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.
Wrong, they knew exactly what they were doing and it's BS
Really? And how do you know that? I'm assuming you don't know this couple personally, so it would be a pretty big stretch to think you know their innermost thoughts, and as a result I'm sure you have some tangible evidence for believing that their motivation was to change beliefs.
Again, the "punishment" was a mutual, out of court settlement. Where did you see that they acted in good faith? I just went back and read the link in the OP and saw nothing.
And I don't think the hyperbole was over the top at all. Both instances are examples of blaming the victim rather than those breaking the law.
In the settlement agreement, the parties stipulated that the owners relied in good faith on a 2005 decision by the Vermont Human Rights Commission involving the Inn.
IMO, VHRC policy changed after 2005. Though ignorance of the law is not generally an excuse, a $30 k fine is vindictive when a business owner has relied upon a prior ruling between it and the enforcement agency.
BTW, the Commission's executive director and legal counsel is also on the Vermont ACLU's Board of Directors. The ACLU filed the complaint. Conflict of interest anyone.
I have no issues with gay people being allowed to mary. The government needs to stay the Hell out of marriage, and out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. It is between those 2, and our Creator, and therefore it is not up to me to judge. Having said that, if it's that business owner's belief, then so be it. I mean, come on what are we the thought police here? Is this where political correctness has gone where peoples thoughts are not even their own? My thought is, go elsewhere! I certainly wouldn't patronize a business that doesn't want me! But I'm not going to sue them over it either! Let the market dictate. There is no need for all of these lawsuits. Chances are if he sees his business suffer, then he'll change his policy.
I mean, come on what are we the thought police here? Is this where political correctness has gone where peoples thoughts are not even their own?
You see, here's where you people are totally confused.
Nobody gets sued for their thoughts or beliefs. The settlement that the owners of the inn agreed to does not require them to modify their beliefs in any way.
What the law regulates is action, and in this case what it prohibits is discriminatory action. The inn has now agreed not to discriminate, or in other words, to follow the law. How is that not a good thing?
In the settlement agreement, the parties stipulated that the owners relied in good faith on a 2005 decision by the Vermont Human Rights Commission involving the Inn.
IMO, VHRC policy changed after 2005. Though ignorance of the law is not generally an excuse, a $30 k fine is vindictive when a business owner has relied upon a prior ruling between it and the enforcement agency.
BTW, the Commission's executive director and legal counsel is also on the Vermont ACLU's Board of Directors. The ACLU filed the complaint. Conflict of interest anyone.
Thanks for the link. I'm on an iPhone now so I don't really want to go through a PDF file, but I will take your word for it until then.
Calling this a "fine" is incorrect. The judge or other body would have to issue a fine. This was an out of court settlement agreed to by both parties. That's basically splitting hairs though.
I think it's a stretch to claim conflict of interest here, especially considering that both of the positions he held were openly disclosed.
But when those same people try to argue their side, a Catholic right-wing blog is somehow fair & objective evidence? This reference librarian is not impressed, LOL.
You have NO idea how much I hate it when people use blogs to support their argument. Or think a blog is fair and objective evidence of what they're arguing. Or refer people to a biased site to support their biased argument.
Or maybe you do.
It's right up there with revisionist history on "Things I Hate On The Internet".
God did not intend for gays to have children, as their orientation shows us.
therefore they should not be allowed to adopt.
God did not intend for my wife and I to have children, so therefore we shouldn't have been allowed to adopt our daughter? Are you actually serious? If the ability to have biological children is the basis for parenthood, I have some disappointing news.
"A Vermont resort that was sued last year for refusing to host a lesbian couple’s wedding reception and violating Vermont’s Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act finalized an agreement to resolve the lawsuit today. As part of the settlement, the resort will pay $10,000 to the Vermont Human Rights Commission as a civil penalty and will place $20,000 in a charitable trust to be disbursed by the couple.
... As part of the settlement, the Wildflower Inn agreed to no longer host wedding receptions."
Good. They deserve to lose the business.
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.
If the ability to have biological children is the basis for parenthood, I have some disappointing news.
