NOM BLOG

Christian Innkeepers in Vermont Sued By SS Couple After Refusing to Host Their NY Wedding Reception

 

In the AP:

Two New York women say a Vermont inn refused to host their wedding reception because of the owners' anti-gay bias. The couple is now suing, alleging discrimination under the state's public accommodations law.

Kate Baker and Ming Linsley say they were turned away by the Wildflower Inn, a 24-room inn in Lyndonville, when they told the inn the wedding would have two brides but no groom.

... The American Civil Liberties Union's Vermont chapter filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Caledonia Superior Court. It says the inn violated the state Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which bars public accommodations from denying services to people based on sexual orientation.

64 Comments

  1. jaques Beguious
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Religious liberties and freedom's under assault and attack by SS M extremists. When will they stop?

  2. john
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    the inn keepers should contact the alliance defense fund or the advocates for faith and freedom.we wiil see a lot of this-becouse the hmosexual community is intolerant and very antichritian.

  3. Johan de Vries
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    I don't know John. Anti-ssm people keep saying a lot that we pro-ssm people are anti-Christian, but I doubt the numbers are as big as they are made out to be. My gut feeling would actually be that the majority of gays and lesbians have no problem with Christianity. It's the outspoken ones you hear about, not the silent majority.

  4. Eric
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Just because their marriage is legal doesn't change a thing. The inn is denying service to a client beacuse of sexual orientation. That is illegal in NY State under the sexual orientation non-descrimination act (SONDA.)

  5. Sam Jones
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    At least SS"M" advocates aren't promoting the lie that "redefining marriage won't affect anybody" anymore.

  6. Elizabeth
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    It's called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

  7. Heidi
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Sam Jones, this is related only tangentially to marriage equality. The lawsuit is based on violations of state anti-discrimination law. If you run a place of public accommodation, you cannot discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. It really is quite simple. Would you approve of the innkeeper's choice if the couple was interracial? What if they were Jewish? Would it be okay to discriminate then?

  8. Eric
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    The marriage has nothing to do with this! What if they had just wanted to host a party celebrating their relationship? The inn still would have turned it down.

  9. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    The inn keepers should fight. SSN isn't about sexual orientation, it's about gender segregation. The inn keepers probably wouldn't support 2 straight women marrying, either, & rightly so. Marriage is a unique public between a man & a woman. Identity politics has nothing to do w/ marriage.

  10. Marty
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    The innkeepers should just say "No, we denied them because if their anti-male bias."

  11. Louis E.
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    There is NO "discrimination" issue.A store that bars known shoplifters is not "bigoted" against kleptomaniacs.Homosexual orientation can never excuse same-sex sexual relationships and those openly,deliberately engaged in such relationships need to be ostracized and stigmatized for the good of humanity.

    In any event,any state that legalizes SSM should see its entire wedding industry collapse.If you want an opposite-sex wedding yourself,hold it in a state where it's still understood that that's what weddings are for,and if you are asked to do any kind of wedding business,refuse in order to avoid complicity in a same-sex relationship and the bogus "discrimination" charge if you accept dealing with the only kind worthy of recognition as marriage (opposite-sex,the professed orientation of the parties having no relevance).

  12. Garrett
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    And that would be the dumbest legal argument ever recorded, Marty.

  13. SeanRO5
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    No facility should violate the law in order to satisfy personal prejudices. We would never let a restaurant or inn discriminate against a black couple. Why would we allow such despicable behavior against gay people?

  14. Marty
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Garrett, no dumber than calling an event with two brides and no groom a "wedding".

  15. amc
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    "A store that bars known shoplifters is not "bigoted" against kleptomaniacs.Homosexual orientation can never excuse same-sex sexual relationships and those openly,deliberately engaged in such relationships need to be ostracized and stigmatized for the good of humanity."

    You are only hurting position by such nasty rhetoric.

  16. Dan
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    >>The couple is now suing, alleging discrimination under the state's public accommodations law.

    It's interesting that such situations like this are always making the news. Suing? Really? Why all the fuss? After all, according to the homosexual camp, everyone and their uncle is *FOR* homosexual marriage! So how on earth is it always so dang easy to end up contacting a business that is *NOT* for it?

    It seems it certainly would have been easy to find any number of inns to welcome them. Moreover, one would think there'd be plenty such businesses advertising in homosexual-oriented publications and media just begging for their business. So why not support those of their own camp? Because that's not what this is about, folks. Nope, this smacks of just another situation where a Christian business was intentionally targeted to cause them problems.

  17. Dan
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    ** MUST-WATCH VIDEO **

    Brits predicting America will follow in the UK's steps to effectively ban Christianity nationwide due to homosexual agenda:
    http://americansfortruth.com/2010/07/18/video-gay-britains-war-on-christianity/

    ** Email it, Facebook it, Tweet It. **

  18. Eric
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    "So why not support those of their own camp?"

    Because every couple - every human being - should have access to all of the same facilities. If someone wants to hold their wedding reception at a certain inn, they should be able to do so. Do you agree?

  19. Sam Jones
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Heidi, laws that get people prosecuted for adhering to their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. This just goes to show how government and its intrusive ways has grown as a result of the legalization of SS"M". Our founding fathers have written the bill of rights in the hopes of preventing this.

    And your interacial and racial analogies are false. Racism and family values are apples to oranges.

    Your brand of tolerance is a one-way street—we need to tolerate and even advance homosexuality, but homosexual activists don’t need to tolerate religious liberties or convictions.

    On the plus side, though, this incident will serve as an example to other states as to why SS"M" is a very bad idea.

  20. Marty
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Yeah Eric, if a group of bikers or swingers or BDSM advocates wanted to hold a little get-together at my hotel, I should have no right whatsoever to refuse services to them.

    Pathetic.

  21. Sam Jones
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    "Because every couple - every human being - should have access to all of the same facilities."

    Then why aren't mens and womens rooms banned? Or men's and women's dressing rooms? Or men's and women's sports teams?

    "If someone wants to hold their wedding reception at a certain inn, they should be able to do so. Do you agree?"

    Not if it violates their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

  22. Marty
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Funny how you people demand tolerance, yet offer NONE.

  23. Eric
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Marty, how is refusing to serve any of those groups "tolerance?" I say, no, you should not be able to refuse services to them if they are using your services - which you provide to the public - in the manner they are designed for. Your bias against them should not be a valid reason for you to deny them service, and I think a judge would agree.

  24. Sam Jones
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    The right to refuse service is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the state has the authority to redefine words and terms, especially those that have deep and significant religious and moral connotations like marriage.

    Seeing that it gets the government into the business of telling people what to say and how to say it, and that it threatens people of faith with lawsuits and prosecution for their religious beliefs, it violates the first amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.

  25. Thomas Aquinas
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    The problem is that it is perfectly reasonable to not believe that same-sex couples can ever in principle be married. It is certainly not obvious to some folks, such as many gays and lesbians, but to many people the idea that two men or two women can marry makes about as much sense as saying that the geometric object behind the curtain is a square circle.

    All marriages are, of course, equal insofar as they are marriages. But the question is what is a marriage. If I say, for example, that human beings are equal, and you then say that Tommy the Chimp is a human being and thus equal to me, my expressing my doubt about your claim would not make me against "human equality." It would just mean that I don't think Tommy the Chimp is human.

    By calling the gay marriage case "marriage equality" begs the question in the most egregious way. Perhaps an example will help. Imagine that the inn keepers in this case accuse the lesbian couple suing them of being "anti-Christian bigots." You would, of course, respond by saying: But that begs the question, since it is a matter of justice, regardless of what sort of feelings the innkeepers may harbor in their hearts. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the moral condemnation of homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage" were obviously unreasonable, you'd have a point. But they're not. It seems perfectly reasonable to believe that the generative powers that are ordered toward the procreative act require the only two beings capable of engaging in such an act, a man and a woman. Again, this view could be mistaken. But it's not crazy. In fact, it seems positively loopy to believe that a marriage can be consummated by acts of sodomy, just as its positively loopy to believe that devouring cardboard is "eating" simply because the act replicates, but does not duplicate, the usual act of acquiring nutrition.

  26. Sam Jones
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    The first amendment of the contstitution promises the free exercise of religion. Nowhere in that amendment are any restrictions of that right specified.

    Religions are based on the regulation of behavior. It is important that the state make a distinction between behavior (sexual behavior, family values) and one's physical appearance (being black or a woman, etc.)

    It is very important that the government respect the difference between family values and racism instead of morally equating the two. Otherwise, they will wind up taking an active role in oppressing and ostracizing people of faith from society, exactly what the founding fathers wished to prevent.

    On the plus side, this lawsuit will no doubt serve as an example to other states across the country why legalizing SS"M" is a very VERY bad idea!

  27. Marty
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    No Eric, taking them to court because they won't do what YOU want them to do is INtolerance, and I daresay bullying.

    What, you think we should treat intolerance with even MORE intolerance?

  28. Barb
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    It's surreal that we're having this discussion at all. After all, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and an affront to the sensibilities of any thinking person.

    No doubt people of faith will continue to be targeted and attacked. But, as Sam Jones said, it may also motivate other states to take preemptive action by passing their own marriage amendments.

  29. Bruce
    Posted July 19, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    "The first amendment of the contstitution promises the free exercise of religion. Nowhere in that amendment are any restrictions of that right specified."

    None of the rights spelled out in the constitution are absolute. But remember, these innkeepers are not being forced to enter a same sex marriage; they aren't being forced to think it's a good thing that others do; they aren't being forced to even like GLBT people. However, if they choose to operate a hotel in the state of New York, they have to do so lawfully, and that includes providing accommodations to GLBT people.

  30. JT1962
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    First of all folks, this hotel operates in Vermont. It has nothing to do with hosting a marriage ceremony. It wasn't the ceremony that the couple wanted to hold there, it was the reception. It wasn't a private business that was restricted to a certain group but an inn that does business with the people at large. Vermont law says that if you do business with the public, then you can't deny that business on the basis of sexual orientation, among other things. The owner of the inn said no because they were lesbians. That's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and that's against the law. The article never said it was because of the innkeeper's religious beliefs, just that the owner said no. It's too bad we all have such problems with reading comprehension.

  31. Little man
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    I think that the legal papers pertaining to this particular Inn, to the activities that are being required (aside from lodging) at that particular Inn - all that is just perfect for a judge to decide. We all don't have the legal code. An Inn is not necessarily for "weddings". It is a small privately owned hotel. Same-sex couples of homosexual behavior have a right to sue, and they use it to scare businesses. Except some people don't scare easily.

  32. Little man
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 12:58 am | Permalink

    I would schedule the lawn mower for the same date and time, right outside the window :) No one can regulate noise levels, in practice.

  33. Eric
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Marty - taking them to court because they won't allow you to have a marriage reception, as they have allowed other straight couples before you to do? That's intolerance?

    And yes, I think it is perfectly right to be prejudiced against prejudice.

  34. Sam Jones
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 3:46 am | Permalink

    And so the government should coerce people of faith to take part in the celebration of things that their religion disaproves of at the threat of prosecution for their religious beliefs and ostracization from society?

    This proves that the government enforced legaliziation of SS"M" leads to religious persectution. This lawsuit in Vermont will be added as one of the many examples why the state forced redefinition of marriage is a very VERY bad idea.

  35. Sam Jones
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    "taking them to court because they won't allow you to have a marriage reception, as they have allowed other straight couples before you to do? That's intolerance?"

    That shows that tolerance is a one way street with you.

    "And yes, I think it is perfectly right to be prejudiced against prejudice."

    So two wrongs make a right! Typical of liberal hypocricy.

  36. Sam Jones
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 4:04 am | Permalink

    So supposing the article did specify religious beliefs, JT? Would that make a difference to you? I doubt it.

  37. Johan de Vries
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 4:48 am | Permalink

    When you start a start a bussiness, you know you have to abide by a whole set of rules, regulations and legislation. Therefore, when starting said bussiness you ought to know that denying services based on sexual orientation is not allowed. Further, when said bussiness is started, you accept the risk that changes in the law may impact your bussiness in a way you may not be happy with. For example, tax increases or legislation that prohibits denial of services on certain grounds. That is a bussiness risk you take when starting your own bussiness.

    Whether or not these regulations are constitutional or not, that is a question left to the courts. But as long as no verdict has been made on it, the hotel owners need to abide by the law. Therefore I think the lawsuit is warranted. Although, in all fairness, if I were them I would probably look for a place that would accept me rather than having a lawsuit spoil a wedding.

  38. Amanda
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    The New York State Law and Vermont Law protects "public accommodations" that are owned by religious organizations. If these business owners are so religious that they cannot let gay people have a party at their hotel, then accommodations they could sell their business to a religious fraternal organization, or reorganize as a non-profit that is "operated, supervised, or controlled" by a religious institution.

    I would think that the churches would celebrate bringing in business owners into their structures, as to further their religious missions.

  39. Marty
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    "Verily I say unto you, it is better to show tolerance, than to demand it of others. "

    Okay maybe I'm misquoting the golden rule just a tad, but you get the point.

  40. Eric
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Actually, Marty, I think it's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

    So I guess the inn keepers would rather this couple deny them service and their inn.

  41. Marty
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Eric, or perhaps the couple in question would like to be sued by everyone that disagrees with them.

  42. JT1962
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Actually, if the inn's owners did cite religious beliefs as their reason for denying them services, it would make a difference. Because then I'd be asking them for the names of everyone they've denied service to and if they all were for religious beliefs. What you seem to keep saying is that it's ok to cite religious beliefs against gays and gays alone. Have they refused to let an unmarried couple rent a room? Have they asked all married couples if either one of them have had a divorce? You can' t pick and choose your beliefs, Sam Jones. Religion isn't a Chinese restaurant menu. You obey them all or you obey none.

  43. Dj
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    JT. the hotel could just simply site that the lesbian practice discrimination agian males, and that the business would be ading in abetting if they allow the couple to have a reception on the property...

  44. Dj
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    By allowing the couple to conduct their reception at the Inn with the know that no men would be present or that lesbians do not like men, the owner would be practicing dicrimination against sexual orientation...

  45. Sam Jones
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Contrary to what many people here believe, the owners of the inn did not turn down the couple because they were lesbian. If the couple wanted to hold a birthday celebration there, the owners probably wouldn't object regardless of their orientation. They were turned down because of what they intended to do there, not becuase of who they are.

    Would you condemn them if they refused a group of neo nazis to hold a rally there? How about if members of a cult wished to hold an animal sacrifice or an orgy on their property? At least for now, the law does allow owners of inns and other public accommodations control over what goes on within their property in most states.

  46. Little man
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Same-sex marriage activists in N.Y. are going to target small businesses, like this 24 room Inn, because small businesses cannot afford lawyers. But they are going to see that lawyers will offer free services to counter the assault. Getting sued is not a proof of guilt. We are all innocent until proven guilty. But it scares specially small businesses. Those who oppose same-sex marriage can also boycott small businesses, and probably will.

  47. Sam Jones
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Here's an example of what I mean:

    Capone's Italian-American Restaurant in Peabody, MA was threatened with loss of their operating license and an expensive lawsuit because the doorman turned away men wearing women's clothes (including short skirts).

    Their presence last time they visited caused so much disruption and discomfort to the restaurant's patrons that when the group came again, the staff met them at the door and refused to let them in.

    The transgender activists filed complaints with the City of Peabody, the District Attorney, various licensing boards, and other public officials.

    The Peabody city licensing board told the restaurant's owners that they must "negotiate" with the transgender activists over this, or face possible harsh action. Here's what occurred:

    The "ladies" complained that they wanted to be allowed to come any time and be allowed to use the ladies' room. However, two things the restaurant has legal control over are the dress code and the restrooms. So the restaurant told them, "You are welcome to come back any time -- as long as you conform to the dress code and you use the men's room. They were upset about that. But the restaurant was adamant that there was to be no negotiation on that point. If they refuse to use the men's room they can't come in again. Capone's told them these are the terms PERIOD.

    Because of the enormous outpouring from angry citizens supporting the restaurant, the transvestites backed down.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/10b/capones/update_0521.html

    My point is that the law states a public accommodation can dictate the dress code AND what takes place on their property. Just like a public accomodation can be denied to patrons who refuse to respect the dress code and/or the rules concerning the restrooms, so they can do the same if patrons refuse to respect their religious convictions concerning family values, as is their 1st amendment right.

    I hope the Vermont Innkeepers recieve the same public support the Peobody resturaunt had when they fell under attack.

  48. Patrick Hogan
    Posted July 20, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    @Sam Jones (45): "At least for now, the law does allow owners of inns and other public accommodations control over what goes on within their property in most states."

    What goes on, yes -- but, for businesses which are considered public accommodations (like inns), not who does it. If the inn wanted to ban all wedding receptions, that would be permissible; to ban wedding receptions for some couples while allowing wedding receptions for other couples, though, is a violation of VT's public accommodations law. Which is why there's a lawsuit.

  49. Patrick Hogan
    Posted July 21, 2011 at 1:39 am | Permalink

    @Sam Jones (45): "...the owners of the inn did not turn down the couple because they were lesbian...They were turned down because of what they intended to do there, not becuase of who they are."

    They were turned down because they wanted to have a wedding reception; a straight couple would not have been turned down. Even if you want to split hairs on it, that's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    "Would you condemn them if they refused a group of neo nazis to hold a rally there? How about if members of a cult wished to hold an animal sacrifice or an orgy on their property?"

    It all rather depends. If the members of each group weren't conducting, planning or facilitating any illegal activity, they should not be refused -- even though I vehemently disagree with both Nazis and cults; however, since genocide, racial violence, animal cruelty and public sex are all illegal, it would likely be licit (required, even) for the innkeepers to refuse any...official...activity. But if a neo-Nazi or cultist was to seek to hold a wedding reception, in compliance with the law, I would expect the innkeepers to accommodate them.

  50. Sam Jones
    Posted July 21, 2011 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    All the neo nazis want to do is exercise their right to free speech. And that's not illegal. So why should Neo nazis have any less of a right to express their racist beliefs on their property than they do anywhere else?

    The point is that this lawsuit shows that the government enforced redefinition of marriage compromises civil and religious liberties in that the state not only instructs its citizens on what to say and how to say it, but on what to think and how to feel.

    The inkeepers are being punished for making a distinction between two things that are very different on a moral and intellectual level: homosexual relationships and marriages as defined by their religion. Since the innkeepers will not readjust their moral and religious convictions to be more in step with the moral standards their state now officially sponsors, they are being penalized for it.

    This incident shows that marriage should not have been redefined in their state in the first place. Not only that, but it should serve as an example to all other states in the US why redefining marraige is a very, very, VERY bad idea.

  51. Patrick Hogan
    Posted July 21, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    @Sam Jones (48): Did you not read what I wrote? I pretty clearly agreed that the neo Nazis, if organizing an event of a kind that is hosted by the inn (such as a wedding reception or, if the inn hosts group meetings, a group meeting) and are not violating any law in their activities, they should be allowed to do so.

    "...the state not only instructs its citizens on what to say and how to say it, but on what to think and how to feel."

    Simply not true. The couple is free to think, feel and say whatever they want; they are not free to provide services to some couples and deny them to others on the basis of sexual orientation.

    "Since the innkeepers will not readjust their moral and religious convictions to be more in step with the moral standards their state now officially sponsors..."

    The only standard being enforced (or sponsored) by the state is that all people should be treated equally; or, more particularly, that a business offering public accommodations cannot refuse service to some individuals based on the business owner's personal religious test. The state does not require that the innkeepers agree with the couple's right to marry; it does not require that the innkeepers agree with homosexual activity; it does not require that the innkeepers participate in either the wedding, the reception, or any homosexual activity. For all the state cares, the innkeepers can spend the entire day and night praying the rosary and asking that all gay people turn straight to be saved from the fires of Gehenna.

  52. Sam Jones
    Posted July 22, 2011 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    But they are required by the government to help celebrate an act that their religion finds objectionable. And their refusal to compromise their beliefs could result in their being run out of business by the state. Isn't this the kind of crap that people have fled to the US to avoid?

    The 1st amendment of the constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof;"

    The government enforced redefinition of marriage violates that amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.

  53. Sam Jones
    Posted July 22, 2011 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    And saying that people are able to think and feel anyway they like is moot since no government has the power to read minds. They can only know what their citizens are thinking and feeling when they exersize their right to free speech and free exercise of religion. Only then can they come down on them for it, like that innkeeper's family in Vermont.

    The day the state can tell people they have no say over what does or does not happen on their own property is the day we revive the Soviet Union.

  54. Eric
    Posted July 22, 2011 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof"

    Exercising your religion is a personal endeavor; it does not require nor does it suggest that others must fall in line with your own religious beliefs. In matters that pertain only to you, religion should not be inhibited (for example, the government cannot require that YOU participate in a same sex wedding reception.) However, if you provide a service to some and not others, you are practicing discrimination, and the first amendment does not protect any form of discrimination.

  55. Sam Jones
    Posted July 23, 2011 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    "the first amendment does not protect any form of discrimination."

    And that includes discrimination against christians which ostracizes them from civil society. That's why any law that does that is unconstitutional.

  56. Jane
    Posted July 24, 2011 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Of course this was the only place those women could pick to have their event! It's time for decent Christians to fight back against the trickery and bullying of these heathens.

  57. Lynn
    Posted July 25, 2011 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    This is a private business , the government should not tell them how to run their business. Homosexuals can boycott the business if they don't like their policy. It's called free enterprise.

  58. Seth Thayer
    Posted July 25, 2011 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Plain and simple, they are a public Inn and as such, are required by law to cater to the public. Should have just said they were full that weekend, sorry for the mix up and none of this would be an issue. However, they said they would not have a wedding there for these two people because of their beliefs. That's illegal.
    Sorry people.

  59. Kimberly Payne
    Posted July 25, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    I am so sorry, but if I own ANY establishment, I SHOULD have the right to refuse service to ANYONEIi choose!!! The government should not put it's nose where it doesn't belong. If I don't like what the establishment stands for I DON'T have to eat there, but it SHOULD be their choice as to who they want and DON'T want to serve in their privately owned establishments!!!!!!!

  60. Kimberly Payne
    Posted July 25, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    For Seth Thayer, You honestly believe the government has the right to tell someone who OWNS their OWN business who they have to allow in their or serve. There are laws out there, and they are absolutely WRONG!!! Our government needs to stay out of private citizens affairs, unless they hurt someone physically. If you don't agree with what an establishment stands for you DON'T have to be a guest or customer of that place, but they should have the right to decide who they want and don't want to serve in their privately owned business!!

  61. Randy
    Posted July 25, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Does this mean that all churches have to marry SSM couples that asked them or they'll be sued? That's ridiculous! Find a church, an Inn, a union hall or whatever that will host your event. Recpect the wishes of other as you expect other to do for you!

  62. Posted July 25, 2011 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Freedom does not mean the freedom to force others to do what you want. They can find another inn. Honestly, sometimes it seems like they seek out Christian owners just so they can sue. They would advance their cause much more easily if they respected people's religious beliefs.

    whyimconservative.wordpress.com

  63. Big Mike
    Posted July 25, 2011 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    By the same logic that says that the innkeepers can be forced to host a same sex marriage reception (which is against their religious views) muslims and Jews can be forced to host a pig roast.

    The issue is the right of the innkeeper to not violate their own beliefs. Can the state force an Orthodox Jew to work on Saturday? Why are the beliefs of the innkeeper less important than those who want to use the inn?

  64. Wendy
    Posted July 26, 2011 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    I fully support the Wildflower Inn in their stand in not allowing a gay "wedding reception". To me this is not discrimination, but standing for what is right in the eyes of God. There is nothing right about 2 women or 2 men being together as a "married couple"--it is immoral and wrong. More people need to take a stand for real marriage between 1 man and 1 woman and stop giving in to these gay activists. We need to pray for the gays to seek the help they need and seek God's presence in their lives.

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Associated Press adds more detail to the story we posted yesterday about Catholic innkeepers in Vermont being sued by the ACLU for refusing to rent their facilities [...]

  2. By Christian ss | Goldengatecons on July 24, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    [...] Christian Innkeepers in Vermont Sued By SS Couple After Refusing … [...]