"Family Friendly Inn" Not Friendly to All Families

[Terrie]

No, it's just some lesbians who saw a chance to sue and make some money and the business owners didn't have the financial resources to fight the ACLU, so they decided to cut their losses and settle.

They were represented by the ADF, which does these cases for FREE. If they can afford the $30,000 settlement, they can afford the case. Also, the law doesn't work like that.

[Gil]

They were represented by the ADF, which does these cases for FREE. If they can afford the $30,000 settlement, they can afford the case. Also, the law doesn't work like that.

Nice try, SWL. I'm not seeing anyone claim that outside this tiny newspaper serving one town. Furthermore, most of their payments seem to have gone to the state local human rights commission. A+ for effort, though.

You guys just like to cry troll whenever someone doesn't agree with everything and say all the right things according to a bunch of left-wing, liberal, nut-job feminists.

No one's making you stay, afaik.

I actually could use nail polish advice -- how do you guys keep from picking? ISTG, every time I swear I won't pick and now I have tiny little blue patches on my fingernails. Not even a good shade of blue, either, so I can't recommend it for your Angel friend.

[wtfrenchtoast]

That doesn't explain why the just decided to shut down the wedding side of their business completely, SheWhoLaughs.

[She Who Laughs]

That doesn't explain why the just decided to shut down the wedding side of their business completely, SheWhoLaughs.

Every article I have read states that they shut down the wedding side of their business three months prior to there even being a lawsuit. And I'm not saying they aren't against same-sex marriage. They have definitely come out and said they don't agree with it on a personal level but they agreed to serve all people according to the law. So why would they make that agreement and get approval from the Vermont Human Rights Commission only to turn around and jeopardize their business by refusing to have the wedding reception? It just makes no sense that they would do that. It does however, make perfect sense that an employee, who was trying to drive customers to her own business, would tell the lesbian couple a lie so that she could get their business instead.

[Gil]

Every article I have read states that they shut down the wedding side of their business three months prior to there even being a lawsuit. And I'm not saying they aren't against same-sex marriage. They have definitely come out and said they don't agree with it on a personal level but they agreed to serve all people according to the law. So why would they make that agreement and get approval from the Vermont Human Rights Commission only to turn around and jeopardize their business by refusing to have the wedding reception? It just makes no sense that they would do that. It does however, make perfect sense that an employee, who was trying to drive customers to her own business, would tell the lesbian couple a lie so that she could get their business instead.

Can you tell us where they got official approval from the Commission, or are you just assuming that? I've never heard of such a thing. I haven't heard this excuse claim outside a poorly-formatted article with no listed author, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little skeptical. Considering that you've claimed several things that aren't true (the lesbians were in it for the money they didn't get! their free defense was too expensive!), I think you've decided what you want to think on the issue. You want to make this the big, bad lesbians going after the innocent business owners and if you've set your mind on that, there's nothing anyone can say.

[wtfrenchtoast]

Every article I have read states that they shut down the wedding side of their business three months prior to there even being a lawsuit. And I'm not saying they aren't against same-sex marriage. They have definitely come out and said they don't agree with it on a personal level but they agreed to serve all people according to the law. So why would they make that agreement and get approval from the Vermont Human Rights Commission only to turn around and jeopardize their business by refusing to have the wedding reception? It just makes no sense that they would do that. It does however, make perfect sense that an employee, who was trying to drive customers to her own business, would tell the lesbian couple a lie so that she could get their business instead.

And they didn't fire this employee immediately and offer to host the reception anyway because...?

[She Who Laughs]

Can you tell us where they got official approval from the Commission, or are you just assuming that? I've never heard of such a thing. I haven't heard this excuse claim outside a poorly-formatted article with no listed author, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little skeptical. Considering that you've claimed several things that aren't true (the lesbians were in it for the money they didn't get! their free defense was too expensive!), I think you've decided what you want to think on the issue. You want to make this the big, bad lesbians going after the innocent business owners and if you've set your mind on that, there's nothing anyone can say.

The CBS article which was from the associated press states that the inn had received approval from the Vermont human rights commission to express their opposition to same-sex marriage but still serve all people according to the law. The commission also found that the inn owners had not discriminated against the couple. Then after the commission said they weren't guilty of discrimination they turned around and jumped on the ACLU bandwagon.

[She Who Laughs]

And they didn't fire this employee immediately and offer to host the reception anyway because...?

Perhaps they did and that's why this employee is now referred to as a "former employee"

[Gil]

According to a statement from the attorney, they had done this to other customers, which I suspect has something to do with the success of the suit. I'll reiterate: I think you've decided what you want to think on the issue. You want to make this the big, bad lesbians going after the innocent business owners and if you've set your mind on that, there's nothing anyone can say.

[She Who Laughs]

According to a statement from the attorney, they had done this to other customers, which I suspect has something to do with the success of the suit. I'll reiterate: I think you've decided what you want to think on the issue. You want to make this the big, bad lesbians going after the innocent business owners and if you've set your mind on that, there's nothing anyone can say.

Actually, although I think people are lawsuit happy these days, I think the whole thing started by a greedy employee trying to get some business on the side and not caring if they screwed over their current employer.

[Gil]

Actually, although I think people are lawsuit happy these days, I think the whole thing started by a greedy employee trying to get some business on the side and not caring if they screwed over their current employer.

No, it's just some lesbians who saw a chance to sue and make some money and the business owners didn't have the financial resources to fight the ACLU, so they decided to cut their losses and settle.

Uh huh. :roll: At least be consistent.

[PennySycamore]

According to a statement from the attorney, they had done this to other customers, which I suspect has something to do with the success of the suit. I'll reiterate: I think you've decided what you want to think on the issue. You want to make this the big, bad lesbians going after the innocent business owners and if you've set your mind on that, there's nothing anyone can say.

This x 1000

[She Who Laughs]

According to a statement from the attorney, they had done this to other customers, which I suspect has something to do with the success of the suit. I'll reiterate: I think you've decided what you want to think on the issue. You want to make this the big, bad lesbians going after the innocent business owners and if you've set your mind on that, there's nothing anyone can say.

And if the ACLU had evidence of them doing this to other potential customers then why would agree to the settlement instead of going after them even harder? And your article is old, from way before this was even settled.

[Gil]

And if the ACLU had evidence of them doing this to other potential customers then why would agree to the settlement instead of going after them even harder? And your article is old, from way before this was even settled.

I'm not the ACLU, I don't know -- are you saying the ACLU lawyer is lying on the record? I don't think something that factually occurred in the past changes because my article was written one year ago.

[She Who Laughs]

Uh huh. :roll: At least be consistent.

And I already said that people are lawsuit-happy. Basically attention whores kinda like you accuse the Duggars of being.

[Witsec7]

Aw those poor little bigots at the Inn, well at least they can depend on SWL for some business. LoL.

[Gil]

And I already said that people are lawsuit-happy. Basically attention whores kinda like you accuse the Duggars of being.

Those things are so completely not comparable that it's almost funny to watch you struggle to connect them. Can you show me where they've done anything but courteously respond to news outlets? Where they've tried to milk this for any sort of personal profit, since all the money goes to the commission and charity? You're trying to turn this into something that it isn't because of your personal bigotry -- you have no reason to believe what you're spewing.

[She Who Laughs]

I'm not the ACLU, I don't know -- are you saying the ACLU lawyer is lying on the record? I don't think something that factually occurred in the past changes because my article was written one year ago.

Since there have been no charges brought up against them for doing this to other potential customers then the ACLU lawyer can pretty much say whatever he wants to say. They didn't say, they "knew" this has happened, they said "we understand" which means at any time they can backpedal and say that the information they had was wrong and that the couple hadn't done this to other customers. Don't tell me you seriously think lawyers always tell the truth to the media. Hahahahaha!

[Gil]

Since there have been no charges brought up against them for doing this to other potential customers then the ACLU lawyer can pretty much say whatever he wants to say. They didn't say, they "knew" this has happened, they said "we understand" which means at any time they can backpedal and say that the information they had was wrong and that the couple hadn't done this to other customers. Don't tell me you seriously think lawyers always tell the truth to the media. Hahahahaha!

Okay, the lawyers are lying and the lesbians are attention whores who are chasing after money, which you have concluded based off of whatever goes on in your own mind. You know better than the Vermont Superior court. Gotcha.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

These days I read "Family Friendly" as "Bigot."

[wtfrenchtoast]

These days I read "Family Friendly" as "Bigot."

This. I see anything with the word Family in its title and automatically assume they hate gay people. Which is sad, but they've co-opted the term for their own bigotry.

[PennySycamore]

This. I see anything with the word Family in its title and automatically assume they hate gay people. Which is sad, but they've co-opted the term for their own bigotry.

It's also weird that the LGBT community has at times used "family" to refer to themselves. "Oh, he's family." means "Oh, he's gay." I don't know that it's used as much as it was.

Scroll to the bottom: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=family&page=2

[ElphabaGalinda]

It's also weird that the LGBT community has at times used "family" to refer to themselves. "Oh, he's family." means "Oh, he's gay." I don't know that it's used as much as it was.

Scroll to the bottom: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=family&page=2

I'm gay and I've never heard it...perhaps I'm too young. But I really like it, it's kind of funny because of the way homophones use the word familiy. :D I'm going to start using this now.

[Anxious Girl]

http://newportvermontdailyexpress.com/content/wildflower-inn-settles-lesbian-discrimination-suit

ETA: fuck you weirdghostboo

Why would weirdghostboo want to fuck you? Go fuck yourself, you fucking bitch who wants to opress other groups using white Christian "persecution" as your excuse. Go hide under a rock and and ask HoseBeast for some fucking; I'm sick and tired of you. You're probably hiding your sexual identity anyway with being a homophobe. ;)

[JesusFightClub]

Since there have been no charges brought up against them for doing this to other potential customers then the ACLU lawyer can pretty much say whatever he wants to say. They didn't say, they "knew" this has happened, they said "we understand" which means at any time they can backpedal and say that the information they had was wrong and that the couple hadn't done this to other customers.

Lawyers in "being cautious" shock!

In my experience of legal types, which unfortunately has been extensive, they never come right out and say "Look, we know this for definite so there" or words to that effect. They hedge round a subject. They say things like "It is my and my client's understanding that...". This is because lawyers more than anyone know the power of words and how they can be used against one.

So I doubt this means the ACLU lawyer was brazenly lying in this case, just being careful. As lawyers do, no?