Catholic innkeepers sued for refusing to host gay wedding

[Michie]

It happened in Vermont, over a reception that was slated to be held at the inn pictured below.

Details:

A Vermont inn violated state anti-discrimination rules by refusing to host the wedding reception for two New York City women, the couple said in a lawsuit Tuesday.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union’s Vermont chapter on behalf of Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, said the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville turned away the couple last fall and that at least two other same-sex couples were also refused because of the inn’s owner has a “no-gay-reception policy.”

“When the Wildflower Inn told us last fall that they don’t host gay receptions, we were obviously saddened and shocked,” said Baker. “It was frustrating to be treated like lesser than the rest of the society, and we were also surprised that it happened in Vermont.”

Vermont has been a pioneer in gay rights, creating the concept of civil unions for same-sex couple in 2000. In 2009, it legalized gay marriage. Many of its tourism businesses actively market to gay clientele.

The inn’s owners, Jim and Mary O’Reilly, issued a statement saying they are devout Catholics who believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

“We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians,” they wrote. “Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

The innkeepers said they never spoke to Baker and Linsley, but that the inn’s wedding coordinator “did not handle the couple’s request in the manner that it should have been.”
Baker, 31, and Linsley, 34, who live in Brooklyn, said at a Statehouse news conference announcing the lawsuit Tuesday that they have since found another location for the reception but that they filed suit on principle.

They say refusing to serve gay and lesbian couples is illegal and wrong.
​

Read more.

Catholic innkeepers sued for refusing to host gay wedding...

 

[G-Com]

If it's privately-owned, the courts should have no jurisdiction and anti-discrimination laws should not apply.

Of course, in this screwed-up country... To wit:

Baker, 31, and Linsley, 34 ... said at a Statehouse news conference announcing the lawsuit Tuesday that they have since found another location for the reception but that they filed suit on principle.

Did the owners not act according to their principles? The "victims'" "principles"?

This will be a dogfight. I hate to sound pessimistic, but I feel the O'Reillys are in deep trouble. This reeks of a shakedown.

for them.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is persecution in action.

 

[underheaven]

It truly is a sign that we are at the end of a long cycle as they try to
bully the 'good' into committing a sin with them .
However they are doomed. While for those who struggle with their
sins can be redeemed ,these can not ,for they stand against all of God's ordered beautiful
interacting Creation. It is not love ,but hate and power over God that motivates them.
In standing against this ultimate 'challenge' to Gods Laws,I know that
the Catholic Church is truly the one True Church.
When I see that it has been damaged,I ask ,when you see a beautiful building ,that has been
damaged by 'infestation',do you blame the building
or the infesting termites etc .
The termites ,of course.But may be you need to strengthen ,clean up the building too.

 

[AMDG]

It is persecution in action.

It's even more than that. It's another attack against Catholicism. It's evil.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Not debating just throwing this out there because people think it's an attack on the church. Vermont laws prohibit a business that provides services to the public from discriminating on people of varying degrees. Since this was a inn. It falls under that.

Rights & Resources - By State - Vermont - By Topic - Anti-Discrimination Law in Vermont | GLAD: Equal Justice Under Law

Just saying.

 

[Michie]

Catholics Face Growing Intolerance of Homosexual Equivalency Activists

Like our position on the fundamental human right to life from conception to natural death, our position concerning the definition of marriage is not simply a "religious" position. We claim that the truth concerning the nature of marriage - and the family founded upon it - is rooted in this Natural Law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason.In the midst of this age of relativism Catholics assert there are objective truths which can be known and that those truths are the only solid basis for building a truly free, just and human society.
Full Story

 

[MoonlessNight]

There's always a bait and switch to these laws. Before the law is passed it is presented as "this is just about personal choices of certain same sex couples, it will have nothing to do with you, you will never have to support it in any way." After the fact it's: "well of course since same sex unions are recognized, you must support them! It would be discrimination not to do so!"

In particular note how apologists of same-sex union laws treat the subject. If you bring up this sort of scenario, and the law hasn't passed yet, they say that you are being an alarmist as if you would have to be crazy to think something like this might happen. But after the law is passed and this sort of thing, surprise surprise, does happen the apologists now treat it as crazy or criminal to oppose the role of the state in forcing all businesses to support same-sex unions to the fullest degree that they can (even when the services requested are offered elsewhere!)

And it's like this on every other facet of the issue. Before the law: "can you believe these conservatives scaremongering by pretending that the law would cause children to be taught that same sex unions are natural and should always be accepted? How preposterous!" After the law: "can you believe these conservatives saying that same sex unions should not be taught as natural, even though that's the position of the law? How primitive!"

 

[Davidnic]

So the end result is that if a Catholic wants to run an inn or anything that provides a public service they should be ready to allow things against their faith, from gay receptions to KKK meetings, renting out their hall for a Black Mass or not do it.

They can have their faith, but they can not live by it publicly.

A dangerous path honestly. But not a surprising one.

 

[MoonlessNight]

So the end result is that if a Catholic wants to run an inn or anything that provides a public service they should be ready to allow things against their faith, from gay receptions to KKK meetings, renting out their hall for a Black Mass or not do it.

They can have their faith, but they can not live by it publicly.

A dangerous path honestly. But not a surprising one.

I think it's due to a shift in perception about workers. There is a thought that merchants, doctors, teachers, etc. exist as cogs in a machine and should not let personal opinions affect their business lives in any way. If someone wants a service from your area, you must comply, regardless of what it is.

Thus if you run a drug store, you must sell contraceptives. If you are a doctor, you must "assist in suicide" (i.e. perform euthanasia) should that be legal in your state. And if you are an innkeeper, you must allow gay wedding receptions.

Because, you see, freedom matters for the consumer only. When you are at your job, you must be an unthinking automaton performing whatever is requested of you. Even if you run your own business.

 

[AMDG]

If someone wants a service from your area, you must comply, regardless of what it is.

But, but--isn't that a vote for slavery (or at least discrimination)!? How *dare* they! Why it's against human rights to make others act against their wills (and religious convictions) to simply do the wishes of others! (Maybe we should protest. Cause a fuss. "Fight fire with fire". )

 

[Angeldove97]

So the end result is that if a Catholic wants to run an inn or anything that provides a public service they should be ready to allow things against their faith, from gay receptions to KKK meetings, renting out their hall for a Black Mass or not do it.

They can have their faith, but they can not live by it publicly.

A dangerous path honestly. But not a surprising one.

Agreed.

 

[MoonlessNight]

So the end result is that if a Catholic wants to run an inn or anything that provides a public service they should be ready to allow things against their faith, from gay receptions to KKK meetings, renting out their hall for a Black Mass or not do it.

They can have their faith, but they can not live by it publicly.

A dangerous path honestly. But not a surprising one.

Something else just struck me in regards to this post.

I've started to notice people saying "freedom of worship" as opposed to "freedom of religion" though I don't know if I would say that this change is widespread yet.

I wonder if it has to do with this sentiment. That you can go to whatever church you like on the weekends, but beyond that there are no guarantees.

 

[StThomasMore]

baker and lindsey = $o)

 

[S.ilvio]

To call it persecution is a tad over the top in my opinion.

As a business they been asked to provide their facilities for a couple to express their love for eachother ( no matter how we as Catholics may personally may not wish for ourselves) in a civil ceremony.

Its hardly an equivilance to being martyred in ancient Rome...

 

[Davidnic]

Not equivalent to martyrdom but they are not allowed to live their faith. This is , arguably, a violation of Church and State. They do not provide a unique service that can not be duplicated. They are not a state entity. But they will be sued for damages and likely will either have to start doing things that are against their beliefs or not have the freedom to run a business.

So it is a form of persecution. The state is mandating a state approved belief that involves the beliefs of multiple Christian groups and if a person wants to live by those beliefs it is a crime.

There are hundreds of other places in Vermont that the couple could have their reception. Why should the consumers religious beliefs take priority over the owners? It should not.

This does not deny the couple a marriage. It does not deny them a reception. It does not deny them a job. It does not deny them a federal right.

Vermont has a law that many would call unconstitutional. Who knows, maybe this case will go all the way to the high court.

So no, it is not Lions. But it is persecution.

 

[AMDG]

Not equivalent to martyrdom but they are not allowed to live their faith. This is , arguably, a violation of Church and State. They do not provide a unique service that can not be duplicated. They are not a state entity. But they will be sued for damages and likely will either have to start doing things that are against their beliefs or not have the freedom to run a business.

So it is a form of persecution. The state is mandating a state approved belief that involves the beliefs of multiple Christian groups and if a person wants to live by those beliefs it is a crime.

There are hundreds of other places in Vermont that the couple could have their reception. Why should the consumers religious beliefs take priority over the owners? It should not.

This does not deny the couple a marriage. It does not deny them a reception. It does not deny them a job. It does not deny them a federal right.

Vermont has a law that many would call unconstitutional. Who knows, maybe this case will go all the way to the high court.

So no, it is not Lions. But it is persecution.

BTW, Moonlessnight, good call on that "freedom of worship" vs "freedom of religion". Hadn't really noticed it, but you are right. On that "freedom of worship", yes, it *does* seem to say that one may only have that freedom under certain conditions (only on Sundays) and not have integrity--like don't allow your religion to influence how you act. The U.S. Constitution allows "freedom of religion", a totally different thing fom "freedom of worship". And don't the constitutions of the Communist countries state that the people are allowed "freedom of worship"? Really now.

 

[Rebekka]

What I don't understand is why they don't have a problem with renting out bedrooms to gay couples but do have a problem with hosting a gay wedding reception? I don't see the difference.

 

[Davidnic]

What I don't understand is why they don't have a problem with renting out bedrooms to gay couples but do have a problem with hosting a gay wedding reception? I don't see the difference.

Well as long as a crime is not being committed they have no say over what goes on in a bedroom. But a reception validates the idea of the wedding that they disagree with. One a private matter and one a public one.

One is a matter of privacy, the other a matter of the public leasing of your space for an event.

At least that is how it seems.

 

[Rebekka]

Well as long as a crime is not being committed they have no say over what goes on in a bedroom. But a reception validates the idea of the wedding that they disagree with. One a private matter and one a public one.

One is a matter of privacy, the other a matter of the public leasing of your space for an event.

At least that is how it seems.

Hm, I still see no difference. It is their bedroom, and they do have a say over who they rent it to. Same as many people will not allow their children (or guests) to sleep in the same bedroom with their boyfriend/girlfriend.