Cost of Innkeepers in VT to Keep Their Religious Beliefs About Marriage - $30K and A Promise of No More Wedding Receptions

[interestedman]

I would support their right to refuse service to me for whatever reason they want. I have been asked to leave a store in Detroit because I was white. I don’t have a problem with it.

This type of stuff shouldn’t happen and there should be laws that protect against it.

 

[dzheremi]

There is a grocery/restaurant complex here in Albuquerque run by a family of very nice, moderate Palestinian Muslims. I often go there with friends from church to break the fast with falafel. On the front door there are two signs, both handwritten: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”, and “No F-word language. Go away.” I wonder if the owners know that these signs might not be really true. After all, in a well-publicized case of a few years ago, a wedding photographer was ordered to shoot a gay wedding, and that ruling was upheld by the NM court of appeals.

Apparently, the right to refuse service to anyone cannot be guaranteed if the person you might refuse happens to be gay. And yet these are the same type of people (far leftists) who would like to be left alone to have all the abortions and gay marriages they want, and to have the state criminalize any opposition to how they choose to live! Which is it: You want to be left alone when it comes to criticism, but at the same time defended from that criticism by force of law? It’s manipulation on behalf of only 650,000 same-sex couples in this country, who are being allowed to run roughshod over businesses and the consciences of those who run them, and redefine marriage despite the fact that something on the order of 30+ states originally voted to define marriage in the traditional, heterosexual way – that is, before they were set upon by ACLU lawyers and other activists for forced homosexual-acceptance (I think the word “tolerance” is wrong here; I can tolerate a great deal of things I don’t personally approve of, but I don’t accept them).

The way this whole debate goes down in America makes certain factions of it sound like a bunch of three-year-olds. Except, y’know, not cute at all.

 

[Just_Lurking]

While I abhor discrimination, I have a problem with the result, and the lack of acknowledgement of any religious exemption from compliance under this scenario. It’s not like this is the only Inn in VT? Was the couple truly excluded from a wedding reception? Were there no alternatives to this one small Inn?

No, there were plenty of alternatives – any Inn in Vermont that obeyed their state’s non-discrimination law. However, I have a problem with using that as an excuse for law-breaking. Would you say that it is okay for a lender to commit usury, with their defense being that there are plently of other lenders in the state who only charged a legal amount of interest?

 

[Hokomai]

This is the problem with anti discrimination laws. They can easily be stretched to force private business and individuals to violate their beliefs.

Ummm - that’s why there are anti-discrimination laws. Without them, people who want to discriminate keep to their discriminatory beliefs, and discriminate against certain people.

 

[Bill_Martin]

This type of stuff shouldn’t happen and there should be laws that protect against it.

“Shouldn’t happen” and “should be prohibited by law” are not to be confused. Outlawing it raises serious legal implications that can lead to government overreach. I’d rather live with a couple morons here and there that want to hurt their business by discriminating and be free to practice my religion than force people to violate their religious beliefs, in their business, on their property.

 

[Hokomai]

In the attached LINK there is a story about a lesbian couple who sued an Innkeeper couple in VT that refused to host their gay-wedding reception because of their deeply held religious beliefs.

As in CA, such a decision violates VT civil rights laws that maintain the rights of equal access to publicly offered accommodations. The Innkeepers were sued by the couple, and had to pay a total of $30K. They also agreed they would host no more wedding receptions at their Inn, because they would not support a “gay wedding reception” on religious grounds.

There’s a real clash coming between these state civil rights laws, and the Establishment Clause. Given the day’s political climate, it’s likely that results such as the above will be upheld.

While I abhor discrimination, I have a problem with the result, and the lack of acknowledgement of any religious exemption from compliance under this scenario. It’s not like this is the only Inn in VT? Was the couple truly excluded from a wedding reception? Were there no alternatives to this one small Inn?

What about Retreat centers run by Catholic lay-persons? Or Bible Baptist campgrounds? Would they fare any better?

Peace,
Robert

P.S. One other observation; the Chicago Tribune’s headline states the Lesbian Couple “wins” a settlement. By definition a settlement is just that… a settlement without a winner or a loser. Although I have to say that the “settlement” looks a bit more like a “stickup.”

An excellent outcome, and an example to the world of fairness and access to justice. Gay couples should be able to access all services like everyone else, unless the service is part of a private organisation, such as a genuine Church. In a secular marketplace, you must provide for the market without discriminating against those the majority, through democratic processes, has chosen to specifically protect. Catholics are also protected by this - if the wedding venue had refused to marry Catholics there (say there was no local Church), the Catholics would also have been protected. As I said - an excellent outcome, appropriate for the land of the free.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Ummm - that’s why there are anti-discrimination laws. Without them, people who want to discriminate keep to their discriminatory beliefs, and discriminate against certain people.

How dare somebody be allowed to hold non-government sanctioned beliefs.

 

[dzheremi]

But why shouldn’t people be allowed to discriminate, in accordance with the dictates of their conscience? I find it highly moronic (not ironic; that’s an insult to irony) that the ACLU defends the KKK in their bid to adopt a stretch of highway in Georgia based on their belief that this is a “first amendment case”, yet turns around and helps trash actual first amendment rights, such as in this case in VT. Here is the actual text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(emphasis added)

Either we rewrite the amendment to say “We shall not allow anyone to refuse to enter into contracts with gays and klansmen”, or we stop framing every dumb debate in terms of inalienable rights. It’s not a right that you have a wedding wherever and whenever you want, and to force people to photograph it and support it. In what way is that a right? Is that what my grandfathers fought the Nazis all across Europe to secure – the right of homosexuals to have a wedding in a place that the owners didn’t feel comfortable with hosting it, or else nobody has any weddings there?

This country is going down the tubes, and the inclusivity gestapo is to blame.

Sincerely,

A Person From A “Protected” Class Who Gets Discriminated Against Every Day, But Doesn’t Expect The Government To Change People’s Minds For Him, By Force.

 

[Hokomai]

How dare somebody be allowed to hold non-government sanctioned beliefs.

Holding a belief, such as that Chinese are inferior, is not prohibited. Refusing to provide a service to someone because they are Chinese is rightly prohibited. You I am sure accept this distinction, and it does not help your case to misrepresent what is being said and done.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Holding a belief, such as that Chinese are inferior, is not prohibited. Refusing to provide a service to someone because they are Chinese is rightly prohibited. You I am sure accept this distinction, and it does not help your case to misrepresent what is being said and done.

Why is it rightly prohibited?

 

[sedonaman]

…While I abhor discrimination, …

Why do you abhor discrimination? Everyone does it all day, every day. Examples: Your employer discriminated against all other applicants when he hired you. Merchants discriminate against those without money in favor of those with. Even laws discriminate, such as those that distinguish between criminals and non-criminals. Sporting events discriminate between winners and losers. Children are not allowed to vote, nor are felons [although the dead can in some places ]. I could go on, but you can see that there is discrimination all around us everywhere, and most of it is desirable; and as soon as people realize this, the sooner we will stop falling for the faux charge, “That’s discrimination” which gets turned into a lawsuit. :yup:

 

[interestedman]

Why is it rightly prohibited?

I guess you wish the civil rights movement never happened? Jim Crow laws all around? You think it would be OK for a bus driver to not let certain minorities on the bus because he didn’t like them? Would it be OK for a town to outlaw black people? You seem to think it is OK because you are probably a white male that wouldn’t get discriminated against too often.

 

[interestedman]

Why do you abhor discrimination? Everyone does it all day, every day. Examples: Your employer discriminated against all other applicants when he hired you. Merchants discriminate against those without money in favor of those with. Even laws discriminate, such as those that distinguish between criminals and non-criminals. Sporting events discriminate between winners and losers. Children are not allowed to vote, nor are felons [although the dead can in some places ]. I could go on, but you can see that there is discrimination all around us everywhere, and most of it is desirable; and as soon as people realize this, the sooner we will stop falling for the faux charge, “That’s discrimination” which gets turned into a lawsuit. :yup:

This is such a stupid argument. You shouldn’t discriminate against others because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. Discriminating against serving people that don’t have enough money to pay for a good or service is not really discrimination at all.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.