Now in Vermont, soon to come to New York. Two Catholic Innkeepers are being sued for refusing to host a gay wedding reception.
A Vermont inn violated state anti-discrimination rules by refusing to host the wedding reception for two New York City women, the couple said in a lawsuit Tuesday.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union’s Vermont chapter on behalf of Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, said the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville turned away the couple last fall and that at least two other same-sex couples were also refused because of the inn’s owner has a “no-gay-reception policy.”
“When the Wildflower Inn told us last fall that they don’t host gay receptions, we were obviously saddened and shocked,” said Baker. “It was frustrating to be treated like lesser than the rest of the society, and we were also surprised that it happened in Vermont.”
Vermont has been a pioneer in gay rights, creating the concept of civil unions for same-sex couple in 2000. In 2009, it legalized gay marriage. Many of its tourism businesses actively market to gay clientele.
The inn’s owners, Jim and Mary O’Reilly, issued a statement saying they are devout Catholics who believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.
Our religious liberty will be diminished as the gay rights agenda marches on. The useless conscience protections put in place in NY in order to pass the bill will not protect against the exact same thing from happening here.
They may not be forcing Catholic priests to marry gays yet because otherwise sympathetic people would turn against them were they to try. But trust me, five or ten years from now, that is exactly what they will be trying to do. My best guess is that states like NY and Vermont will stop recognizing the legal right to conduct marriages by any institution that refuses to go along. Church marriages would no longer be recognized. When that happens, many more people will choose to forgo a Church wedding altogether rather than get married twice. This is coming folks, this is coming.
July 21, 2011 at 3:18 am
Silly argument. Do divorced people getting remarried engage in sodomy? Unnatural sex?
July 21, 2011 at 3:55 am
I read serious arguments (well, arguments by people who thought they were being serious) from people in England that laws should require all churches to abide by "fair hiring practices" — that is, they could not refrain from hiring anyone for any reason — except for their actual clergy. That is, a Catholic Church could not say it would hire only Catholics for any position that was not purely religious. These folks said this out of what they considered to be FAIRNESS. That's what this is, and that's what we should expect.
July 21, 2011 at 5:34 am
The likelihood of the Church being forced to marry gays or lose the right to conduct valid marriages in the eyes of the state is something that has weighed on my mind for quite a while.
I have wondered if it may be better for the Church to voluntarily give up this civil power (before it is stripped) and forcefully reaffirm its position on the sanctity and purpose of marriage. Why should the Church want to be associated with the "civil" side of marriage if its falling apart? I have obvious reservations about this as well: Would making this point in such a manner have any impact? By requiring couples to have a separate civil and religious ceremonies, does it force those who are less involved in their Catholic faith to disregard the religious aspect? It would be a concern that these couples are those who benefit the most from Catholic marriage preparation, so removing the civil power of the Church could reduce its reach.
July 21, 2011 at 5:38 am
This homosexual couple stated that they are filing this suit on pure principle, i.e., what the inn keepers are doing is wrong. I wonder what they think about people who force others to perform actions that violate their consciences??
erin
July 21, 2011 at 8:17 am
Do they let priests who raped children perform marriages?
July 21, 2011 at 1:46 pm
PatO,
Take your anti-Catholic hatred elsewhere.
July 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Congratulations PatO. By the properties of Jay's Law, you lose.
July 21, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Certainly, PatO, there are blogs, websites, etc. where you and your type would be happier. Go. Stay.
July 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I find it ironic that there are lay Catholics who are going to Court for their Faith, and yet there are Catholic Priests who are waiting at the altar to marry gay couples, celebrate gay masses, and the sacrilege goes on and on…
Pray for Catholics that defend the Faith. But pray even harder for those who refuse to.
July 21, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Anonymous July 20, 3:27 PM "Does this suit have a snowball's chance in hell?"
In a word, yes. The inn is a public accomodation. If Vermont has added "sexual orientation" to its civil rights law, and I would be willing to be that it has, then this suit not only has a snowball's chance, it is a shoo-in. If you DJ, photograph, or host banquets/parties, you are going to have to accept "gay weddings" as part of your business, or be sued. Unless you are the Knights of Columbus occasionally renting out your hall;then you might get a pass.
The inn in Vermont will have a choice of agreeing to accept gay weedings, going out of business, or re-marketing themselves as some kind of Christian retreat house.
I don't say this because I like it. I am just being realistic.
Susan Peterson
July 21, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Simply said: "I do not trust these people, therefore, I cannot allow them onto my premises." Is the state of Vermont and New York going to run security for gays? For myself, I have run into immediate hatred by a homosexual man without a word being said(twenty five years ago). Instant recognition of a straight person brought out a viciousness and evil I hope to never see again. Most are nice, but the militant gays use their gayness to abuse and subjugate others. Now the states of Vermont and New York have put the sovereignty of gays over the sovereignty of all others. The states are going to be held liable.
Mary De Voe
July 21, 2011 at 11:27 pm
@Gail F.: "fair hiring practices" impose the sovereignty of the state over the sovereignty of the Church. Separation of Church and State. The sovereign personhood of each and every individual must be observed by the state. Man constitutes the state and is not property of the state. Man's sovereignty is endowed by almighty God.
Mary De Voe
July 21, 2011 at 11:56 pm
Anon 10:18
If the couple is concerned for the sanctity of marriage then they should not allow divorced people to marry. They are not committing sodomy, but adultery.
I find their argument that they won't allow gay wedding receptions disappointing because at the same time they are quick to say they do not deny accommodations to same sex couples. So you can stay there, but you can't have the reception.
July 21, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty and shelter to the homeless are corporal works of mercy and outside the realm of the states sovereign authority to compel. Tell the homosexual gay couple that they may have the place rent free for their reception, turn off the electricity, water and do not give them the key. They get what they pay for.
July 22, 2011 at 12:23 am
This is going too far. Good commentary on this subject and Catholic issues at http://www.catholicurrent.com/#/.
July 22, 2011 at 1:26 am
Only to preserve human life can govenment tell people what, when and where to do anything.
July 22, 2011 at 9:54 am
It's already happened in the UK.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/homosexuals-try-to-crush-christian-bb/
July 23, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Very sad. Ultimately makin the sign of the cross will be a form of hate speech . . . get ready for the catacombs.