ACLU: Wildflower Inn Sued Over Refusal to Host Gay Wedding

ACLU: Wildflower Inn Sued Over Refusal to Host Gay Wedding



By ANNE-MARIE DORNING
July 20, 2011

The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vt., bills itself as a "vacation sanctuary" where the welcome mat is rolled out even for the family dog. The inn, nestled in the mountains on 570 acres, was voted Best Family Resort by Yankee Magazine in 2010 and has enjoyed positive reviews in travel publications and websites that range from National Geographic Traveler to Trip Advisor.

But according to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, that warm Wildflower welcome doesn't extend to gay couples.

Court documents filed in Vermont Superior Court claim that when Katherine Baker and Ming-Lien Linsley, a lesbian couple, tried to book their wedding reception at the Wildflower, they were told via email that innkeepers Mary and Jim O'Reilly "do not host gay receptions" because of their "personal feelings."

According to Dan Barrett, an attorney with the Vermont Chapter of the ACLU, that puts the O'Reillys in violation of the law. "We believe this is a straightforward violation. Businesses open to the general public must serve all customers. ... They cannot turn people away based on sexual orientation. That section of the law has been on the books in Vermont since 1992."

Linsley, 34, and Baker, 31, became engaged last October. The two wanted to hold their wedding in Vermont because, said Linsley, "we both have come here for years, and we had a strong connection to it personally."

Mother-of-the-bride Channie Peters set about trying to find a place to hold a wedding reception. With help from the Vermont Convention Bureau, Peters received an email from the meetings and events director of the Wildflower Inn that read in part "the Wildflower Inn would be the perfect location ..." and continued "You could not offer a better "destination wedding" location for your guests." But when Peters mentioned there would be a "bride and bride" instead of a "bride and groom," she received an email with the subject line: "I have bad news," and that's when the O'Reilly's alleged policy against holding gay receptions at their inn came to light.

Linsley and Baker, who both live and work in New York City, said they wanted to proceed with the lawsuit because up until last October, they said they hadn't experienced much discrimination as a same-sex couple. "People before us have stood up and spoken out" to fight for their rights, said Linsley. And Linsley and Baker wanted to do the same. "It is hurtful to see that we are less welcome than the family dog," said Linsley.

Calls to the O'Reilly's home in Vermont were not returned. And a woman who answered the phone at the Wildflower Inn said she could not comment on the lawsuit. The inn updated its website today to say it is "no longer hosting weddings or special events."

The lawsuit's allegations are particularly jarring, given that Vermont is known as one of the most liberal states in the country. The Green Mountain State has allowed civil unions between same sex couples since 2000, and gay marriage has been legal since 2009. Tourism is one of Vermont's main industries, and gay-marriage related business has been brisk.

The O'Reillys have 20 days to file a response to the allegations. The ACLU's Barrett believes he has a solid case. "We understand this to be a policy of the owners. We understand that this has happened to other potential customers," he said, adding that his clients are asking for a declaratory judgment, which means they want the court to declare that what happened to them was illegal.

Despite their experience at the Wildflower Inn, the couple did find a place to host their wedding reception, and the ceremony will take place this fall. "We are thrilled," said Linsley.

Alan Smithee wrote:The Wildfloor Inn is in the wrong.

Alan Smithee wrote:The Wildfloor Inn is in the wrong. They may be a private business but they are open to the public. Even dogs.

CeCe wrote:^^so if they decided they didn't want to do business with blacks because of "personal feelings" that would be their "right" too? Don't think so.

CeCe wrote:^^people simply want to live their lives & have the same rights as everyone else. Sometimes laws (or force) have to be put into place to make that happen. If not some places would take us back to the Woolworth's lunch counter if they could get away with it. They're open to the public. That includes people who are gay.

(Oh!) Rob Petrie wrote:Well, they can't turn away service without a just cause. There are legal limits and laws that go along with that.

I couldn't, say, own a restaurant and then tap three people on the shoulder an tell them to leave without just cause.

Otherwise, lawsuit.

America is lawsuit obsessed. IMO, lawsuits have become the equivalent to courtroom bullying more often than not. This is one of those cases.

If they don't want to hold gay wedding receptions in their establishment, that should be just cause. Just like if they didn't want to hold a religious ceremony, that should be just cause. As I said, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. Problem solved.

Businesses discriminate all the time. We only have a problem with it when it violates what we want to do. They are refusing to do something. That is their right. They aren't throwing people out of a restaurant for no reason. They are merely not hosting a party, which is their right. Just because you are legally allowed to do something doesn't mean an establishment should be required to host it. Don't like it? I am sure there is another place that will take your money.

Businesses discriminate all the time. We only have a problem with it when it violates what we want to do. They are refusing to do something. That is their right. They aren't throwing people out of a restaurant for no reason. They are merely not hosting a party, which is their right. Just because you are legally allowed to do something doesn't mean an establishment should be required to host it. Don't like it? I am sure there is another place that will take your money.

Alan Smithee wrote:They are in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Case closed.