meant to apply to hotel accommodations (ie a black couple traveling the interstate at night, needing a place to stay). You can't discriminate against the black couple who wants a hotel room if you're a hotel owner. That's a different situation from what we have here. Service providers should not be forced into accepting things that they disagree with.
P.S. — I’m sure the Wildflower Inn wouldn’t have a problem renting a room to the two brides. What upsets the owners is the idea that they are forced to host a marriage ceremony that contradicts their deeply-held religious convictions.
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.