When Irish hang up No Gays Need Apply signs
Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 09:13 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
46 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
- Boston man confronts Infowars conspiracy nuts over 'false flag' claim
Archives
 |
| Jim and Mary O'Reilly say they were fined for failing to 'support' gay marriage |
After all we the Irish were discriminated against for centuries in religious, social, political and even philanthropic contexts, so we ought to have learned about the sting and the reach of it.
We really ought to know the harm and mischief it can do to our neighbors, too.
Not Jim and Mary O'Reilly from Vermont's Wildflower Inn, apparently. In August they settled a lawsuit taken by a gay couple from Brooklyn after their business refused to host their wedding reception as well the wedding reception of two other gay couples.
The O'Reillys agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the Vermont Human Rights Commission and put $20,000 in a charitable trust. They also agreed they would no longer hold weddings for heterosexual or homosexual couples at the inn.
But did they recognize that discriminating against the gay couple was wrong? Not exactly, if what they did next is any indication.
This week the Irish owners are campaigning on television against same-sex marriage in Maine, even though their previous discrimination cost them $30,000.
'A lesbian couple sued us for not supporting their gay wedding because of our Christian beliefs,' says Jim. 'We had to pay $30,000 and can no longer host any weddings at our inn.'
This is America, Jim and Mary, you are not running a Christian business, you are running a business. If you plan to provide the public with services and profit from the exchange there are good and longstanding laws to prevent you discriminating against who can and can not avail of them.
The people standing in your way are yourselves. In any case gay couples aren't trying to buy your approval, they are hoping to celebrate their union. It's not about you. Really it isn't. They didn't ask, as your TV ad erroneously claims, for you to 'support' their gay wedding, they simply wanted to pay you to host it at your venue, which is quite another thing.
Vermont was the first state to approve civil unions in July of 2000. Maybe the O'Reilly's should start looking for somewhere that's more accommodating to their own fundamentalist beliefs.
Possibly Afghanistan?
46 comments
Next
Page 1 of 4 pages
eiriamach | Nov 04, 2012, 05:09 PM EST
Jacers has returned, a little late for Halloween haunting, and the pipes, the pipes, are still calling IrelandNorth's neo-con DerryAir back......... @olovely, probably you're too young to remember Jack Benny, but sometimes when I read your comments, the ghost of Jack Benny appears in my mind's eye, his hand slapping his cheek as he exclaims sardonically, "Oh LOVly!" So I wonder whether you meant your screen name to remind us of the original 'great one' of radio/TV comedy. Anyway, it reminds me!
Report abuse
olovely | Oct 31, 2012, 04:23 PM EDT
Buh-bye, IrelandNorth. Don't let your neo-conservative homophobic agenda hit you on the derriere (and please take jacersagian with you into further obscurity).
Report abuse
IrelandNorth | Oct 31, 2012, 06:51 AM EDT
I regret to see that IrishCentral is resorting to censorship of posters who do not share their neo-liberal homosexual agenda. Just when we thogh censorship had ended with Stalin. Time to transfer to a less subjective website!
Report abuse
eiriamach | Oct 29, 2012, 05:10 PM EDT
No Jacers, I do not agree that "owner-occupiers of any dwelling or premises like family hotels and B&B’s, open to the public or private, have the right to decide who should be welcomed within or rejected right out." They may have the legal right, but never the moral right. The USA is full of small, family-run businesses, and although they are exempt from much civil rights law (employers with fewer than 50 employees can discriminate, for example, in hiring), they have no moral right to discriminate. It's wrong, and it's always a perversion of justice that tears the social fabric of the nation, whether the law allows it or not! Discrimination by small businesses forces people who need public accommodations to pay high prices at large hotels and restaurants (whose owners cannot afford to discriminate in hiring or clientele). There is only one question at stake-- and you think the O'Reilly's are right to discriminate, while I think they're absolutely wrong with no justification. One question, two opposed sides. So be it.
Report abuse
Fergananim | Oct 27, 2012, 08:43 PM EDT
I heard what they had to say, but they are not Irish. They're American. Should not the headline at least read (Irish-)American?
Report abuse
jacersagain | Oct 27, 2012, 08:03 PM EDT
(Hoping this gets through… I note that some of my previous posts under this article of Cahir’s have been deleted, probably because they hit the nail on the head against Cahir’s own argument under this headline, which self-centred agenda editorial people are capable of deleting, thus swiping off publication of free speech or writings and the freedom of other readers of ICentral to make up their own minds on what they read… or being denied to read). No, eiriamach, you are clearly wrong – there are always two sides of a coin or story and what you call “only ONE question at stake here” is a poor attempt at misleading most people blessed with Common Sense. Pardon me saying this outright but you have a bloody cheek trying to divert the essence of an argument to your own agenda. Not that I disagree with much of your justice agenda but you must surely see within the part of your brain that screams for common sense that owner-occupiers of any dwelling or premises like family hotels and B&B’s, open to the public or private, have the right to decide who should be welcomed within or rejected right out. American Law is all assed-out on this right to privilege. That privileged right should never be denied to people like Mr. & Mrs. O’Reilly, or to me on my property, or to you on yours.
Report abuse
olovely | Oct 27, 2012, 07:32 PM EDT
Seanmor has just conceded that gay people getting married under federal law will have no affect on heterosexual people getting married. He didn't mean to, but he did.
Report abuse
BrianO | Oct 27, 2012, 02:30 PM EDT
aclu, how can I get them to work for me a white heterosexual male? I could use some cash.
Report abuse
Seanmor | Oct 27, 2012, 01:02 PM EDT
No matter who approves or disaproves of homosexual unions, the fact remains that male-female partnerships are still and always will be the norn, never the exception.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Oct 27, 2012, 09:49 AM EDT
I'm also not done with "lecturing ... using religious references." My right to do so is protected by Amendment One, Article One of the US Constitution. Emma Lazarus, whom I quoted to Jacers on another IC blog, calls Lady Liberty our "Mother of Exiles," likening her to an American patron saint; I'd have to call Jacers' patron saint his "Lady of the Straight and Narrow Minded." Romans 8:19-21 reminds us, "For the creation waits with eager longing" for us to reveal that we are "children of God" who have finally learned mutual respect for each other's liberty. When humanity reaches that point, the Gospel says, creation itself-- the natural and human world we all live within-- "will be set free from its bondage to decay" and reveal the glory of God, flashing forth like freedom itself, "the glorious liberty of the children of God." Y'know what? Americans get a chance to vote for that liberty on Nov. 6! I thank God Jacers can't vote in the USA to limit my liberty or anyone else's.
Report abuse
olovely | Oct 27, 2012, 09:18 AM EDT
Smyrnian, please publish your name and full address and a link to your profile photo. If you're going to offer observations about posters and their motivations it behooves you to start with yourself.
Report abuse
Smyrnian | Oct 27, 2012, 08:52 AM EDT
Just asking; why is Olovely so angry all the time, calling people names, cursing at people and behaving in a very un-Christian like manner while lecturing everyone using religious references? Very odd.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Oct 27, 2012, 07:11 AM EDT
Jacers, there is only ONE question at stake in this discussion: Whether the owners of the business should give equal treatment to the gay couple, in other words, whether they will honor the legal mandate not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. They are not called upon to approve of the couple, to embrace them with Christian love; however, they ARE called upon NOT to reject and exclude them with a judgment on their moral character. In fact, if the O'Reillys were indeed "Christian" as they claim, they would simply leave the judgment of sexual morality to God as scripture advises. You have demonstrated once again that it is impossible for Catholics to do what they claim to do-- to acknowledge the equal moral worth of LGBTs in the eyes of God and, at the same time, to advocate that the law discriminate against LGBTs. To discriminate IS to treat the person as less than equal! Thus your religious position breeds inequity and bigotry by stigmatizing people as unworthy-- that's SINFUL behavior (and hypocrisy)! You, along with Mary and Jim O'Reilly, are in no position to demand that anyone say "sorry, sorry, sorry.” when you do so, you presume on God's judgment and bring down judgment on yourself (Matt 7:1 Sermon on the Mount). The law is not demanding; All it requires is that you treat people equally and keep your moral judgments to yourself--exactly what Christ counseled us all to do.
Report abuse
olovely | Oct 26, 2012, 09:21 PM EDT
Jacersagain you're an awful righteous gobshite. Jesus warned not to condemn the speck in your brothers eye whilst ignoring the beam in your own! Who do you think you are, you pompous sanctimonious holier than thou asshat?
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 4 pages
Report abuse