An Illinois couple who refused to host a gay civil union ceremony at their idyllic bed and breakfast five years ago was defiant Tuesday after being ordered to pay an $80,000 fine and hold a celebration for the pair.
Jim and Beth Walder, owners of the Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast in Paxton, rejected Mark and Todd Wathen's rental inquiry in 2011, telling them they "believe homosexuality is wrong” and refusing their patronage.
The state had recently passed a law allowing civil unions, and the pair filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which argued their case before an administrative law judge. That judge ruled against the Walders last September, and this month imposed the fine, which included $30,000 in damages and another $50,000 for legal fees.
“We may be out of step with an increasingly anti-Christian culture, but we are in compliance with God’s design and that is what ultimately matters,” Walder said.
The Walders were also ordered in the recent court ruling to cease discrimination of same-sex couples, a violation under the Illinois Human Rights Act. Walder said he will not comply with the order and plans to appeal the fine.
More here
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
This is why need laws to protect religious liberties.
ReplyDeleteWay to go it's their property and their right to choose what takes place.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a religious liberty to discriminate. Period. If you are in business with the public then you have a legal obligation to transact legal business with all sectors of the public not just those you wish to serve.
ReplyDelete1219-So you want laws in place to allow you to blatantly discriminate?
ReplyDeleteThey should be allowed to refuse service, instead of being used in a pawn for someone who deliberately is trying to get a payday.
ReplyDeleteI almost feel sorry for the brainwashing the Walder family has had done to them.
ReplyDeleteGays use to want to be left alone, now they are in your face bullies, scew them.
ReplyDelete102-All businesses are allowed to refuse service. They screwed up by stating to the potential customers it is because of their sexuality. Did they get used like a pawn? Yep. Because they were stupid enough to be a pawn.
ReplyDelete1:02 They did refuse service, and now they will deal with the consequences. 12:19 How about NO. You are free to choose which religion you want to follow, however no laws should be in place for you to refuse service to someone based on those beliefs. Christians = Muslims.
ReplyDelete12:31 and 12:35 Then the laws need be changed. A business should be able to serve whomever they choose. If a bakery doesnt want to serve women I have no problem with that. I will go to a bakery, photographer, mechanic etc....that does. Life isn't fair. Get over it.
ReplyDelete211-So, you're for discrimination? It's fine when it's discrimination towards others, but what happens when you are discriminated against? Probably will change your tune in a hurry, I'd bet!
ReplyDelete2:11 -- Are you familiar with the expression "places of PUBLIC accommodation?" If I owned a business, and it were legal to do so, I wouldn't serve the ignorant and intolerant. So, you wouldn't have to bother coming around.
ReplyDelete"..It is not a religious liberty to discriminate.."
ReplyDelete'Religious liberty' is the freedom to live by your own sincerely-held spiritual values. The laws being passed to protect that right (which is the backbone of every founding document of our Republic) are not designed to single anybody out, but to protect people who exercise their God-given and Constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of religion.
For decades, signs have been in windows of stores and restaurants across America:
"No shirt, no shoes-- no service."
Is that discrimination? I've never seen a lawsuit over that. I've never seen a business owner fined $135,000 for somebody's hurt feelings over that. I know of many who have been turned away from businesses for improper (or lack of) attire.
And what role does the TARGETING of businesses by gay activists play in this? When there are numerous other options for baking cakes or holding 'wedding' receptions, how is it that homosexuals insist that one particular business HAS to be the one to serve them, regardless of conscientious objection? That the homosexuals' feelings and desires are the only ones that matter?
How selfish can you get? That's not only bullying, it's akin to forcing yourself on someone sexually.. it's rape in a social sense. The same mentality as a rapist.
THAT'S why we need Religious liberty laws. It is to protect our fundamental right to live according to our own conscience, and to protect us from the predatory practices of social rapists.
418-lol, nice end around in an attempt to defend discrimination. Attire isn't sexuality. Attire isn't race.
ReplyDeleteThey did absolutely nothing to deny the couple their right to marry. Leave them alone!
ReplyDeletegay isn't race.
ReplyDelete