jump to navigation

Innkeeper sued for denying gay couple ‘wedding reception’ July 20, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
trackback

I agree with everything Larry D has to say on this, except for one facet:

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.”……….

…..

“We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians,” they wrote. “Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

Larry D then adds his own commentary, with mine in red:

That principle being…screw you, faithful Catholics. We will put you out of business.

Let me get this straight. The O’Reilly’s don’t have the right to run their business the way they want, nor to give the impression that they support same-sex marriage by hosting “wedding” receptions, but it’s okay for a restaurant to ban families with kids under the age of 6, because the owners have the right to run their business the way they want, and claim that too many patrons were complaining about the disturbances. [If you read the comments at Huffinpuffpost, you will find that, indeed, the vast majority state that a restaurant owner has the right to determine whom he will serve.  While I think that refusal reflects the growing animus in some sectors of our society towards children, that is his right.  But how many of those would agree that the innkeepers have the same right?  None – because Christians, in the minds of many on the left, have no rights.  Welcome to the new persecution]

Gay marriage = good, kids from traditional marriages (more than likely) = bad. Unless the kids have two mommies or two daddies. Then it’ll be all good, I’m sure. [Yes, the hypocrisy is ridiculous]

We live in an ever-increasingly messed up world. Nowadays, the right of one person to not be offended by someone else’s peaceful practice of their religion trumps the right of another to freely practice their religion. When was that added to the Constitution? [It is “added” only insofar as it is convenient to their political and cultural objectives.  The rule of law does not matter save to serve the ends of those who wish the new socialist paganism to be utterly unopposed]

Discrimination is very very bad, unless you’re sticking it to Catholics and Christians who live their faith. In that case, it’s called ‘justice’. Same-sex marriage is nothing more than a money-making scam for the easily offended and their willing accomplices at the ACLU………..[I disagree with this assessment.  The proponents of gay marriage, consciously or not, are using it as a club with which to attack traditional morality and, especially, Christianity.  That Christianity is their only effective defense against rapacious forces in the world who would brutalize their “diversity” is conveniently forgotten.  The rebelling teen will not, can not acknowledge that mom and dad might be right, after all] 

……the O’Reilly’s should have said they were faithful Muslims. Bye-bye lawsuit. [Islam is becoming the de facto state religion in many Western countries, and is given special, protected status.  That hasn’t formally taken place here, yet, but Larry D is right.  The double standards of the those pursuing this path of cultural destruction are breathtaking]

Comments

1. LarryD - July 20, 2011

Thanks for the link!

My assessment on same-sex marriage as a money-making scam was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and perhaps I should have made that more clear. Same-sex marriage is the gay activists’ attempt to normalize sodomy and get access to “rights” they feel entitled to. Should they rake in a few bucks for feeling offended at the same time…well, this won’t be the last time the ACLU will step up to the plate in helping them shake down evil bigoted folks who believe in traditional marriage.

2. Cori Hyland - July 21, 2011

It’s such a shame. I did tell a woman, who wanted to rent a house of ours with her boyfriend, that I wouldn’t rent to them because they weren’t married. That could’ve turned out bad, but luckily it didn’t.

The woman was offended, but maybe it gave her something to think about.

One of the logistical problems with this same-sex thing is that there is nothing that binds the two. There is no third party…God isn’t there and they obviously can’t make babies together. So, all they have to do is divide property when they want to get away from each other….so, why the heck should we the people raise their relationships to a higher level socially than is really possible in the physical and spiritual world?

Doing so perpetrates one more lie on top of an enormous pile of lies homosexuals tell themselves in order to justify weird sex.

tantamergo - July 21, 2011

The divorce rate for gays that have gotten married in the states that allow it is something like 80%, far worse, even, than the worst heterosexual rate in the late 70s. Once this becomes a government enforced redefinition of law across the land, I suspect gays won’t make much use of it. They will have obtained their objective – the recognition in law of their sexuality as good and wonderful, and will use occasional marriages to repress any religious objections to their behavior, and try to undermine or even co-opt the Church declare their unions as holy. That won’t happen, but the Church will be persecuted freely as a result.

3. Cori Hyland - July 22, 2011

Yes, persecuted freely. It’s not about being free to “marry” for them. It’s about forcing others to sign-off on bad behavior. Talked to an old friend about this last night. He likened homosexual behavior to the behavior of those committed to being obese and drunk in how it incrementally takes over your life and way of relating to others.

It’s certainly a problem if I choose to eat or drink exclusively with people who are of them same ilk as me (if I have one of these problems). It’s really a problem to persecute those who refuse to see my indulgences as anything but another life choice: “Where’s the love, man. I can’t help that I was born to drink. If I vomit on your shoes, I’m really sorry, but you are really judgmental to not want to hang out with me when I do!! There should be a law against it…and if I wasn’t so drunk, I’d do something about it.”

While that sounds crazy (because it is), it’s real. It’s the mindset of those who want nature and God to change for their comfort. That’s the devil’s work right there, at its best.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: