Same-sex weddings are legal nationwide, but finding a place to do it isn’t always easy, as a lesbian couple found out while they were planning their wedding ceremony.
According to the Sedalia Democrat, Rachel Cathey and Beverly Vaughn (photo right), a lesbian couple from the Kansas City area, are currently planning their wedding and made an appointment to check out an event venue called Heritage Ranch, approximately 90 miles east in the town of Sedalia, Mo.
But when they arrived to look around, they were told by owner Sara Howell that the couple would not be allowed to host their wedding on the property. Howell’s reason: “we’re Christian and we don’t.”
Cathey had communicated with Howell previously when scheduling the property tour, but had not mentioned the wedding was for two women, so they were rebuffed only when they showed up in all their lesbionic splendor. But in an interview with the Democrat, Sara’s husband Josh Howell explained that the couple should not take their decision personally:
“It is a violation of our religious beliefs,” Josh Howell said. “…We feel we would be dishonoring God, who we serve and He was the one who gave us this business and it is only right we serve him and honor him with it. It would be a sin for us to allow that, so we could not in good conscious do that…”
The situation was posted Monday in a post on PROMOonline.org. Josh and Sara have read the post, and he wanted to point out something Cathey wrote.
“It’s important to note, one of them said they stopped listening once my wife said she was Christian,” he said. “If they had listened, they’d see it’s not a personal matter, it’s a matter of religious conviction and personal belief.”
Although Mr. Howell failed at distinguishing between “personal matter” and “personal belief,” he later explained that it was his right to deny their wedding plans because it is his property. On that point, he is correct. Private businesses usually have the right to discriminate against whomever they wish, if there are no anti-discrimination laws against the practice. For example, there was the story of the whiny bakers in Oregon who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, and they were fined $135,000 for breaking the law. But that law was specific to the state of Oregon, which enacted astate-wide LGBT anti-discrimination law in 2007. The state of Missouri does not have any such law, nor does the town of Sedalia on a local level.
The situation at Heritage Ranch arose the same week an LGBT anti-discrimination law was up for vote in Houston, Texas, and was soundly defeated at the polls. This one seemed like an easy win — Houston has a lesbian mayor — but it failed largely because the vast majority of eligible voters in the city did not vote. And, of course, the Christian Right developed a slick advertising campaign.
What will happen with Heritage Ranch? Probably not much. They will get lots of hate emails and phone messages from angry pro-LGBT people, but then they will get right-wing supporters to hold their weddings there. And of course they will welcome LGBT people who are wedding planners, florists, caterers, musicians and DJs to work there, as well as be guests of other people’s weddings. Such are the moral dilemmas of the community, as we are expected to politely absorb the impact of these instances of passive humiliation.
This is why anti-discrimination laws are important. Granted, there are lots of venues in Missouri that would love to host a gay wedding. But there will come a time when someone may not have a choice to go someplace else, but they still need to get through life, and for that they may need to have the law on their side.
Currently, in Missouri and 27 other states, it is not.
(For a list of states that do and do not have LGBT anti-discrimination laws in effect, see this map on Think Progress.)
Damon Robbins
We need to get these anti discrimination laws on the books from coast to coast. Law suits are the only way to end this discrimination with businesses that are open to the general public.
northshoreguy06
I wish they would clarify their Christian or religious beliefs. Do they not host weddings for couples previously married (& since divorced)? Do they not host weddings for people who committed adultery? Do they not host weddings for non-Christians (people who do not accept Jesus as their Lord & Savior)?
My guess is they are selective or cafeteria Christians. They pick & choose which portions of the Bible they want to believe.
Marky
I can already smell the bigot-fuelled kickstarter campaign coming around the bend to cover the legal fees that their business would never be able to handle independantly.
Delion Bastia
We must discriminate against anti-gay Christians to give them a spoon of their own medicine.
DCFarmboy
When it is a lesbian wedding, the owners claim the business must be an extension of their moral beliefs. When a customer is hurt or killed on the property due to negligence, suddenly the business is a separate moral and legal person from the owners.
Cam
They need to put their “Beliefs” on their website and in all of their ads then.
As for other religions. Queerty is always happy to write a story about one Ultra Orthodox rabbi who doesn’t like gays, but they always seem to miss the articles about things like the largest Jewish denomination in America, which already has gay rabbis and same sex marriage, now pushing for Transgender rights.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/05/largest-jewish-group-america-sets-rules-transgender-people
Cam
@DCFarmboy: said… When it is a lesbian wedding, the owners claim the business must be an extension of their moral beliefs. When a customer is hurt or killed on the property due to negligence, suddenly the business is a separate moral and legal person from the owners.
_____________________________
PHENOMENAL comment!
martinbakman
Do they host stoning of women that have children out of wedlock? It’s in Da Bible.
Masc Pride
Is there some type of requirement that states lesbians must be built like Lena Dunham for membership?
aliengod
I’ve never understood why LGB people would want to support these bigoted businesses. There doesn’t need to be laws requiring them to host us. That only sets them up for success.
Cam
@aliengod:
Actually there DO need to be laws requiring them to do business with every member of the public, because it’s the public taxes that pay for the infrastructure they use, AND they got a public business license from the government agreeing to DO business with the state.
What if there was only one grocery store in a town, and the next town over was 50 miles away and that grocery store said “Sorry, no Asians”. That means that they have effectively insured that no Asian people could live in that town.
What you are doing is blaming the victim, i.e. you are saying to a woman, “Well, you walked outside and there are men out there so it’s YOUR fault you were raped.”
MacAdvisor
As the ranch is a public accommodation, it might be covered by Federal law. While the Federal EDNA has not passed yet (thank you, Republicans), Federal civil rights law already prohibits gender discrimination. In this case, the owner of the ranch is discriminating against the women who made the reservation to tour based on the gender of her fiancee. If the only thing that was changed here was the gender of the fiancee, from female to male, then we have clear gender discrimination, hence a prohibited act. This line of reasoning is working in employment discrimination cases and, I suspect, given the Federal courts a chance, they may well use it in public accommodation cases.
Grainne Keane
jjunke
troublemakers!!!! just go somewhere that caters for same sex couples, end of story!
1EqualityUSA
So what’s next? Catholic hospitals saying that they don’t want to treat our kind?
aliengod
@Cam: Quite a leap. Apples to oranges.