Good job putting Lyndonville on the map, Mr and Mrs O’Reilly.
Most Vermonters are not like the O’Reillys, though. My wife and I spent a wonderful honeymoon at the Pitcher Inn in Warren, Vermont. Everyone made a point of congratulating us on our wedding and asking us all about it. Local businesses were equally welcoming. Thank you, Warren. Bad luck, Lyndonville.
“did not feel they could celebrate a same-sex union because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in”
Well of course not, and I’m sure they would equally turn away anyone divorced, cuts their hair, eats prawns, or anyone born out of wedlock, I mean, it would be simply bigoted to select one passage out of a book that maintains a false premise of a 6,000 year old earth, wouldn’t it?
Wouldn’t it just Will. These type of individuals always appear ignorant to the ‘rules’ in the rest of their ‘holy book’.
I really hope they win their law suit. It’s time all discrimination stops.
I’m sorry but these ladies have zero moral precept on which to base their suit on. There is absolutely no reason in a free society why a private business cannot turn down the business of anyone they so chose. You see, this is exactly the kind of stuff I am both opposed to and the exact kind of stuff that makes the entire LGBT movement look bad and justifies all sorts of counteraction from the religious right.
The reason America has prospered to this point and the cause of liberty has advanced in this world over the last two hundred or so years has been the proliferation (albeit dwindling) of economic freedom. To try and force the owners of this Inn to host their reception is both morally contemptuous and only makes us all look bad, and for good reason.
“There is absolutely no reason in a free society why a private business cannot turn down the business of anyone they so chose.”
Actually there is. A business is a business, if you do not like a section of the public, and cannot follow the laws pertaining to that business, then you have the freedom to close that establishment. You are perverting the term “freedom” – being able to discriminate a la carte on some superstitious nonsense actually takes away from the human rights of others and the freedoms you are trying, with limited success, to defend here.
Be clear here, what you are talking about is the “freedom” of one section of society having the right to discriminate against others. Which is not freedom at all. Its called oppression. Perhaps a lesson in human rights and how they apply equally for any society to call itself “free” would help you understand your error here.
Very well said Will, succinct and correct!
A E Hall needs an edcuation in civil liberties if he/she thinks that allowing these bigots free reign over the rights of individuals is supposed to be called “liberty”. What a stupid comment for A E Hall to make.
Dead on Will. AE, you are way off base on this one. Your argument by extension would mean any business owner could refuse service to anyone else for whatever season, no exception.
“I am sorry you are not dressed properly. That fabric is condemned in the Bible”
“We’re sorry your date is wearing the wrong colour of lipstick. Everyone knows that red is against God’s law”,
“I’m sorry we only want white people to drive our cars. Otherwise it throws off the colour scheme”.
When a business gets a licence to operate they are obliged to serve all the public according to the law of their jurisdiction.
AE, you exact same argument was used by countless businesses in the American South in the 50′s and 60′s to deny service African-Americans and by many private clubs (country clubs) to keep Jews from getting membership. Your argument is seriously flawed and very out-dated.
Why exactly is A E Hall reading Pink News and commenting on the stories posted here? Does he – I’m assuming this is a “he” – think that LGBT people should quietly accept second-rate “move to the back of the bus” service as part of the great American freedom to make money overbears the great American freedom to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
A E – so are you saying that the lunch counters in the 50′s were absolutely right when they refused to serve black people? Hmmm? Get real.
I wonder how this would go over—
“THE GOVERNOR OF VERMONT INVITES ALL CITIZENS TO A BBQ – CATHOLICS NEED NOT ATTEND”
Something like this would never happen especially in Vermont. Vermonters are rightfully proud of their stubborn defence of equality. The state motto is “Freedom and Unity”. These hotel operators are not indicative of most Vermonters. “Blacklisting” – which is what the operators did to the newlyweds – works in TWO directions. I have a feeling that the Vermont Convention Bureau will be sending them whole lot of referrals. Best of luck to the couple.
Oops that should be “will NOT be sending” in second last sentence
Some people never learn! ‘Jim and Mary O’Reilly?’ lol That is about as Irish Catholic you can get! lol Just find another joint and get married! You will just give the homophobes more homophobic business by pursuing legal action.
“The law is clear that any business that provides a service to the public can’t pick and choose who they want to serve based on the customer’s race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” So you just leave them to continue to break the law?
Personally, I would just burn the place to the ground….but that’s me….
Sorry folks, but you admit breaking state law and will lose this case. You cannot discriminate in Vermont on the basis of sexual orientation.