Gay Couple Sues Illinois Bed And Breakfast For Refusing To Host Civil Union Ceremony

Last month, Governor Pat Quinn signed a historic bill into law legalizing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, making Illinois one of about a dozen states that extend significant legal protections to same-sex couples. Unfortunately, one gay couple is discovering that the law will not end discrimination.

Todd Wathen of Mattoon and his partner have been together for eight years, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The couple began planning a civil union ceremony for June, when the law will go into effect. Then, they hit a roadblock.

The Sun-Times reports that Wathen contacted the Beall Manison in Alton and the TimberCreek B&B in Paxton, where he wanted to book a space for the ceremony and reception.

Paxton is about 113 miles south of Chicago, and Alton is just outside of St. Louis. The men said those towns would be more accessible to their out-of-town families than Chicago would be.

An employee from the Beall Mansion told Wathen via email that Beall "will just be doing traditional weddings," even though their website says otherwise.

He faced more blatant discrimination from TimberCreek. From the Sun-Times:

In an e-mail reply to Wathen, Jim A. Walder of the TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast wrote: "We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois.

"We believe homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate," Walder wrote.

Wathen and his partner filed complaints with the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Human Rights, according to Gay Chicago Magazine. The conduct of both businesses violates the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.

Wathen and his partner are seeking a personal apology "and want to be treated with dignity and respect," according to the Windy City Times.

"Not only do we ask this for ourselves, but we ask this for every gay and lesbian person in Illinois," Wathen said. "We want these businesses to be held to the standard of the law. I mean what 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?"

Comments

[moa say]

11:54 PM on 02/25/2011

The missing information on these two 'lawsuit-shoppers":


http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/couple-50954-gay-alton.html

[moa say]

11:05 PM on 02/25/2011

There is a LOT of missing information in the HuffPo article. These two men already had a 'ceremony'. One of them (legally?) changed their last name. Other articles report that these two men found several places that would host their ceremony, but the men kept searching until they found those that wouldn't---then they sued for alleged 'discrimination'. These men were not deprived of services that were not available to them elsewhere. They're just after money and attention.
CU's are not the same as weddings. CU's are not even 'legal' yet in IL. IL is not yet issuing 'licenses' or 'permits' for CU's.

The law does NOT state that anyone and everyone, nor any and all businesses, must host a CU ceremony if a gay person demands that they do so. The law does not state that every business must change their business model to suit a potential gay customer's whims and personal choices.
If the service you are seeking is not available at a certain business where you inquire, go look for another one. You aren't entitled to sue every business because it doesn't meet your specific standards. The only 'award' these men should get is public humiliation for being bullies, for seeking to be paid simply for being 'gay'.

[RockLauren]

08:36 PM on 02/24/2011

TimberCreekbb.com seems to offer all kinds of weddings, including customized weddings, military weddings, summer weddings, civil weddings and even ethnic weddings. Oddly the picture accompanying their "Ethnic Weddings" header shows a white couple, both with dark hair. Whaaa? Maybe they were Italian.

[moa say]

11:20 PM on 02/25/2011

the keyword is 'wedding'. a civil union is NOT the same thing as a wedding. the law does not state that everyone, every business has to perform a 'civil union' on demand by a gay couple.

[contradiction]

06:00 PM on 02/24/2011

Well, I suppose they have a right to refuse service. That being said, I have a right to refuse to be one of their patrons. I also have the right to pass that information along to my friends.

Sooner or later, people and their establishments will have to welcome all people with open arms or they're going to suffer the financial consequences of their bigotry.

[Eric8869]

08:33 PM on 02/24/2011

they have the right to refuse service? So can restaurants refuse service to black people then? seperate drinking fountains? etc.

[moa say]

11:44 PM on 02/25/2011

having a different set of personal beliefs is not always 'bigotry'. Go look in a real dictionary for the definition of 'bigotry'. you're the one whose mind needs to be changed.

[ThursdaysChild]

04:18 PM on 02/24/2011

"Based on what the Bible says."

The Bible also says not to wear mixed fibers. Better strip down, and pronto.

[Mi4Peace]

11:58 AM on 02/25/2011

When will citizens of the world join the 21st century and stop worrying about "what the bible says"? Must those fariy tales rule our world at this time & date. Free your minds citizens of the world. Put down that bible & koran and the other books.

[student2511]

06:26 PM on 04/12/2011

The mixed fibers thing is in the old testament so mostly jewish people should be cautious of this law. most of the law's in the old testament where set in place by moses as a means of keeping his people pure for entering into the promised land. They believed that stoning would make them appead zealous before the lord by casting evil out of the world. Jesus sort of put an end to this need to be pure by dying for his sins which is why us horrible christians don't follow every single law in the old testament. In fact because Jesus said "whoever is without sin cast the first stone" abolishes any law about stoning. What people don't realize is that some Christians are wary of profiting from sins, which is why you probably wouldn't hear of a christian owning a bar, or a casino. That is why alot of Christian business's such as catering, B&B's, photographers, would not want to provide their services for a same sex couple.

[student2511]

01:28 AM on 04/13/2011

Correction: The mixed fibers thing is in the old testament so mostly jewish people should be cautious of this law. most of the law's in the old testament where set in place by moses as a means of keeping his people pure for entering into the promised land. They believed that stoning would make them appead zealous before the lord by casting evil out of the world. Jesus put an end to this need to be pure by dying for our sins which is why us horrible christians don't follow every single law in the old testament. In fact because Jesus said "whoever is without sin cast the first stone" abolishes any law about stoning. What people don't realize is that some Christians are wary of profiting from sins, which is why you probably wouldn't hear of a christian owning a bar, or a casino. That is why alot of Christian business's such as catering, B&B's, photograph­ers, would not want to provide their services for a same sex couple.

[shepherdguy]

01:17 PM on 02/24/2011

After reading this story yesterday, I called the owner of the Beall Mansion, who seemed not to be a bad guy at all, and who said repeatedly that their clientele regularly includes gay and lesbian couples. I genuinely got the feeling that this had just all taken him by surprise, and that he really just had given no thought to it, not that he was maliciously trying to discriminate. He did hem and haw a bit about needing to read what the law said (which I informed him would take about 5 mins to read online) and that they would need to think about pricing of services (which I told him shouldn't really be much different from traditional wedding receptions). He said that he was just a small businessman trying to keep up, and had not made this a priority. I encouraged him to move it up his list, not only for justice reasons, but also for the good of his business. He was not argumentative at all, and again, my sense was that he just hadn't really thought about it...he seemed totally reasonable, though. I have no link to this business, and am a partnered gay man, just for full disclosure.

[Dastius-Krazitauc]

04:12 PM on 02/25/2011

I don't understand what is so different about hosting a civil union ceremony that this owner has to exclude them and only do traditional weddings. Gay clients would probably want flowers, food and drinks, lodging and use of the grounds. What's to think about?

[shepherdguy]

06:09 PM on 02/25/2011

That was my question to him, exactly. My point, I guess, is that he seemed to be somebody who was prepared to come around on the question, but had just been caught entirely by surprise... I don't know, maybe some gay couples would not want all the little party favors that have proliferated at str8 weddings...??

[Eric8869]

11:22 AM on 02/24/2011

This is just sad on so many levels and stupid from a business perspective too.

[gregcurts]

09:02 AM on 02/24/2011

Sue them and win then book somewhere else.

[moa say]

11:08 PM on 02/25/2011

why should they get paid for being gay?

[ProfessorDuh]

08:53 AM on 02/24/2011

"If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate," Walder wrote.
And I guess you'll unfortunately have your bigoted behind sued off.

[ken607]

07:57 AM on 02/24/2011

once again weak minded religeous people imposing there ways on the population. funny how these religeous people pick and choose the things that god told us to do.

[Eric8869]

11:21 AM on 02/24/2011

Then they play the victim card

[student2511]

06:30 PM on 04/12/2011

Their not weak minded why should they be expected to want to profit off of something that they believe is a sin? look up what the bible say's about the law's of man. Many believe that we should put the law's of God above the law's of man. There are several stories in the bible about Christians who's governments made law's that asked them to go against God's law's, when they refused to disobey God, he delivered them. Act 5 and the book of Daniel is a good place to start if you want to look it up.

[marind]

11:25 PM on 02/23/2011

Gee. I think I'll open a B&B that discriminates against interracial couples because I believe that God separated the races. And I won't allow any non-Christian marriages because i believe God only loves Christians. Or I won't marry foreigners because... well, just because.

What don't these people understand about the term "PUBLIC Accommodations"??

If you don't want to follow the public accommodation laws, set up a private club, not a B&B.

[Ancilla Domini]

02:20 AM on 02/24/2011

Marind, don't you see that it's tyrannical to force these Christian B&B owners to accommodate homosexuals whose worldviews and behaviors violate their own deeply-held values?

What don't you understand about "freedom of association"?

Can you see that people should be free to associate with others who share the same beliefs, values, and worldviews, and to reject those who don't? People should never be forced to associate with other people, for any reason.

Do you associate with others who don't share your views?

Should homosexual B&B owners be forced to accommodate Christian guests who condemn homosexual behavior?

Is a privately-owned B&B a "public accommodation" only when owned by Christians who assert their rights to freely associate with like-minded others?

Is a "gay" bath house a "public accommodation" to which Christians should be allowed admittance?

Think about what you are saying.

People should be allowed to do business with whom they choose--to associate with whom they choose--otherwise, we're not a free country.

[SteveDenver]

02:46 AM on 02/24/2011

If their values are so deeply held, I wonder if they require women to be virgins when married, or require proof that neither has been divorced.

Why is marriage only sacred when gays want it?

(P.S. I'm sure plenty of christians visit gay bathhouses.)

[HeavingBoosom]

05:40 AM on 02/24/2011

"Should homosexual B&B owners be forced to accommodat­e Christian guests who condemn homosexual behavior? "

YES!!! And they are. That's the law. If you're open to the public, you can't choose among the public.

Geez!

[bgofca]

11:01 PM on 02/23/2011

repugs want less government except when it comes to regulating women's bodies and what goes on in your bedroom. They want to be the moral police like the taliban..
i suggest people boycott any businesses that choose to discriminate.

[student2511]

06:48 PM on 04/12/2011

Then maybe I ought to start a Gay blacklist, we can put all the people who boycotted businesses that donated to yes on prop 8 in california, every gay rights activist, and every stinking star in holywood that is gay or has risen in support of gay rights! Hey you discriminate agains't my freedom to practice my faith how I see fit i ought to boycott you for thinking that you have a right to pressure the courts to tell me what I can and cannot do with my faith. Faith is not something we take with us to church on sunday and leave at home during the work week. at least to me it's not!

[JFaye]

09:24 PM on 02/23/2011

This kind of behavior is not new; it was prevalent before and after passage of the 14th amendment and continues today... though more subtle. Perhaps some of the existing human rights organizations may have to create a new division or unit to investigate discrimination of same sex couples. While some may want to say it is because of religious beliefs they discriminate, particularly against homosexuals, in all likelihood these same people hold bigoted views against minorities and anyone not sharing their religious views.

[darleneslee]

09:19 PM on 02/23/2011

Why are Americans so preoccupied with who is sleeping with who ? Why are we in other people's bedrooms. I don't care who marries who. We need to worry more about how to maintain our own relationships instead of demonizing others because, they are "different" We are all different in one form or another. The very establishment that refused this couple has probably worked hard to be "different " in order to garner more business than other BB. We as a country really need to move beyond this mode of thinking.

[SteveDenver]

02:47 AM on 02/24/2011

It's easier for many religious people to pick apart the lives of others than examining their own life.

[moa say]

11:33 PM on 02/25/2011

What about the gays who are suing a privately-owned business because the business won't do what the gay person wanted? Doesn't the business owner have any rights?

[Ancilla Domini]

02:50 AM on 02/24/2011

Great questions, Darleneslee. Why are homosexuals so preoccupied with trying to force Christian B&B owners to accommodate their behaviors? Why don't they just choose a "gay" B&B? We as a country really need to move beyond infringing on our fellow citizens' rights to freely associate with like-minded others.

[SteveDenver]

02:55 AM on 02/24/2011

Thanks for not reading the article. The web site of the first stated that they will host civil unions, the second was just inhospitable and bigoted. Nobody tried to "force" anything.

"We as a country really need to move beyond infringing on our fellow citizens' rights to freely associate with like-minde­d others." Those businesses should get out of public accommodation and identify their businesses more clearly: "The JesusHate B&B" would work.

[LittleMs Random]

10:22 AM on 02/24/2011

"Their behaviors"?!? You have got to be joking, and if you're not, I feel sorry for you, and your sad, uninformed little life. Gay people are gay because they were born gay, because GOD wanted them to be gay? Or are you saying he made a mistake?

[ChiGuy]

08:10 PM on 02/23/2011

If they actually have all the evidence mentioned in the article, this lawsuit will be a slam-dunk.

[moa say]

11:14 PM on 02/25/2011

There is much more missing information than just what is printed in the HuffPo article. These two men were doing nothing more than 'lawsuit-shopping'. They did find several places that would host their event, but chose to sue and claim 'discrimination' against two businesses which turned them down. They found what they wanted, but made up a false claim,so they could get paid for being gay.

[ChiGuy]

09:00 AM on 02/26/2011

1.) You claim that there is "much more missing information", yet you seem to somehow know that they were 'lawsuit shopping'? Where, exactly, did you get this information? Or was that simply your uninformed assumption?
Please note that I didn't make any assumption. I wrote, "IF they they actually have all the evidence mentioned".
 
2.) So, by your logic, since they did eventually find a place that would host their event, they should simply forget the others who seem to have discriminated against them? Remember, the website of one establishment apparently indicates that they have no problem hosting gay events but refused this couple, and the owner the other B&B involved in the lawsuit outright admitted, "...I guess we unfortunately discriminate." That sounds like a pretty straightforward acknowledgement to me.
 
3.) I also would ask how you know that it is a "false claim"? Again, are you privy to evidence not offered in the article? Or is this just another assumption on your part?
 
Look.....If you have a problem with LGBT lifestyles, don't be shy. Feel free to admit to your prejudice rather than hiding behind wholly contrived accusations about the couple involved. 

[moa say]

09:23 AM on 02/26/2011

Did you read the link I posted? Go read it.

The two men already had a 'ceremony', already have the same last name. They admit they found places that would host their ceremony, but kept looking for those who wouldn't. The places that would host their ceremony were found BEFORE those who wouldn't.

That IS 'lawsuit-shopping'.