Homosexuals Sue Christian Bed & Breakfast Owner for Refusing ‘Civil Union’ Ceremony

This is from the Illinois Family Institute:

As Attacks on religious liberty and freedom of conscience have started — mere weeks after Governor Pat Quinn (D) signed the ‘civil unions’ bill into law — just as we warned.

While many conservatives think wisdom and political pragmatism dictate a “truce” on the social issues, liberals, including homosexuals, see this time as ripe for an all-out frontal assault on virtually every issue pertaining to homosexual practice.

The most recent assault by those who view our side’s cowardly truce as their golden opportunity is taking place in Illinois. Just one month after Governor Patrick Quinn signed the civil union bill into law, a homosexual couple has filed complaints with both the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Human Rights for the refusal of two innkeepers to rent out their privately owned bed and breakfasts for a civil union ceremony and reception.

Todd Wathen and his partner hired attorney Betty Tsamis who claims that “it is unlawful for a business open to the public to deny goods and/or services to someone on the basis of sexual orientation.” Since neither owner rents his facility out for either homosexual or heterosexual civil union ceremonies, one wonders how they can be accused of discriminating against homosexuals.

One of the bed and breakfasts, Timber Creek in Paxton, Illinois, is owned by Jim Walder, a Christian father of five children who has been deluged with vicious, hateful emails and phone calls. This comes as no surprise to those of us who spend much of our time exposing and opposing the homosexuality-normalizing juggernaut, but it’s been an emotionally devastating experience for the Walders who did not ask for this battle.

The desire and efforts of parents to protect their children from exposure to ceremonies and celebrations on their property that honor conduct which God finds detestable are noble desires and efforts that must be supported. I have said many times that there is no greater threat to First Amendment speech and religious rights and parental rights than that posed by the movement to normalize homosexuality. We need look no further than Springfield and Paxton, Illinois for proof.

There are more fundamental issues at play than whether the bed and breakfast owners are discriminating based on “sexual orientation.” First, there’s the issue of why homosexuality is included in anti-discrimination policies and laws in the first place. The concocted term “sexual orientation” came to be included in anti-discrimination policy because conservatives were bamboozled into accepting the utterly specious comparison of homosexuality to race. Homosexuality is not an ontological condition analogous or equivalent to race and, therefore, should never have been included in anti-discrimination policies in the first place.

Race or skin color is 100 percent heritable and carries no behavioral implications that are legitimate objects of moral assessment, whereas homosexuality is not biologically determined and is centrally defined by subjective experiences and volitional behavior that is open to moral assessment. There is no justification for that analogy, and it must be challenged.

In the homosexual newspaper, the Windy City Times, Wathen expressed the foolish notion that discriminating between moral and immoral sexual acts is equivalent to racial discrimination:

[W]hat will be next, if we let them discriminate against us. Are these businesses going to go backwards and start discriminating [based on a person’s] race, color, sex, national origin, or what if they don’t like your religion, [will they] discriminate because of that?

Since homosexuality is not ontologically equivalent to race, disapproval of homosexuality is not equivalent to racism.

Second, arguing that business owners are legally prohibited from making moral distinctions among volitional behaviors undermines the religious liberty of people of faith. Homosexuals and their ideological allies seek to blur the critical distinction between non-volitional, non-behavioral conditions and volitional acts. Whereas it is unethical to condemn and treat people differently because of non-volitional, non-behavioral conditions like eye color, skin color, or disability, it is not only permissible but wise and necessary to make moral distinctions among volitional acts.

How can Christians live out their faith if they are legally required to support with their time, their labor, their goods, and their services behaviors that they know to be an offense to God? This country was founded on a commitment to protect religious liberty — something that homosexual activists believe should now be subordinate to sexual liberty.

Former Georgetown University law professor, lesbian Chai Feldblum, who was an Obama recess appointment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last year, explicitly stated this belief in 2006:

[F]or all my sympathy for the Evangelical couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried heterosexual couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe a “zero sum” nature of the game comes into play. And in making a decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced that society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.

We should pay closer attention to the words of homosexual activists.

The Windy City Times also reports that,

Todd Wathen and his partner “are seeking a personal apology “and want to be treated with dignity and respect….Not only do we ask this for ourselves, but we ask this for every gay and lesbian person in Illinois.”

Wathen presumptuously seeks not only to compel people to violate their consciences in order to serve his desires, but he expects an apology from them for holding different views on the nature and morality of homosexual acts than he holds. What does the concept of respecting diversity mean to Wathen? It seems to mean that everyone must hold the same beliefs he does or at least act like they do.

Moreover, disapproval of the beliefs or behavioral choices of other people does not constitute disrespect of them, dislike of them, or hatred for them. It’s not only possible to treat with dignity people whose beliefs and behavioral choices we find objectionable, it’s commonplace.

It has been reported that Mr. Walder responded to Mr. Wathen’s request to hold his civil union at Timber Creek by quoting the Gospel, which irritated Wathen. But citing the source of one’s Christian beliefs is not an insult. It is an act of love and compassion, and an affirmation of the dignity and worth of those who have chosen to center their lives around sinful impulses. Christ’s words to the adulterous woman, “Go, and sin no more,” were the antithesis of disrespect.

Wathen also said that he wants “other gay people to be aware of this class-based discrimination and we want to encourage members of the LGBT community to come forward if other businesses discriminate against them.” So, according to Wathen subjective experiences and volitional behavior now constitute a “class” against which no one in society can discriminate. If society were to apply this perverse idea consistently, no one could make rational moral distinctions about any behaviors because behaviors would constitute protected classes. For example, caterers, florists, disc jockeys, bed and breakfast owners, photographers, fertility doctors, private adoption agencies, calligraphers, graphic designers, doulas, nannies, and maids could not refuse to provide their goods and services to those who are members of a class constituted by behaviors they find profoundly immoral.

The remarkable and inspiring victory by and for home schooling families last week has also been a source of agitation to me. Four thousand home schoolers showed up in Springfield to demonstrate their opposition to a bill that would have required them to register with the State Board of Education — 4,000! Amazing.

And what keeps churning through my head is why 4,000 or 8,000 conservatives didn’t show up in Springfield to oppose the civil union bill or the disastrous anti-bullying bill that will ultimately result in elementary school children being exposed to resources that affirm homosexuality and cross-dressing as normative and good. When will the loss of speech rights, religious liberties, and parental rights rouse the righteous ire of conservatives? What assaults on innocence and truth will have to take place in our tax-supported schools before conservatives will get over their inertia, laziness, pride, and fear to boldly, vigorously, and tenaciously oppose dangerous legislation built on fallacious assumptions? The home schoolers showed us by example what we should be doing and what we can accomplish.

The time for tsk-tsking about the degradation of our culture is long past. The time of blaming this degradation on others is over. We are at least as culpable as homosexual activists and their ideological comrades — if not more so — because we know the truth and do little to preserve, protect, or promote it. Those of us who are Christians know that God expects us to protect children and we know that we must be willing to suffer for Him.

Our purportedly conservative leaders need to remember that a truce calls for both sides to agree to a cessation or suspension of hostilities or aggression. When only one side suspends their actions, it’s a forfeit.

Please pray for the Walder family, and if you’re vacationing in Illinois, please consider spending some time at the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast.


Filed under Bible, Christianity, Politics, Religion

16 responses to “Homosexuals Sue Christian Bed & Breakfast Owner for Refusing ‘Civil Union’ Ceremony

  1. Pingback: Do you ever feel like you have stigmatized yourself? : Body Building Blog | Free Fitness Tips & Body Building…

  2. Unfortunately, as a Christian, I think I will have to support that gay couple and their right (by law) to get married and to rent an estate for that purpose – a business that was open to such endeavors. It does seem like a matter of discrimination to me.

    The man may not believe in the law in Illinois for ‘civil unions’ and all of that – regardless – he is choosing to run a business under that law and has to be held accountable. What’s next – a McDonald’s won’t serve a ‘gay couple’ because they find their marriage reprehensible? Business is business, if that B&B owner cannot ‘serve’ them – maybe he needs to move where this won’t be a problem? Has he tried Mexico?

  3. But what about the rights of the owner to determine who gets to use his property. He isn’t saying that they can not have their ceremony. He is just saying that his beliefs do not support their goal.

    What if it was a father and daughter getting married, would he be wrong to refuse then? Maybe a sixteen year old girl wants to marry a 54 year old man, with parental permission of course. Is it wrong for him to refuse then? At what point are your religious freedoms taken away due to the feelings of another person?

  4. “He isn’t saying that they can not have their ceremony. He is just saying that his beliefs do not support their goal” (Xander)

    “the refusal of two innkeepers to rent out their privately owned bed and breakfasts for a civil union ceremony and reception” (blog)

    He is saying ‘they cannot have their legally entitled civil ceremony at his place of business’. He can cover this however he wants to – but if a hotel or motel decided they were not gonna allow this – we’d be saying ‘that’s discrimination!’. What’s the real difference between this B&B and a Hilton – except for size? Just because the size of the place and location are different – does not mean the B&B owner is entitled to more ‘priveleges’ concerning the law and who and what can use his place of business.

    “What if it was a father and daughter getting married, would he be wrong to refuse then? Maybe a sixteen year old girl wants to marry a 54 year old man, with parental permission of course. Is it wrong for him to refuse then? At what point are your religious freedoms taken away due to the feelings of another person?” (Xander)

    Father and daughter is illegal – not in the same category. As for the 16 year old marrying an older man – it is legal if the permission is there. Does it help if the 54 year old is a billionaire? Regardless, if the law allows then a place of business cannot and should not discriminate based on what their state allows. (Even if I find the act of a 54 year old marrying a 16 year old reprehensible).

    As for the refusal, everyone is entitled to their opinion – which this B&B owner has. However, he is running a business, which can for all purposes be considered a ‘motel’, and he is subject to the law of the land to run that business (he is not above or below the law on this). What if a known communist wanted to rent a room for the night – should he refuse him since their beliefs clash?

    As per religous freedoms, this man has lost nothing. Even if he lost his business, could he still practice his faith? The answers is obvious.

    The problem here is ‘discrmination’ and for some reason there is a generation of people that refuse to see being gay as being equal. I personally find much of what gay men do quite untasteful, however I don’t ever let my own opinions on the subject slip in and allow for discrimination against someone. Its really quite sickening to think this type of thinking is still pervasive in the West, when its becoming more and more clear gay people are not ‘choosing’ to be gay – its just the way it is.

  5. He still did not deny them the right to their ceremony. He did not deny them of any of their rights. He only denied them the ability to use his facility. His rights to practice his religious beliefs are in question though and the focus of the lawsuit. This isn’t a case of discrimination but of an attack against a religious stance.

    If the Hilton refused to allow a KKK rally to be held in their meeting hall, isn’t that discrimination as well and shouldn’t it be allowed by law? Should a business risk a loss of future revenue by being forced to participate in something they do not agree with?

    Still no scientific proof that someone who identifies as gay is born gay. Until it can be shown that it is a genetic condition, comparing someone’s sexual attraction to a gender or skin color is wrong and cheapens their struggles.

  6. “This isn’t a case of discrimination but of an attack against a religious stance.” (Xander)

    If it’s an attack against a religious stance it will lose in court. However, if that religious stance is hindering the law then it will lose. In this case, that religious stance resulted in discrimination.

    As for hotles being used by the KKK, this in fact has happened for time immemorial with that group. They do not get refused gathering places because as a group they have the right to ‘meet’. I disagree with whatever they stand for but this does not mean a business can choose to chase them away – even if they think it will hurt business – since they are business that has ‘meeting rooms’. They have as much a right as any other Christian group to rent a meeting room.

    “Still no scientific proof that someone who identifies as gay is born gay. Until it can be shown that it is a genetic condition…” (Xander)

    Really? Do you actually believe this? You think all gay people are just simply ‘making a decision to be gay’? Kind of like how we are making a decision to like women?

  7. So when religious beliefs conflict with another’s beliefs, which one wins out? The gay couples legal rights were not denied, they could still get married, but the business owner did not want his establishment to be used because his actions would be condoning a lifestyle that he disagrees with for religious reasons. Now the gay couple can have their union at numerous facilities of an equal quality, but they are suing in order to prove that their lifestyle is correct and that the owner’s religion is wrong. What will happen is that people will either have to compromise their religious beliefs in order to continue to offer a service or lose money by not offering it to anyone.

    The KKK is not a protected group. They have a right to assemble, but they can not force a private business to grant them service. Is sexuality a protected group and should it be is the question.

    I think the majority of those who identify as gay are not that way based upon a genetic basis. I think most cases can be traced back to psychological variances that happened to them as they were maturing. There was a case last year where a 5 year old boy was deemed to be gay because he wanted to wear a girls costume for Halloween. When did attire determine a persons sexual orientation? Maybe society would lose its perspective of what a normal boy or girl would do, then we might not have as many people who adjust to a social standard based upon their behaviors as children.

  8. “The gay couples legal rights were not denied, they could still get married, but the business owner did not want his establishment to be used because his actions would be condoning a lifestyle that he disagrees with for religious reasons” (Xander)

    I actually agree with you on this point – someone should have the right to use (or not use) their property the way they deem fit.

    Where I disagree, is that whether the person’s religious beliefs or not disagree with something – does not make those religious beliefs ‘right’ or ‘true’.

    This can lead down many wormholes and has in recent history in cases like slavery, equality, and segregation of Black people in America. You would be amazed at the scriptural justification that was used to uphold slavery, inequality, and segregation…yes, scriptures were in fact used for those same problems in society.

    So now, we have a gay couple wanting to be married at a local B&B because they like the place – then they get refused because ‘someones religious rights are being trampled’. You can see why I would be skeptical of the importance of those religious rights based on history correct?

    “Is sexuality a protected group and should it be is the question” (Xander)

    I didnt know that about the KKK (as per protection – my bad). However, I think sexuality should be protected since it is also not proven that this is not a genetic condition. What if in a few years they find this is a genetic pre-conditioning that happens in the person – then it would be wise to protect them a group sooner than later.

    If it is found this is a genetic or physiological condition – should Christianity change?

  9. Xander, you’re doing it again. You pretend that the issue is all about a business owner’s right to discriminate, that this is really a question about the owner’s rights. How ironic is it that you fail utterly to understand the real issue at stake: how the poor reasons upon which the owner is attempting to justify reducing the rights of others!

    The quality of the reasons used to justify discrimination is key. If the reasons are poor, then the discrimination is unjustified. If the reasons are good, then the discrimination is justified. How, then, can we tell the difference? This is where truth value is so important and where your reasoning goes off the rails completely. You make all kinds of faith-based assertions about homosexuality that are not true. It is upon this wobbly base that you then extrapolate that the discrimination is based on what you assume are good reasons, whereas in fact these reasons are poor because they are not true. Yet you feel that it is just and proper for people to base their acts of discrimination that reduces the rights of others on these falsehoods because they happen to agree with your faith-based beliefs. It is you who is undermining our rights and freedoms of the first amendment and you are a danger to your fellow citizens.

  10. The issue is the rights of all people. At what point does the rights of one individual become more important that the rights of another? We like to talk about the separation of church and state, but when does civil rights become more important than religious rights? This is an attack against the religious rights of the business owner in an attempt to justify the civil union of a gay couple.

    What faith-based assertions about homosexuality have I made that are wrong?

    • Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. The rights of the business owner to discriminate ends if it does so for no justifiable reason except to deny the same service to those whom the owner deems unfit.

      This made clear in Judge Walker’s ruling over Prop 8:

      Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

      You have made many and wrong assertions about homosexuality. Your motivation that you describe as those of us who spend much of our time exposing and opposing the homosexuality-normalizing juggernaut reveals you to be a bigot in the sense that you unfairly and without merit attribute negative connotations to homosexuality.

      For example, you pretend that some harm can befall children from exposure to ceremonies and celebrations on their property that honor conduct which God finds detestable. This is not backed up with anything other than fear and bigotry. Yet you assume it to be true. And you assume it is true because you believe that god finds it detestable. You may believe that god finds civil unions between same-sex couples ‘detestable’ but you cannot back this up with evidence except your belief.

      For example, you write that homosexuality is not biologically determined as if you have good evidence to back this up when you and I know that you don’t. Again, what you believe to be true is not any indication what is actually true.

      For example, your bald-faced assertion that homosexuality is centrally defined by subjective experiences and volitional behavior that is open to moral assessment is nothing more and nothing less than bigotry in action because exactly the same charge can be leveled at heterosexuality. You simply assume you have some magical means at your disposal to show why one is acceptable and one is not. But you’ve got nothing here except your empty assertions based only on your beliefs. And rest assured, I certainly do not grant you the right to act on your moral pronouncements because your moral assessment is so obviously and patently skewed to begin with: it is skewed because you base it on your faith, which is based on belief in the truthfulness of your interpretation of multiple translations and copyings of ancient writings. What is singularly lacking in this chain of reasoning and justification you use is any ability to determine if they are actually true!

      What is plainly evident is your willingness to empower your bigotry in the absence of supporting evidence. You try to hide this vileness, this moral decrepitude, this obvious willingness to discriminate for no good reason, behind the First, which as Judge Walker so eloquently points out is no issue at all. You are forced by law NOT to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because to do so is bigotry. That reasonable constraint against people like you is not an attack against your first amendment rights but a protection of them from bigots who would do so on the basis of their unreasonable, unjustified beliefs extended into the world. And this is what you are attempting to do.

      Not satisfied to hold your beliefs only accountable to you and your personal behaviours, you attempt to cast them over me as well and use the sate to back them up. You do not have the freedom to do this. But by pretending you do because your belief in some god grants you permission to do so, you are violating my first amendment rights thinking you are exercising yours. You’re not.

      You are claiming that your fist should not be impeded by my nose and then suggesting that it is my nose that is in breach of your first amendment rights. This position is duplicitous.

  11. But religious rights are justifiable enough to have been included in the constitution. No one denied them the right to have their ceremony only the location. Now I can kind of see how you can see this as discrimination, but it is not discrimination if a church refuses to conduct the ceremony nor if the church refuses to grant any of the rights of membership. See, the civil rights can not override the rights given to religions. Notice how Judge Walker’s opinion was limited only to the civil rights of gay people to be married. It did not force religions to recognize the marriages. The discrimination was that those who identify as gay had no alternative to marriage as it was all denied to them. That is the discrimination that was in question and I do not agree with that type of discrimination.

    Now I think you are overstepping quite a bit when you accuse me of several positions in which I do not hold simply because I am Christian. You are actually displaying the same behavior that you falsely accuse me of by generalizing without any proof. I forgive you though.

    I did say that there is no evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined. I have the same amount of evidence to support my position as you do to support yours. There is no evidence to support the claim that it is genetic. The same can be said of heterosexuality, so I am in agreement with you here. I speak from my religious stand point as to what I hold to be true. I do not see this as bigotry any more than you see your attack against religion to be bigotry. See, you cant accuse someone of an act or attitude when you yourself are displaying that attitude. You lose any moral authority and demean your own accusations.

    Your first amendment rights are fully intact with me. I do not wish to deny you the ability to speak out against religion or ideas that you do not hold to. On the other hand, you attack me when I do the same.

  12. You’re blogging has really come on when I look back over previous posts. Actually I arrived here from a forum on an unrelated topic. Worth surfing sometimes. Thanks.

  13. mbt

    great posting, i obviously like this web site, keep on it.

  14. If you really want you can look the other way and not talk about it.but you talked.thanls.Don’t give up your morals for anything. This will lead to a sad and unfulfilling life.

  15. Pingback: The Burgeoning Signs 2 « ProfessorJT2012's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s