http://abcnews.go.com/US/vermont-inn-sued-refusal-host-gay-couples-wedding/story?id=14110076

Quote :

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.

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

Alan Smithee wrote:

The Wildfloor Inn is in the wrong.

I disagree. They are a private owned business. It doesn't matter if they are open to the public. They have a right to put whatever kinds of restrictions they want on their business. It's their business. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

Cases like these make the ACLU into the joke that they are. It's more proof that it's not about equal rights. It's about forcing views on others. You do not have a right to use anybody's place of business if they don't want to serve you. We need the courts to step the heck off and stop trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses. If the inn doesn't want to host a gay wedding, then it shouldn't have to. Why you'd want to have a wedding at an inn forced to do it, I don't know. Unless you are just vindictive and it's less about love and more about rubbing their noses in it.

Either way: The couple is wrong. The business has every right to choose not to offer whatever event services it wants to. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

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.

They're wrong & I imagine will lose this case...as they should. It's discrimination.

^^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:

^^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.

I distinguish between choosing to be open with your views and having a certain skin color. It is their right to not serve gay wedding receptions. This is more proof that churches are now going to be bullied into this as well, contrary to what defenders say. I also see it as proof that people aren't content with having the legal right to marry anybody. They want to force their views on others too. In other words, it's not about rights at all.

If they don't want to hold the ceremony, that's their right. A ceremony is not a skin color. If they want to have the stigma of not serving gay couples for marriage, that's their right too. Why would you want to force a place that doesn't want to serve you, to serve you? Sorry, but it's the Inn's right to refuse service for a ceremony. If you don't like it, go elsewhere, lest you be the bigot. IMO, cases like this reveal the true bigotry of the side claiming to be for "equal rights."

^^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.

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.

People are not being stopped from living their lives. You do not have a right to have your ceremony at an inn. Sometimes force has to be put into place to make that happen? Force to make others do what you want them to? Sounds like bigotry. People do not simply want to live their lives anymore.

Is the inn telling gays that they cannot stay there? Or is it saying that they cannot hold a specific ceremony there? Businesses have a right to choose not to allow certain services to be held on their premises. That is THEIR right. If you are really for equal rights, then sometimes that means that you can't always get what you want. This case isn't about the couple's rights at all because none of the couple's rights were violated.

Except that it's also a business, and discrimination flies in the face of legally maintaining a business.

Having ceremonies at your establishment isn't for the good of humanity. Get real. It's so they can make money. And this is discrimination. They weren't turned down because of unruly behavior, lack of funds or anything else. It was because of who they were, which definitely makes this discrimination under the law.

^^^^They weren't turned down based on who they are. They were turned down based on what they wanted to do there. And yes, this is a business. So if the business wants to forego the couple's money, that's their right. It's not discrimination. It's business. If you don't like their services, go somewhere else.

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.

Also, usually the "just cause" for that has to be that the customer would have been breaking the law.

(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.

Quote :

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

Well, it's not even just a matter of lawsuits. It's a matter of the company not providing a service based on criteria that will not hold up in court. It's just like refusing to perform a mixed-marriage ceremony or not performing a Jewish ceremony because they think it's wrong.

Quote :

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.

I disagree. I think that if you are going to provide a service, and said service does not damage your property or business bank account, I think that you need to play by the rules.

Quote :

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.

Vague and mostly irrelevant to the discussion.

The Inn owners don't stand a chance to win this one

There was a hotel in England that refused to allow a gay couple to stay in their hotel in the same bed. And so they sued and won.

Quote :

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.

Again, Woolworth's had this same mentality in the 60's. Did not go well for them.

If any of their funding is coming from the public, then they don't get to discriminate on demographic and people "type."

They are in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Case closed.

Alan Smithee wrote:

They are in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Case closed.

There you go.