Jim O’Reilly, the owner of the business made it amply clear that he was ready to bend than break holding that he was settling because his business could not “match the limitless resources of the government and the ACLU.” In a statement issued by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the owner of the inn said, “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.”
The dispute arose when upon asking for the service of the inn in response to promotional materials claiming “you could not offer a better ‘destination wedding’ location for your guests,” the couple informed that it would be “bride and bride” on the reception. An immediate email was received from the events director of the inn with the title, “I have bad news.” The mail communicated to the couple that the Wildflower Inn would not host the reception due to “personal feelings” of the innkeeper.
This was a bit odd as Vermont is counted among the most liberal U.S. states and had legalized same-sex marriages in 2009, while it had recognized civil unions from 2000. Also, the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act prohibits businesses that serve the general public, except religious organizations and inns with less than five rooms, from denying goods and services based on the sexual orientation of customers.
The Linsleys sued in Vermont Superior Court. Kate Linsley told the media, “We didn’t want to stay quiet and allow businesses to continue to think they can discriminate.” The ACLU backed the lesbian couple and the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined as co-plaintiff in the suit.
It’s all settled now, but there would be no more weddings at Wildflower Inn.
The title of this article is odd, at the very least. One would think that the writer was biased against the couple, and same-sex couples in general.
The title is grossly inaccurate, in that nobody compelled the innkeepers to stop holding weddings. They were absolutely free to hold wedding receptions 365 days a year as long as they obeyed the law. Given the choice between treating all people as equal under the law and ceasing to hold weddings, the bigots running the inn decided to indulge their prejudices.
Also, the use of the word “insulted” trivializes the incident. The possibility that they were insulted, or felt insulted, is not the point. The point is that they were discriminated against on account of their sexual orientation (as is stated in the body of the piece). Your title implies “Lesbian couple has a sad over triviality, forces inn out of business,” where the reality of the situation is “Lesbian couple discriminated against, criminals who run inn choose bigotry over business.”