The Roman Catholic owners of a Vermont bed-and-breakfast inn agreed this week to pay a total of $30,000 to a lesbian couple that wanted to hold same-sex wedding reception on their property.
In exchange for the payment, the Vermont Human Rights Commission agreed that the O’Reilly family, who own the Wildflower Inn, acted in good faith. In 2005, the commission approved their business practice — which is to disclose to all potential customers their religious convictions while serving everyone. The O’Reillys will pay $20,000 to a trust fund the women set up, and $10,000 to the Human Rights Commission.
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of Vermont in 2011, after Katherine Baker and Ming-Lien Linsley contacted the inn about their reception. A former employee falsely told them the O’Reillys wouldn’t allow it to be held on their property, then tried to steer the women toward her personal business.
Jim O’Reilly said his family was settling the case to end the ordeal and preserve their business.
43 Comments
Was there no public interest law firm willing to step up and fight this atrocity?
I guarantee you the opposition does not suffer from any such dearth.
A very, very, very bad day for freedom in America.
I think Alliance Defendig Freedom (or whatever the former Alliance defense fund is now called) did represent them. I don't know much about the vermont laws or this case, but sometimes settling like this is the easiest option.
Though I agree that it is an ominous sign for America and religous freedom.
This is terrible, just terrible. But that's the road you head down when you legalize gay marriage.
I don't think following the laws of a state in order to keep a business license has anything to do with religious freedom.
Pretty sure any court in the country would agree with me.
This is what happens when people ignore the law.
Yes, Michelle.
This is what happens when people ignore the foundational law of our Republic and each of its States:
The people are sovereign, and woe to them if they lack the courage or means to fight back against a tyrant judiciary.
So now the Inn keepers have to wear a Crucifix Arm Band so that members of the "Homosexual SS" can keep track of them?
I think I know how this story ends.
What a wonderful opportunity for gay and lesbian couples to start building their nest eggs. You can only sue Walmart after "tripping and falling" so many times before you have to move on to some other revenue-producing activity.
If NOM supporters don't like the Vermont law which prohibits discrimination in public accomodations based on sexual discrimination, then try to get that law repealed. It won't be easy, since Vermont enacted this law back in 1992, one of the first states to do so. In the meantime, don't act shocked when those who disobey that law have to accept the consequences.
This is what happens when people ignore natural law.
By the way, which country is it that's supposed to be a threat to me and my way of life? Iran, North Korea, China, Russia? Don't make me laugh. Its a speck, a speck! Only a speck that they have in their eye.
Bruce, I agree with you. The law should be changed. It's interesting though that this intolerance for religious belief has been enshrined into law at all. It's a significant step forward in the gay agenda to force people to agree with you or lose their livelihood. This is where SSM and acceptance of the gay agenda leads.
Whatever happened to simply going where you're welcome. Why did this couple find it necessary to ruin these people? It's not like they were prevented from achieving their ends. This is just more terrorism for the SSM bullies. This does not make their situation any more endearing.
I'm waiting to hear about 2 women suing a Muslim-owned restaurant for not catering their wedding reception.
#14 Mom:
Bingo.
Gay identity politics takes no prisoners.
I wouldn't expect to hear about that any time soon, mominvermont--knowing SSMers
Same old story. With all the places they could choose from and move on, they instead chose to spend their time bullying this family and being a public nuisance. And they think this helps their cause? After Chick-Fil-A, I really thought they would have learned something. NOM and FRC, be sure to add this along with all the similar events into upcoming defend marriage videos. These incidents make it so easy to debunk the myth that ssm won't affect the rest of us.
Maybe it's the gangsta in me, but I'd literally get a lawyer to write a "hardship" writ and stretch that 30,000 out to 30, 000 years.
Or I'd tell 'em to go to hell.
The article has a link marriage supporters should read:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WildflowerInnTimeline.pdf
Despite finding that the innkeepers complied with the law, the Vermont Human Rights Commission (surprise, surprise) continued to persecute these folks until they settled.
I don't understand why this couple is being penalized when the last full paragraph says, "A former employee falsely told them the O’Reillys wouldn’t allow it to be held on their property, then tried to steer the women toward her personal business." If the former employee gave a false statement trying to drum up business for herself, shouldn't she be the one who is penalized?
ThaT is there right so they should be able to refuse if I have to wear shoes and a shirt in 7-11 (which I do anyways) because it's there policy why can they skip over rules like that?? Im gonna go into 7-11 shoeless then sue them for kicking me out
Thanks for that link, AM.
It does appear financial considerations were behind the settlement.
The other side would not have backed away from this.
Bad news on an otherwise very good day (see MN ballot language, and the truly delicious spectacle of the Dream Team joining Reinhardt in begging SCOTUS not to take the Prop 8 case).
The ACLU is ruining this country. They used to help fight real discrimination. Now they take up the cause of every pervert and baby killer who comes whining to them.
What if we helped them to pay their "fine"?
I hope that someone bullies these lesbians the same way that they disrespected and bullied this religious couple. What goes around comes around.
It seems to me that you simply need to have "special" decorations and trimmings for these types of people. For instance, you simply make the place such a religious spectacle when they stay that they will not want to stay, table cloths, The Ten Commandments posted in the room, the dining area, the lobby, the entrance, stair way, pretty much anywhere you look... A nice HUGE Holy Bible, KJV only, in the room, one that can not be stuffed in a drawer.. OH that could be so much fun!!! Then of course you simply make every comment out of your mouth praising God and His creation and blessings and references to how God views marriage, which He invented... Oh yeah, I may have to become a consultant!
You know that we are in the last days. Jesus is coming soon. People are acting like in the day of sodom and gormorrah. Mens loving mens. And womens loving womens. God created male and female so that they can multiply and be fruitful
" A former employee falsely told them the O’Reillys wouldn’t allow it to be held on their property, then tried to steer the women toward her personal business."
Did anyone read the part where it said Former employee did this not the innkeepers themselves !!!!
They obviously don't 'serve all' if they refused a gay couple.
I think I'm going to open up a business and discriminate against Christians. I'll even remind them they can go somewhere else.
And the argument is made on the gay side that we will not be forcing churches to marry us. That is precisely thier goal. This little legal action proves it.
I venture to say that if the "gay" couple had consisted of a "gay" man and a "gay" woman, there'd have been no problem. The real issue is the B&B owners don't cater to neutered counterfeit marriages; the voluntary admission of sexual orientation was probably not anything they wanted to know about, anyway. Who does?
Another wonderful result for religious freedom.
Again the courts demonstrate, that you can have and practise your OWN religious beliefs, but you cant discriminate against others for theirs.
It is a long slow battle, but eventually the fight to restore the first amendment will be won.
There is a general legal exception from anti-discrimination laws called "the Mrs Murphy exception"..
The idea here is a small housing provider like Mrs Murphy who lets out the room over her garage or the small apartment under her house...or takes in boarders is ALLOWED to discriminate.
That is...even on the basis of race.. because her/his - their business is so small & the situation so personal (i.e. = under their own roof) - they are allowed their personal preference and prejudices.
If it was not a bed & breakfast, but a Holiday Inn or even a 5 unit small motel (you tell me where you want the line drawn) - then anti-discrimination law would not be invoked..
This is a real legal precedent and has been upheld as a worthwhile exception to anti-discrimination laws of all stripes.
Hell .. I would except it implications based on religion.. ("I don't board Catholics!!") as long as it was within the exception...
Does anyone know more than me about this exception.
Paying money to these freaks is tantamount to paying extortionists.
Seaborn Roddenberry says: "I don't think following the laws of a state in order to keep a business license has anything to do with religious freedom."
That depends on the laws, doesn't it? What if we pass a law requiring a Jewish deli to serve anything those two lesbians want to eat? We could pass all kinds of laws that infringe on religious freedom, that force people to act against their conscience or be persecuted, and that IS an attack on religious freedom.
This law forced a couple to pay a huge price for not pretending that a lesbian mock-marriage is normal and good. The law said, You must ignore your faith and be part of something your faith says is wrong.
Explain how a law forcing citizens to go against their faith is NOT an attack on religious freedom.
@ Persephone, I'm sure there are already plenty of businesses that wouldn't want me around due to my Christianity. If a church told me it only 'married' gays, I can't imagine taking the time and effort to take them to court over it. There are plenty of other places to go, just as there are plenty of places these women could have gone. That's the difference between us.
Some people talk a lot about tolerance. Some people actually practice it.
This is just disgusting when a couple of perverts try to force their aberrant lifestyles on others.
I guess all the BS talk that the gay community has stated about gay marriage not hurting anyone. Well, Here is a prime example of the lies coming from the gay community.....
What does this have to do with same sex marriage? Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal whether or not same sex marriage is legal.
What does sexual orientation have to do with marriage law, Jon? I'm not aware of any existing laws which single out or even require a public declaration of any particular sexual orientation as an eligibilty requirement for marriage. The inn owners have the right not to host weddings for either straight same-sex couples, or "gay" same-sex couples. How would the inn owners even know the couple was "gay?" It's not as though there are any immutable characteristics of "gay." The whole thing was an abuse of the legal system by two women interested in plundering the innkeepers, via an abuse of the legal system. Fortunately, when man's justice fails, Divine Justice will never be escaped.
the saddest thing I read in this piece was "falsely"...does this mean they W ould have allowed this atrocity to take place in their Inn. I had hoped to read a stand up for right and Our Lord.
It is terrible that those two idiots got attention and money but I really pray for the owners of the INN to stand up for their God not their business