Let me begin by saying I feel a business that receives no state accomadation should be allowed to discriminate. A business that engages in discriminatory behavior should not be compelled by the state to end the practice. Rather, changing a business’ behavior should be done by boycott or other civil action. Refusing to accomadate same sex couples is undoubtedly discrimination. Sexual orientation is no less voluntary than religious identification and if one is allowed to discriminate based on one’s choice of sex partner, so too should a business be allowed to discriminate on ones choice of religion. It appears the “wise” people of Vermont elected a legislature that believes same sex couples deserve to be treated the same as couples of the opposite sex. It’s likely the state’s judiciary will concur. Sadly, the Wildflower Inn finds itself in business in Vermont. It seems the choice is simple, do business within the rules of the State in which they are doing business (and work to have the rules changed) or do business in a state that allows discrimination (I do not use the term perjoratively). My suggestion to the good folks at the Wildflower would be to accomadate the lesbians and if down the road there is a review on a website complaining of the quality of service provided to lesbian couples, well maybe other same sex couples would think a second time before choosing the Wildflower as their destinantion. Sometimes it’s better to be subtle about one’s convictions.
The problem is that the State will construe almost anything as accommodating a business's existence as subsidization. My own home town now requires that homos be given special treatment or you can't get a license to operate.