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.
You will never convince me that these lesbians did not deliberately and wantonly seek out and target the only non homosexual receptive establishment among the literally hundreds of other locations in Vermont openly receptive to the homosexual.
You will never convince me that these lesbians did not deliberately and wantonly seek out and target the only non homosexual receptive establishment among the literally hundreds of other locations in Vermont openly receptive to the homosexual.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I am only pointing out that it's speculation without proof... and that it's irrelevant to the fact that a law was broken, whether you agree with said law or not. Hey, I've broken my share of laws too, and have been caught a few times - but instead of blaming the ones who caught me, I "manned" (womaned) up and paid my penalties. Come to think of it, the innkeepers seem to be owning up respectably, while the folks here are making excuses on their behalf. Kind of ironic.
The magnitude and degree of penalization here was excessive and draconian. Forcing the Wildflower Inn to never hold wedding receptions ever again is over the top just because two lesbians were allegedly inconvenienced and temporarily at that. The fine was steep enough for a small family run business and that should have been enough.
The magnitude and degree of penalization here was excessive and draconian. Forcing the Wildflower Inn to never hold wedding receptions ever again is over the top just because two lesbians were allegedly inconvenienced and temporarily at that. The fine was steep enough for a small family run business and that should have been enough.
Agreed, but I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that the law in Vermont is fundamentally unjust. And an unjust law is no law at all. The owners of every inn in Vermont have a positive obligation to disobey this law, whatever the consequences.
The magnitude and degree of penalization here was excessive and draconian. Forcing the Wildflower Inn to never hold wedding receptions ever again is over the top just because two lesbians were allegedly inconvenienced and temporarily at that. The fine was steep enough for a small family run business and that should have been enough.
First, no one forced them, they agreed to it as part of an put of court settlement. Second, according to the story on Huffington Post, they had already done that.
Quote:
Under the settlement, the inn also agreed it would no longer host weddings and their receptions. The innkeepers' lawyer, Jim Campbell, said they had decided previously to end that part of their business.
Agreed, but I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that the law in Vermont is fundamentally unjust. And an unjust law is no law at all. The owners of every inn in Vermont have a positive obligation to disobey this law, whatever the consequences.
Well I hate to break it to you, but the law is not unjust. If you believe otherwise, there is remedy available to you through our legal system, but you have to convince them that you are right.
Of course it does. Majority vote elects the Congress. Majority vote in Congress passes laws.
Again, facepalm. Here is a flow chart for you.
Ability to enact legislation ----> Courts ensure checks and balances on legislation ----> Legislation can be amended to Constitution with proper amount of support.
This has nothing to do with constitutionality, which is arctichomesteader's claim. The fact that the army is now choosing to allow religious headgear does not mean that it is constitutionally required to do so.
Of course, you're not the only one. Arctichomesteader has been silent on the points I made.
I've not commented because I don't see any similarity being the military and private inn. Members of the military have always given up some of their freedom in order to create an effective military.
I've not commented because I don't see any similarity being the military and private inn. Members of the military have always given up some of their freedom in order to create an effective military.
Feel free to ignore anything here about the military.
Quote:
I have a couple of observations.
First, I don't think there is much point to debating whether some particular action would violate a particular person's religious beliefs. For one thing, by design the courts don't get to evaluate whether someone is correct in his statement of what his religious beliefs are. For another, regardless of what the official position of the Catholic church is, if they say that holding this reception would violate their religious beliefs then it would violate their religious beliefs.
Second, I think it is valid, although probably not legally relevant, to point out that the innkeepers may be hypocrites. If they are willing to hold receptions for second marriages, or if they're willing to let gay or unmarried couples stay there in the same room, realizing that there is at least a likelihood that they will have illicit sex in their establishment, that pretty significantly diminishes, in my view, any claim they have to public sympathy for being told to violate their religious beliefs in this one instance where they don't quibble about violating their religious beliefs in other instances.
Third, everything arctichomesteader says about the plaintiffs may be true, but I doubt it and I am not prepared to take his word for it. It's also irrelevant. If there is a law that protects a group that I'm a member of I'm entitled to take action to see that this law is enforced, regardless of whether I feel truly bad because someone violated that law. Ever heard of a "test case"?
Fourth, and most importantly, it is not the law that a sincere religious belief excuses everybody in society from complying with any law they don't want to comply with. The law just doesn't work that way. For instance, someone who has a sincere religious belief that requires them to participate in rituals involving the use of peyote can still be prosecuted for violating the law against using peyote. Someone who has a sincere religious belief that he has to wear a yarmulke can be disciplined by the military for violating the military's uniform regulations. Someone who has a sincere religious belief that interracial marriages are immoral cannot refuse to rent or sell a house or apartment to an interracial couple. Someone who has a sincedre religious belief that bright colors are immoral cannot refuse to put a reflective triangle on the back of his horse-drawn buggy.
The defenders of these innkeepers seem to think that the First Amendment means that religion provides a blanket exemption to all laws of general applicability, but that is just false. It would also be disastrous for society.
If these people thought they had a valid defense they could have defended the case instead of settling it.
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.
