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.
The inn's owners were asked to rent a room for a reception. Not to officiate a religious ceremony.
Wrong. They wanted to perform the ceremony there.
From the OP link:
"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."
"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."
Wrong. They were having the wedding ceremony elsewhere (at a Buddhist retreat) and were simply having a reception at this hotel complex. Not that it really matters. If the Inn offered reception room rentals to the public for wedding ceremonies (I have no clue if they do/did or not), they still could not discriminate based on sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
The Wildflower Inn had even offered to provide transportation for the guests between the hotel and the wedding - that is before they found out there were lesbians involved.
Last edited by hammertime33; 07-26-2011 at 09:50 AM..
"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."
What you've quoted are the words of Gina Bullard, an employee of WCAX news, when attempting to convey the story. She then states in a separate paragraph that they were seeking a reception, which was confirmed within other quoted statements in the article.
Gina Bullard WCAX news: "They're now working with the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the Wildflower Inn resort in Lyndonville for refusing to host the couple's wedding reception because of the inn owners' religious beliefs."
Inn employee's response to request: " 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."
What you've quoted are the words of Gina Bullard, an employee of WCAX news, when attempting to convey the story. She then states in a separate paragraph that they were seeking a reception, which was confirmed within other quoted statements in the article.
Gina Bullard WCAX news: "They're now working with the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the Wildflower Inn resport in Lyndonville for refusing to host the couple's wedding reception because of the inn owners' religious beliefs."
Inn employee's response to request: " 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."
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.
I don't know why you're so convinced the innkeepers' past and present decisons are financially motivated. Surely they'd have made more money hosting a wedding reception than renting a few rooms in the past. Probably some of the wedding guests would have rented rooms for the night.
You and a few others also seem to be stuck on the inn permitting gays to rent rooms. To many [most ?] catholics, marriage is sacred, one of the 7 sacred sacraments, Holy Matrimony. I'm not surprised they'd draw the line at participating in celebrating a marriage that's contrary to a fundamental belief of their religious doctrine. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the innkeepers took a little grief from other catholics for merely renting rooms to gays.
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 doubt it. According to the lawsuit, this was the 3rd gay couple the Inn had denied renting a banquet room to in the last year. It seems the policy was strict.
"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."
Actually, the news media seem to be using wedding reception and wedding interchangeably, so we don't really know if the couple intended to have their Buddhist ceremony elsewhere or on the inn's premises, but I think it's probably pretty clear that since they were planning a Buddhist ceremony, the inn's owners would not have been involved in the actual wedding, and as the inn's owners they certainly could have assigned employees to service the reception rather than personally servicing it themselves since they found it so offensive.
If an innkeeper was morally opposed to premaritial sex, could he refuse to book a wedding reception if the bride was six months pregnant?
Sure. Unmarried brides are not a protected class. They don't get the same protecton under the law that these specialized groups get.
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.
