Wildflower Inn Controversy

[Adeimantus]

Hello, I'm new here so I'm sorry if I've posted this in the wrong forum- politics and government seemed fitting. I've been reading the page about the O'Reillys and the controversy surrounding their choice to refuse to allow their property, the Wildflower Inn, to be rented out for a lesbian wedding reception and looked up a couple of news articles on it:

"]http://abcnews.go.com/US/vermont-inn-sued-refusal-host-gay-couples-wedding/story?id=14110076]
orleanscountyrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=7&SubSectionID=32&ArticleID=10658

I wanted to talk about this matter- particularly as the comments system on the mainpage is hardly conducive to an effective conversation. I have to confess, I am unsettled by some of the things I read there. I do not like the thought of a business owner, whatever their persuasion, being told what they may do with their own property and having the American legal system (and implicitly, the armed organizations which enforce it), brought to bear with the intent of compelling them to submit to someone else's convictions- that sounds disturbingly like the sort of thing the fundies involve themselves so viciously in.

Morally, the O'Reillys do not sound to me like they at all deserve the contempt some have showered upon them. Based on the news articles, they sounded very level-headed and respectful- they also mentioned that they had accepted and served gay patrons in the past. The only controversy was that they, on the basis of their own convictions, did not feel right about renting out their inn for a lesbian wedding reception. They did not, to my knowledge, engage in vitriol, slander, or condemnation: they simply and clearly stated what they believed and acted thereon. They did not try to use the government to force all the other inns to submit to their convictions. Whether they are right or wrong in their convictions and the choices derived therefrom, they are hardly worthy of contempt or derision. People ought to look at this as a rare opportunity to say, "I simply disagree."

I found on the mainpage that commenters were divided roughly into two camps: those who claimed that it was their business and they could do as they wished, and those claiming that their actions constituted discrimination and were forbidden by law.

I'll end this first post on that note. What are your reasonings?

[Distind]

As a note the mainpage mention I can think of off the top of my head is here:
fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=83063

Which made it up there on the merit of the most psychotic invocation of hate crime I've seen in at least two weeks.

Personally I'd say denying service based on it is fairly stupid, particularly if you've done it previously without problems. Not terribly worthy of scorn, just rather stupid. I'm not quite sure what suing them intends to accomplish, aside from ensuring they come up with better reasons to deny the next gay couple that asks.

[cestlefun17]

Business have an obligation to serve the public fairly and equally. In exchange for serving the public they receive compensation from those who use those services. The citizens of Vermont have decided that when a business discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation it is repugnant and not serving the public fairly and equally. I think this is perfectly reasonable restriction.

Furthermore, renting out their hall for a same-sex wedding receptionist does not force them to accept their wedding as valid under their religious or personal moral convictions.

[VirtualStranger]

We've already decided that it is illegal for a private business to do this.

I don't why this situation should be any different.

[Amaranth]

www.acluvt.org/blog/2011/07/19/inn-sued-over-discrimination-against-gay-couple/

The Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act explicitly prohibits any public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation. The law applies to inns, restaurants, schools, stores, and any other business that serves the general public. The act contains exceptions for religious organizations and small inns with five or fewer rooms; the Wildflower Inn fits neither category. The inn is a multimillion-dollar public business whose slogan is “Four Seasons for Everyone!”

They broke. The fucking. Law.

End of story.

[Adeimantus]

I have to disagree with cestlefun17. A business exists so the owners thereof can do the work they choose to and attempt to profit thereby. It is a product of their abilities, their judgment, and their choices. Those things belong to them alone, and it is up to them how they will use them. Suppose someone owned a convention hall. A lot of people would feel like cestlefun does that their renting out that convention hall to people of opposing beliefs does not contradict their own convictions. Hence, I am sure there are Christian convention hall owners who have rented out to pro-gay organizations, and gay convention hall owners who have rented out to anti-gay organizations. But there are also a lot of people who do not feel that way. To them, to allow someone whose beliefs were repugnant in their eyes to make use of their facilities would be tantamount to a violation of their own moral integrity. I imagine there are plenty of people here who, if they owned the convention hall, would not rent it out to a group of neo-nazis because they would feel dirtied to have any dealings with them- and probably some who would be happy to have a reason to gouge such idiots.

I think the question here is why it is that someone who is against homosexuality must be compelled to do something they, individually, feel supports it, such as hosting a lesbian wedding reception and, likewise, why someone who is for homosexuality must be compelled to do something they, individually, feel is hateful, such as hosting a conference on the evils of homosexuality.

Why can't we simply recognize and respect the right and responsibility of every person to make their own judgments and their own choices concerning their own lives, whatever those judgments or choices may be, so long as they are not attempting to force them upon others? If a business has conservative owners who do not want homosexual PDA's in their store, why can't we let them? If a group of polyamorous sado-masochists want the right to live as they choose, why can't we let them? So long as the government does nothing to the detriment or preference of the other, then why can't they just be left alone?

And then, in the society that results, where no one receives any benefit or demerit from the government, we would be in a situation in which we could see the results of these different belief systems as carried out in reality.

EDIT:

Amaranth

What if the law is wrong?

[Amaranth]

What if the law is wrong?

Aug 8, 2011 16:20:51 GMT -5 VirtualStranger said:

[Adeimantus]

Can you explain your answer?

[verasthebrujah]

How big would the scandal be if they refused to rent to an interracial or interfaith wedding reception?

[cestlefun17]

I have to disagree with cestlefun17. A business exists so the owners thereof can do the work they choose to and attempt to profit thereby. It is a product of their abilities, their judgment, and their choices. Those things belong to them alone, and it is up to them how they will use them.

A business is part of the community and must adhere to the standards and customs set by the community. If it doesn't, then it does not belong in that community.

To them, to allow someone whose beliefs were repugnant in their eyes to make use of their facilities would be tantamount to a violation of their own moral integrity. I imagine there are plenty of people here who, if they owned the convention hall, would not rent it out to a group of neo-nazis because they would feel dirtied to have any dealings with them- and probably some who would be happy to have a reason to gouge such idiots.

Neo-nazis do not compose a suspect class, and not a class that is protected in the fair accommodations law. Vermont feels that it would be perfectly fine to not rent your hall to them, just like you don't have to serve someone who isn't wearing a shirt or shoes.

I think the question here is why it is that someone who is against homosexuality must be compelled to do something they, individually, feel supports it, such as hosting a lesbian wedding reception and, likewise, why someone who is for homosexuality must be compelled to do something they, individually, feel is hateful, such as hosting a conference on the evils of homosexuality.

Because the former discriminates against a class protected by law and the latter discriminates against a class that is not protected by law. This is a false dichotomy: that both sides are somehow equal and deserve equal protection. The people of Vermont do not feel this way. If you disagree, you can move to Vermont and vote for legislators who will vote otherwise.

Also, the inn does not have to host a same-sex wedding reception. They can say they will not host any event related to a wedding if they like. But what they can't do is say we will host straight people's weddings but not gay people's weddings.

[Amaranth]

Aug 8, 2011 17:40:16 GMT -5 Adeimantus said:

Can you explain your answer?

Are you taking the piss?

[Amaranth]

Aug 8, 2011 17:41:32 GMT -5 verasthebrujah said:

How big would the scandal be if they refused to rent to an interracial or interfaith wedding reception?

And would the same people object to it?

[Meshakhad]

In my opinion, the ideal solution would have been for the O'Reillys to send an e-mail to the couple explaining their discomfort and politely asking if they would voluntarily choose another venue for their wedding, perhaps even suggesting a few alternatives.

[TWoozl]

Meshakhad;

That would have been the mature and responsible thing to do, but bigotry doesn't tend to accompany any level of respectable maturity.

[m52nickerson]

Aug 8, 2011 17:40:16 GMT -5 Adeimantus said:

Can you explain your answer?

Obviously Amaranth is does not feel like explaining anything.

I think the point is that looking at the past, before discrimination laws were changed, local business could and would ban together to virtually outlaw some people from services. If all the wedding hall could discriminate against gays people may not be able to find anywhere to have their reception. That is without going out of town.

I agree with Meshakhad, politely explain their discomfort but say that they will put on the reception if asked. I think most people would go else where because of that, but it would still be the couples choice.