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.
Let's, for a moment, entertain your point which seems to place emphasis on the Inn owner's rights to render service to whomever they choose. Though I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ, as a lawyer for the defense, I'd filet them in court. Religious adherence within business can represent a high standard of integrity, however, once that integrity becomes publicly tainted with hypocrisy, the person of faith is left with little recourse, and in this case, the defendants have retreated to the solace of a shaky double standard which would not hold up before a liberal judge. The Inn owners would simply embarrass themselves in a poor attempt at playing victimized Christian business owners who carefully screen their guests according to a biblical standard, which according to their history, is certainly not the case.
What's more likely is that they're simply dividing their godly devotion according to their financial standing.
Let me put a finer point on it. If the Inn owners were strapped for cash, they would have happily and respectfully laid down their shield of admirable convictions, and provided whatever accommodations these gals would have been in need of, but as it is, business must have been good, (no doubt, because of the same-sex and unmarried couples keeping them in business in previous years), and so, instead of turning a blind eye, (as was their custom), they chose to sacrifice a single reception opportunity in exchange for the appearance of godliness, in the hope of winning a few righteousness points, or perhaps to strike a political blow against unwanted liberal ideology.
Even if this particular case were to be used as a case to set a precedent to assist future Christian business owners, it would quickly fall short of its goal. Why? Because the Inn owners shot themselves in the foot the day they began welcoming same-sex, and unmarried, couples into their establishment. It's a little late to cry 'holy ground', after homosexual and unmarried clientele have been signing the guestbook for years.
I understand perfectly what you're saying. And from a common sense perspective I agree with you, but from a legal perspective I would highly object to their past hypocrisy having any bearing. Should all Christians who have sinned in the past lose the right to freedom of religion?
Forget Christianity for a second - these inn owners have a set of beliefs. You may see it as hypocritical based on standard Christianity, but at the end of the day every single Christian (and every person) in the world has their own belief system - no two people are identical. Their belief system (as individuals) may not be a perfect Christian one, and it may seem hypocritical to you and me. But what religion doesn't have some hypocrisy? And why should hypocrisy be justification for them to lose the freedom to practice their beliefs?
No matter how insane and ridiculous (or hypocritical) a religion is, it is still protected. I'm not saying Christianity itself is hypocritical, I'm saying they are. But every Christian practices his/her own form of Christianity, as I said no two people are identical. Freedom of religion is not intended to protect specific religions, it's intended to protect individuals and their beliefs, whatever they may be.
This is not an issue of the religion of Christianity. It's an issue of the (hypocritical) religious beliefs of two owners of an inn in Vermont. We can not invalidate those beliefs just because we consider them hypocritical.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? By opening their belief system up to interpretation what you are essentially doing is giving some judge the opportunity to evaluate their belief system and based on that evaluation, render a judgement ordering them to violate it.
To put it simply - the government decides if their belief system is a valid one and if it should be protected. Not good.
Let's, for a moment, entertain your point which seems to place emphasis on the Inn owner's rights to render service to whomever they choose. Though I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ, as a lawyer for the defense, I'd filet them in court. Religious adherence within business can represent a high standard of integrity, however, once that integrity becomes publicly tainted with hypocrisy, the person of faith is left with little recourse, and in this case, the defendants have retreated to the solace of a shaky double standard which would not hold up before a liberal judge. The Inn owners would simply embarrass themselves in a poor attempt at playing victimized Christian business owners who carefully screen their guests according to a biblical standard, which according to their history, is certainly not the case. What's more likely is that they're simply dividing their godly devotion according to their financial standing.
Let me put a finer point on it. If the Inn owners were strapped for cash, they would have happily and respectfully laid down their shield of admirable convictions, and provided whatever accommodations these gals would have been in need of, but as it is, business must have been good, (no doubt, because of the same-sex and unmarried couples keeping them in business in previous years), and so, instead of turning a blind eye, (as was their custom), they chose to sacrifice a single reception opportunity in exchange for the appearance of godliness, in the hope of winning a few righteousness points, or perhaps to strike a political blow against unwanted liberal ideology.
Even if this particular case were to be used as a case to set a precedent to assist future Christian business owners, it would quickly fall short of its goal. Why? Because the Inn owners shot themselves in the foot the day they began welcoming same-sex, and unmarried, couples into their establishment. It's a little late to cry 'holy ground', after homosexual and unmarried clientele have been signing the guestbook for years.
Let me make this simpler. I have a tendency to take a very simple point and articulate it in a way that makes it sound much more confusing than it is...
I actually don't think their religion should have any bearing on this. The same rules should apply if their beliefs have a basis in something other than religion IMO. The fact that their beliefs happen to be Christian only complicates the situation by bringing in freedom of religion as yet another factor to consider.
I don't think anyone should question their policies for their own private business (religious or not). By doing that, we are judging their beliefs - and making a judgement based on our approval of those beliefs.
At the core of it, we are forcing people to do things they don't want to do - based solely on our judgement of the validity of their motives.
This is just another uninspired rehash repeat of your previous post. Not sure what, if anything, you are trying to accomplish here. You are of the mistaken belief that just because you have a law giving homosexuals what you want that everyone is going to live happily ever after. Far from it. Would it not be infinitely better and more desirable if you got what you wanted simply because people and society wanted to without the necessity of a law forcing people to do what they really don’t want to do in the first place?
After doing some research on the Wildflower Inn it appears that this establishment isn’t really an appropriate venue for the two women in the first place and the lawsuit has a self righteous, vindictive, venomous zeal that they are going to teach this establishment a lesson and show the world that this is what will happen when you stand your ground and do not give the homosexual everything that they want when they demand it. The Wildflower Inn has made significant and costly reductions in its operations and services for everyone because of this lawsuit and how exactly has this improved anything if at all?
Renting a bedroom, or serving dinner, is not a religious ceremony. There is no religion that accepts homosexuality.
Marriage is all about religion.
Tell that to my parents, who married in front of a judge. Tell that to my sister and her husband, soon celebrating 41 years of marriage after being married by a judge. Tell that to my best friend who recently had her marriage performed by a city judge. Marriage only has anything to do with religion if the two people in that marriage think it does.
Yes, the Supreme Court would uphold this law. Because the inn owners are still free to worship as they please (renting rooms has nothing to do with worship), the inn owners are still free to believe whatever they please (renting rooms has nothing to do with their beliefs), the inn owners are still free to teach their children whatever bigotry they subscribe to (renting rooms does not interfere with their relationship with their children). The law does not force the inn owners to endorse gay marriage, or to participate in the marriage in any degree. If the Holiday Inn rents rooms to the Republican Party for a fundraiser, it does not mean that the Holiday Inn endorses the Republican Party. The inn owners rent rooms to homosexuals, they say as much. Just not for wedding receptions. That exclusion is nonsensical, because the inn owners are saying that renting rooms is somehow an endorsement of the renters' beliefs. Inn keepers and hoteliers and any one else renting out public accommodations can hardly know the renters' beliefs on every topic, and therefore do not have the right to deny accommodations based on the renters' beliefs. The only exception would be in the case where the renters' have, by beliefs or actions, been involved in violence, directly or indirectly, that could result in damage to the rental location, either physical damage or monetary damage.
I agree that the anti-discrimination law is constitutional. However, that doesn't mean it trumps 1st amendment rights in every specific case.
Laws against slander and libel come to mind. Such laws are constitutional, restrict 1st amendment rights, but plaintiffs don't win every case.
Courts have ruled that freedom of religion goes beyond 'belief,' and includes practice of religion. A lawsuit brought because business owners refused to engage in a practice [holding a wedding reception] that violates their religious beliefs could fail.
Tell that to my parents, who married in front of a judge. Tell that to my sister and her husband, soon celebrating 41 years of marriage after being married by a judge. Tell that to my best friend who recently had her marriage performed by a city judge. Marriage only has anything to do with religion if the two people in that marriage think it does.
Thank you.
I told him that too, and yet to respond.
Therefore, we are correct. /high five
It's just an attempt to make up stuff just so they can discriminate, and when you use the one thing that they hate: COMMON SENSE, they can't answer the questions. They either ignore you, or just.. quote a bible verse, lol
Actually, the Reuters storysays, "According to the suit, at least two other couples have been turned away by the resort in the past 12 months."
They aren't crying holy ground, they aren't saying gay couples aren't welcome there. What they said was "“We do not … 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." To me, it looks like they are acknowledging that their personal feelings on gay marriage will affect their demeanor, and therefore the spirit of the celebration.
Then maybe they should leave the provision of services for this reception to their gay employees which they claim to have. The gay employees can probably offer their services wholeheartedly.
I understand perfectly what you're saying. And from a common sense perspective I agree with you, but from a legal perspective I would highly object to their past hypocrisy having any bearing. Should all Christians who have sinned in the past lose the right to freedom of religion?
I understand your position, but we must try to envision the potential repercussions of the Inn owner's policies, which most certainly have a bearing in a case of alleged discrimination. Their history of conduct toward LGB's will reveal whether an alternate agenda exists on the part of the business owners, having nothing to do with religious motives. Examining the only facts present, already allows us to make some determinations. One, the Inn owners, knowingly, but quietly, provided lodging to LGB's in the past, by their own admission. Remember, they said they turned 'no' LGB's away. Over the years, not all of these LGB's would have requested double sleeping accommodations. This is a clear indication that, unless they are extremely naive, they had no problem providing 2 homosexual men/women with a room with a single bed, or perhaps they expected one to sleep on the floor.
These Inn owners are not prevented from practicing their religion, nor has their business or staff suffered in the past by the presence of LGB's. It may be assumption, but I believe that it is an informed assumption, to state that the decisions to welcome LGB couples in the past were financially motivated. There was little risk of embarrassment, and they could always resort to the unbelievably naive assumption that no one really knows whether sexual activity is occurring within the rooms. Now lets examine the possible reasoning behind refusing reception accommodations to the lesbians. They admittedly objected to the reception based on their understanding of Catholic beliefs pertaining to same-sex unions. But, what are they actually objecting to? Religious practice is not being prevented, the lesbians were not known homosexual activists, (though their choice of establishments is somewhat suspect), and there was no foreknowledge of sexual illicit behavior. This only leaves the fact that these lesbians enterred into a contract which they choose to call a marriage.
Had these same women been simply seeking lodging, and decided to celebrate within their rented room, they would have been welcomed, as was their custom in the past, but now that a statement must be made, and the Inn owner's adherence to their Catholic principles is on display before the nation, and their church, they are standing firm as decent Catholic practitioners. The Catholic doctrine as it pertains to homosexuality most certainly has a bearing, as this is their defense, as does their willingness to set aside that doctrine in years past. Hypocrisy is a strong word, but I believe it applies.
As a side note, I sincerely believe that if a phone call in private had been made to the management of the Inn, and not just the initial contact person, they might have had their celebration, but because the mother of one of the lesbians made it a public, legal issue, she destroyed any chance of her daughter reasoning with the Inn owners, who I believe, would have allowed the celebration. This also leads me to believe that, at least the mother, had her own political agenda in mind, and not the best interests of her daughter.
I believe that if a Hotel, Inn, Motel, or any establishment identifying itself as Catholic/Christian, chooses to take a stand against sexual immorality, lodging should only be provided to single occupants, or married couples. But, of course, that's not where the money is. These aren't the first busniness owners who have had to consider the issue of principles vs prosperity.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 07-26-2011 at 08:19 AM..
False again. Anyone can get married, regardless of their religious beliefs. Are you against atheists and agnostics being allowed to marry?
Only because government took marriage out of spiritual hands, long ago.
People have been "shacked up" for as long as there have been humans.
Religion, made it a marriage.
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.
