header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: CASE Baker v. Wildflower Inn

 (Read 493 times)

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18471
  • Liked:
CASE Baker v. Wildflower Inn
« on: March 07, 2018, 03:00:59 PM »
Client Story

Jim and Mary O'Reilly


Tucked away into the rolling hills of Vermont lies the Wildflower Inn, a picturesque bed and breakfast and the home of the owners, the O’Reilly family. Despite the beautiful surroundings, the Inn was mired in over a decade of ugly controversy over the rights of it’s owners to operate according to their faith.
 


 


 
A local wedding coordinator working for the inn falsely told a caller that the inn would not allow a same-sex reception in order to offer event services through her personal business. The inn’s actual business practice was to honestly disclose Jim and Mary O’Reilly’s Catholic religious convictions while agreeing to serve everyone in accordance with the law – a practice approved by the Vermont Human Rights Commission in 2005. Nevertheless, the same-sex couple filed charges against the inn.
 
 After the wedding coordinator resigned, the inn stopped hosting wedding events of any kind three months before the lawsuit even began. But the persecution of the Wildflower Inn continued. Jim and Mary offered a settlement of everything the ACLU and Human Rights Commission asked for, but they not only rejected it, but actually brought more charges. They demanded that the inn pay $10,000 to the commission and $20,000 into a charitable trust set up by the homosexual couple. Alliance Defending Freedom defended the O’Reillys in court, and ultimately, the Human Rights Commission admitted that Jim and Mary had done no wrong. However, they still had to make the payments in order to end the ordeal.
 
 “The Wildflower Inn has always served--and will continue to serve--everyone in our community. But no one can force us to abandon our deeply held beliefs about marriage,” said Jim. “Our beliefs haven’t changed, but we do have lives to live, a family to love, a business to grow, and a community to serve. Small businesses like ours cannot match the limitless resources of the government and the ACLU. Ongoing litigation like this can cripple any small business and the livelihood of its owners, so we’re relieved to put this ordeal behind us.”
 
 The O’Reilly’s weren’t the first or the last bed and breakfast to face lawsuits over their views on marriage: Alliance Defending Freedom also defended the Timbercreek Bed and Breakfast and the Aloha Bed and Breakfast owners’ rights to run their businesses according to their faith.
 
 Learn more about the effects of redefining marriage
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: CASE Baker v. Wildflower Inn
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2018, 03:59:15 PM »
Something didn't add up.  Why would the Inn be held accountable for a lie told by a 3rd party.  Here's what appears to be the truth:

Based on that decision, the Wildflower Inn’s stated policy was to ignore all calls and emails from same-sex couples hoping to host a wedding or reception at the inn. If confronted, their policy was to advise the couple that the owners did not believe in same-sex marriage, but would host the reception if they really wanted to.

“My understanding is that their policy was if a gay couple called or emailed that they just wouldn’t return their calls or their emails, or if for instance someone showed up … then they would have a conversation and say ‘this goes against our religious beliefs and we can’t put our hearts into it and we don’t support it,'” Kate Linsley (she changed her name when the couple married) said in an interview.
Dan Barrett, an attorney for ACLU-Vermont, said the settlement asserted that the 2005 decision was no longer valid.
“What this settlement makes clear is that you can’t discourage and get away with it. Discouragement or any unequal treatment of LGBT customers is [legally] the same as an outright refusal,” he said.
https://vtdigger.org/2012/08/23/same-sex-couple-aclu-vermont-prevail-in-discrimination-lawsuit-settlement-with-wildflower-inn/
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 05:41:12 PM by P1tchBlack »

gymvol

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Liked:
Re: CASE Baker v. Wildflower Inn
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2018, 04:55:09 PM »
Something didn't add up.  Why would the Inn be held accountable for a like told by a 3rd party.  Here's what appears to be the truth:

Based on that decision, the Wildflower Inn’s stated policy was to ignore all calls and emails from same-sex couples hoping to host a wedding or reception at the inn.
When did Caller ID start showing a persons sexual preference, never, so how would they have known?

You are assuming people who called left a message sayiing they were queer.

What appears to be the truth you must be one.
If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking.

George S. Patton

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: CASE Baker v. Wildflower Inn
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2018, 05:51:00 PM »
When did Caller ID start showing a persons sexual preference, never, so how would they have known?

You are assuming people who called left a message sayiing they were queer.

What appears to be the truth you must be one.
who knows.  There are a lot of ways you can figure it out.  They probably just played it safe.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18471
  • Liked:
Pitch digs his hole deeper
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2018, 09:03:37 PM »
who knows.  There are a lot of ways you can figure it out.  They probably just played it safe.

Pitchy includes a self portrait in his idiotic response   :smiley_confused1:
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

gymvol

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6691
  • Liked:
Re: CASE Baker v. Wildflower Inn
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2018, 08:17:27 AM »
who knows.  There are a lot of ways you can figure it out.  They probably just played it safe.

We've got you figured out for sure.
If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking.

George S. Patton

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: CASE Baker v. Wildflower Inn
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2018, 08:43:59 AM »
We've got you figured out for sure.
No you haven't.  I do get a lot of amusement out if the fact that you think you have, though.
Like I said, this couple would not be responsible for an outside person relaying misinformation.  There must have been a pattern of behavior that showed discrimination.  Apparently they thought they found a loophole...and were wrong.
Lesson learned.

 

Associate Links/Search