Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To repeat: If you are in a business open to the public you must serve the entire public without discrimination. If you cannot abide with this then form a private club open only to a specific membership.
As a former businessman I wonder why anyone would refuse a customer so long as they could pay for whatever I was selling. Turning down customers makes no sense what so ever.
What about those signs I see in restaurants which say, "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone." ? ? ?
The article did NOT specifically say the couple asked to have the wedding and reception there. And the events organizer DID specifically refer to a "reception". So try again.
From the article:
Quote:
Peters had contacted the Wildflower Inn about hosting the wedding, but after talking to the events coordinator and clarifying that it would be two brides and no groom she received a shocking email just five minutes later.
Then, in the same article, they refered to the reception.
Quote:
"A public establishment told me that my daughter, who they've never met, couldn't have her wedding reception there just because of who she is. I felt that my daughter had been attacked," said Channie Peters, Ming Linsley's mother.
Either the article was just poorly written or they planned to have the wedding and reception there (I'm guessing poorly written based upon some other facts that people seem to know about this particular instance that was not in the article). That's why I asked another poster that said they were having the wedding elsewhere - I did not see that in this article. If I am completely misreading this article, then so be it and I am wrong.
I can't imagine a wedding reception would be construed as part of a wedding but since I'm not religious, I don't know if they do or not. The wedding ceremony itself, would be seen as a religious ceremony though.
Whichever the case in this specific instance, it's still an interesting issue - the one of should business owners be required to partake in a wedding ceremony if it is against their religious beliefs. The way that the Vermont law is currently written would require that.
What about those signs I see in restaurants which say, "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone." ? ? ?
Technically invalid. Emphasis on the technically, part. They have a certain degree of latitude to discriminate among those who are not part of the protected privileged class as defined under the law (which varies from state to state).
They can chuck people for being inappropriately attired, or who might seem like they are acting dangerously (even that one could probably land them in hot water if the person wanted to make an issue of it), people who are acting belligerently [drunk, high, possibly off the mental meds, or just plain a-holes], etc...
The Vermont inn suit is yet another contemptible example of the homosexual agenda’s hostility directed at the heterosexual world that they feel they are not a part of and don’t fit in. The homosexuals are happy now that because of the legal action the Wildflower Inn no longer hosts any weddings or special events. Since they can’t have their wedding reception there they have made sure that nobody can.
Because the homosexual is now a so-called “protected class†general dealings with them become an increasingly wary exercise in CYA as a lawsuit will be dropped at the slightest insinuation of a perceived grievance be it real, unrealistic or imaginary.
This has nothing to do with a "agenda" but pure discrimination! Remove the word "Homosexual" and insert a "black" or "hispanic" agenda instead and then it becomes a totally different issue?
Imagine if these owners refused to offer their premesis if it was a black straight couple instead?
Technically invalid. Emphasis on the technically, part. They have a certain degree of latitude to discriminate among those who are not part of the protected privileged class as defined under the law (which varies from state to state).
They can chuck people for being inappropriately attired, or who might seem like they are acting dangerously (even that one could probably land them in hot water if the person wanted to make an issue of it), people who are acting belligerently [drunk, high, possibly off the mental meds, or just plain a-holes], etc...
Yes, I guess "technically" is the right word.
I wonder what would happen if a restaurant owner saw two men walk in holding hands and he throws them out?
This has nothing to do with a "agenda" but pure discrimination! Remove the word "Homosexual" and insert a "black" or "hispanic" agenda instead and then it becomes a totally different issue?
Imagine if these owners refused to offer their premesis if it was a black straight couple instead?
since the person you choose to be intimate with isn't equivalent to your skin color, this is really irrelevant.
Then, in the same article, they refered to the reception.
Either the article was just poorly written or they planned to have the wedding and reception there (I'm guessing poorly written based upon some other facts that people seem to know about this particular instance that was not in the article). That's why I asked another poster that said they were having the wedding elsewhere - I did not see that in this article. If I am completely misreading this article, then so be it and I am wrong.
I can't imagine a wedding reception would be construed as part of a wedding but since I'm not religious, I don't know if they do or not. The wedding ceremony itself, would be seen as a religious ceremony though.
Whichever the case in this specific instance, it's still an interesting issue - the one of should business owners be required to partake in a wedding ceremony if it is against their religious beliefs. The way that the Vermont law is currently written would require that.
Just FYI, The Buddhist wedding ceremony. Not the homosexual wedding ceremony. Do you really think the inn's owners were being asked to partake in the Buddhist wedding ceremony? How so? What personal services were they being asked to perform that were antithetical to their religion? Washing feet?
The inn's owners refused to rent public rooms they routinely rent out to the general public, their refusal being contingent on the couple's sexual orientation. It's against the law. Period.
A long, long, long time. Churches are protected BECAUSE of the separation of state and religion.
For now, at least. I'm guessing that will likely change at some point when the 9th Circuit Court decides it's somehow unconstitutional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
