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.
As an emergency clinic don't you have to accept anyone who comes in?
I believe they do (I think Reagan pushed for and signed that into law). I was asking a question of the people on this thread who have said things like:
Quote:
A business ought to be able to serve or deny service to anyone they want. If a business owner wants to have a anti-gay, or anti-white, or anti-Irish, or anti-baseball player, or anti-anything policy, then they ought to be able to do that without fear of the government
It seems to me they would very much oppose any law that requires an emergency clinic business to serve people the owner doesn't want served for whatever reason.
I believe they do (I think Reagan pushed for and signed that into law). I was asking a question of the people on this thread who have said things like:
Well a core part of that law is that business owners have zero choice in the matter - if they did they could think of an excuse to deny anyone. That law would definitely override a business owner's choice (it already does).
Huh? It's in Vermont, not New Hampshire, and it's a business that is open to the public. They are not legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Some of you are really clueless about how the laws work. I'm a little shocked by the ignorance here.
I got the state wrong.
Can you show me in VT law where this Bed & Breakfast is required by law to allow a lesbian wedding?
Can you show me in VT law where this Bed & Breakfast is required by law to allow a lesbian wedding?
It's been posted like 30 times in this thread, but here it is again:
Quote:
§ 4501. Definitions
As used in this chapter:
(1) "Place of public accommodation" means any school, restaurant, store, establishment or other facility at which services, facilities, goods, privileges, advantages, benefits or accommodations are offered to the general public."
§ 4502. Public accommodations
(a) An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of such owner or operator shall not, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person, refuse, withhold from, or deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the place of public accommodation.
This inn refused to rent a banquet room to this couple because they were gay. The cancellation email stated: "After our conversation, I checked in with my inn keepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility." They inn keepers clearly violated Vermont law by refusing to rent a facility, whose rental use if offered to the general public, because of the sexual orientation of the people seeking to rent it.
It's been posted like 30 times in this thread, but here it is again:
This inn refused to rent a banquet room to this couple because they were gay. The cancellation email stated: "After our conversation, I checked in with my inn keepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility." They inn keepers clearly violated Vermont law by refusing to rent a facility, whose rental use if offered to the general public, because of the sexual orientation of the people seeking to rent it.
Request for Relief
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
A. An award of nominal damages in the amount of one dollar ($1.00);
B. A declaration that Defendant's conduct violated the Fair Housing and Public
Accommodations Act, 9 V.S.A. § 4500, et seq.;
C. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from enforcing its no-gay-reception policy at the
Wildflower Inn or any associated business that constitute a public accommodation;
D. An order mandating that Defendant pay Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
pursuant to 9 V.S.A. § 4506(b); and
E. Any additional relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.
I don't care if they get married on an iceberg. Just do whatever lesbians do, and leave the rest of us alone.
Keep in mind they weren't getting married there - just having the after wedding reception.
Also, I just came across some new information about the specifics of this case that will put to rest some of the accusations that these lesbians were out to get this good Christian couple and looking to push an agenda. It turns out they didn't even initially contact this inn. The inn contacted them and asked for their business, only later to say sorry, no gays allowed:
"On October 20, 2010, Channie contacted the Vermont Convention Bureau (VCB) outlining her needs for a place to host the reception. The VCB sent information about Channie’s search to its membership list the next day. One of the businesses on VCB’s membership list is the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, VT. On October 29, the Wildflower Inn contacted Channie, indicating that the inn would be the 'perfect location' to host their reception after the wedding.
On November 5, Channie spoke by telephone with a representative of the Wildflower Inn to discuss details about planning the reception. During the conversation, the Wildflower Inn employee made a reference to 'the bride and groom,' and Channie clarified that the reception would involve two brides.
Within a few minutes after she got off the phone, Channie received an email from the Wildflower Inn employee with the subject heading 'bad news,' which informed her that Kate and Ming were not welcome at the Wildflower Inn.
The email read in part: 'After our conversation, I checked in with my Innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.'”
The Wildflower Inn is a multi-room country resort that offers a variety of recreational opportunities and vacation packages. Their website claims that they are the 'Four Seasons for Everyone.' But apparently 'everyone' did not include Kate and Ming."
Request for Relief
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
A. An award of nominal damages in the amount of one dollar ($1.00);
B. A declaration that Defendant's conduct violated the Fair Housing and Public
Accommodations Act, 9 V.S.A. § 4500, et seq.;
C. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from enforcing its no-gay-reception policy at the
Wildflower Inn or any associated business that constitute a public accommodation;
D. An order mandating that Defendant pay Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
pursuant to 9 V.S.A. § 4506(b); and
E. Any additional relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.
I will assume that these two gals are not Republicans ... and don't care about fiscal responsibility. The same with all Liberals.
Couldn't disagree more. I think people have a duty to sue for remedy when their, and potentially others, civil rights are being violated. Also, if any cost was borne by the public for this, I'd place the blame on the lawbreaker, not the people whose civil rights were violated.
The lesson here is that if you own a resort in Vermont and you don't want gays using it....you're just screwed. Resort owners are held hostage by women who like women, or men who like men.
So much for freedom.
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.
