Gay couple says wedding venue discriminated against them
SEATTLE -- An Oregon couple says they were told their wedding wouldn't be "a good fit" for a local venue because the couple is gay.
The owner of the venue refused to comment on the issue, but the couple says everyone was fine with their wedding plans until they said they were lesbians.
Amy Lynn and Emily Thomas saw a local wedding venue and knew it was the place they wanted to get married. Speaking online from their Eugene, Ore., home, the college sweethearts say there were blown away by the beauty of the venue.
"It feels like you're one step away from the water," Lynn said.
When the couple returned home last week, they reached out by phone to finalize the plans. They say at first the venue was happy to have them. All that changed during a conversation with the owner of the venue.
"It was really jarring for me because I was only asking just to be sure," Thomas said of the conversation.
Thomas said the owner was talking a lot about brides and grooms. When she mentioned that there would be two brides, she said the owner paused.
"She sort of dwelled on it a little bit and then eventually she said, 'You know, I actually don't think that would be a good fit,'" Thomas said.
The ACLU's legal director, Sarah Dunne, said businesses can't pick and choose who they serve.
"When they're open to the public, they need to serve the public," she said.
By law, companies can't discriminate if services and products are open to the public, even if the business is private.
Dunne said wedding venues aren't any different.
"You cannot deny service to someone based on their gender, race, religion or their sexual orientation," she said.
If the same-sex marriage law passes, more couples may face similar problems if business owners try to get around the law.
Dunne said ignorance isn't an excuse.
"When you look back in the 50s, 60s and people being denied service based on their race, this is no different," she said.
According to the ACLU, Referendum-74 -- the same-sex marriage law -- has no bearing on this incident. The law would only allow clergy to opt out of performing marriages for religious reasons.
The owner of the venue refused to comment on the issue, but the couple says everyone was fine with their wedding plans until they said they were lesbians.
Amy Lynn and Emily Thomas saw a local wedding venue and knew it was the place they wanted to get married. Speaking online from their Eugene, Ore., home, the college sweethearts say there were blown away by the beauty of the venue.
"It feels like you're one step away from the water," Lynn said.
When the couple returned home last week, they reached out by phone to finalize the plans. They say at first the venue was happy to have them. All that changed during a conversation with the owner of the venue.
"It was really jarring for me because I was only asking just to be sure," Thomas said of the conversation.
Thomas said the owner was talking a lot about brides and grooms. When she mentioned that there would be two brides, she said the owner paused.
"She sort of dwelled on it a little bit and then eventually she said, 'You know, I actually don't think that would be a good fit,'" Thomas said.
The ACLU's legal director, Sarah Dunne, said businesses can't pick and choose who they serve.
"When they're open to the public, they need to serve the public," she said.
By law, companies can't discriminate if services and products are open to the public, even if the business is private.
Dunne said wedding venues aren't any different.
"You cannot deny service to someone based on their gender, race, religion or their sexual orientation," she said.
If the same-sex marriage law passes, more couples may face similar problems if business owners try to get around the law.
Dunne said ignorance isn't an excuse.
"When you look back in the 50s, 60s and people being denied service based on their race, this is no different," she said.
According to the ACLU, Referendum-74 -- the same-sex marriage law -- has no bearing on this incident. The law would only allow clergy to opt out of performing marriages for religious reasons.
My daughter is getting married her. I find Marilyn to be a very organized, pleasant and able bodied business women who make a living renting out her beautiful home to couple who want to get married there. It is her home is not just a venue and if she chooses to not have gay/lesbian marriage there it is her choice.Â
Gay/Lesbians are always asking for people to accept there choice. That is a concept that appears not to go both ways. Â Don't get me wrong I have no problem with how people choose to live their lives but it is my and every other persons choice to choose who we let into our homes.
@lauriem0570Once someone chooses (!) to open their home as a Public Accommodation, it is no longer just her home and she must comply with non-discrimination laws. If she wants to be choosy about who she lets in her house, she shouldn't make it a public accommodation (and stop prostituting her house). It's very clear in the law and simple if you think about it.
Amy and Emily are my Partner and my nieces. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. The fact is that Amy and Emily are not pushing this issue. They will take their love and wedding to a place where they are welcome. This got on the news not from them attempting to cause trouble for anyone, but that KOMO News picked up on it when Amy`s Mom simply voiced the disappointment to her Facebook friends. It was some of those friends that took it to the media.
If you are supportive of Same Sex Marriage, please ensure it passes by vote in Novemeber...it is Ref. 74 ...vote YES!
Because all of the opionion in the world is pointless if we do not speak up to the law makers via this Referendum. Thank you.
Â
Our state law is very specific in addressing freedom from discrimination - these ladies should not have been subjected to refusal of service and/or accomodation for their wedding.
Â
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60&full=true#49.60.030
Â
I'm not sure why the business name isn't listed, but it's the Edgewater House in Olalla.
Its Yelp reviews are taking a hit. http://www.yelp.com/biz/edgewater-house-olalla
 @RulesLawyer Yep, feel the hate and intolerance - it's heatin' up!
I think an important point is being missed by mostg people posting here. They had spent time, effort & $$ planning to be at that venue for their wedding. I am sure formal wear has been obtained, invitations printed & sent, catering arranged & paid for.
Â
Why did the venue not say something about who does & does not "fit" BEFORE it got to this late stage? It would seem to me they could have been up front about it, and stated it right at the start of the process. Yes, it would have left them wide open for a lawsuit, but at least these women would not have been led on, would not have invested time, energy and $$$ in something that will not be.
Â
I do not very often agree that the ACLU should be involved - but in this case, if the ONLY reson this couple "does not fit" for the venue os their sexual preferance, then the ACLU should bring it on & go after the venue.
 @LocalLady Thank you for your support but truthfully Kim Sutherin has it right.  It was the news people who went to the ACLU.  My daughter and her fiance don't intend to take any legal action, they were just disappointed that it had happened.  They had not invested any money...they were just researching places and loved this place.  They don't plan to get married until next summer whether or not it is legal, we will celebrate with our own ceremony....they are two wonderful quality women with 3 masters degrees and a Phd between them and their families love and support them 100%
 @LocalLady The ALCU is not involved at all...the news reporter just did that for the story.
The article does not specify that the âvenueâ refused them, just that the owner informed them that they were not comfortable with having a "legally defined weddingâ at their business. If they actually refused, and were not allowed to do so by law, then they broke the law. If they only registered their discomfort with having that type of âceremonyâ performed on their property, then they are entitled to their opinion. They made it known that they had a business which preferred to cater to traditional marriages(s), not these new âlegally definedâ ones. Â
:::::::::::::::
:::: TD ::::
:::::::::::::::
Â
Since this ânew * improvedâ commenting system does not have a TD function, this is my âreasonable facsimileâ.
In washington it is illegal to discriminate based on religion, creed, sex, race, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. Should the xians be given a pass on the law?
@Nic Stevens
I donât see anywhere that the owners were Christian, or that Christian beliefs were involved. For untold thousands of years a marriage (wedding ceremony) was between a men and women. There are actual biological reasons for that, and as for Christian beliefs ask your second favorite Muslim.   Â
WOW! What a completely ignorant remark.
 @LocalLady Calling a remark ignorant proves nothing.
If I had a buisness and I wanted to exclude religious people because I am an atheist I would be sued and crucified in the press.
Um... where does it say the venue owner objected on religious grounds?
Cool - so now we're going to force people to violate their own religious beliefs. Â Way to push your morality on others. Â And I bet this couple fancies themselves as "tolerant".
Nowhere in this story does it say that they were denied because of the owner's "religious beliefs". It simply says they were denied by the owner AFTER they told her that there would be two brides.Â
Â
Since it is a PUBLIC venue (not a closed private venue, such as Seattle Golf & Country Club), the venue is REQUIRED BY LAW to onserve & obey ALL laws regarding discrimination - they are NOT allowed to "pcik & choose" who they serve.
 @Vertex Dude, this is well-trodden legal ground. Public accommodations laws are in place so that, for instance, people who run lunch counters can't decide not to serve black. You might want to read some history of the US civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Clear echoes of what we hear today, but the law is usually on the side of right now thanks to the earlier pioneers.
 @Vertex Force others to violate their beliefs??? Where'd you figure that one from? No one is forcing you to be homosexual, nor to do anything other than to follow this nations laws against discrimination. We are not a theocracy.
And more, some feel that the rights of a few should give way to the rights of the Christian concepts. That the Homosexual should simply accept being denied equality, and go somewhere else. Now, let's consider what happens nearly every Christmas when any such slight is made toward the Christian concepts of that holiday time. They come unglued and go around demanding that their "religious rights" should be observed over and above all others.
Â
We don't live in a theocracy, nor where any religious groups holds sway over any others in view of the law. If you are going to discriminate, and you are not a confirmed religious institution, you are violating the law. And you do know what the commandments say about such matters right? If you can't abide with your own precepts, don't float around demanding that others should.
I can see some businesses closing and some opening on account of this. Things are always changing, sometimes the changes are a good thing. The future is not written though and is full of surprises.
It's all about belief systems. This is one of those issues that will never be settled with laws or enforcement. The country still has people who abide by the laws but don't agree with it. This shouldn't have been an issue to
begin with and quite frankly I wouldn't want to get married there knowing the owner felt that way.
Private companies should have every right to determine who they serve. If you don't like it then don't do business with them. If it's a big enough of a turn-off to the people in the area then the business probably won't be around very long anyways. I'd rather know who a business owner wants to serve than to force them to hid it. Â
@Scott Yes they can however, when they don't want to serve someone that falls into the protect category then that is against the law. Think about it. Would you feel it would be right to be turned away from a black owned store because your white? That is a protected category.
 @Scott Private companies do have every right to determine who they serve as long as they are not open to the "public".
Boo-hoo...
:::::::::::::::
:::: TD ::::
:::::::::::::::
Â
Since this ânew * improvedâ commenting system does not have a TD function, this is my âreasonable facsimileâ.
Sue the owner of the venue for discrimination. What she did is against the law.
Â
How come the venue wasn't named in the article? I'd put them on blast.
So?? where is the story. The couple should just move the venue.
@Telman@ there is a little thing called discrimination going on here against a protected category of people.
Humm, thats rather strange never heard about a discrimination lawsuit from a man and woman wanting to get married..
 @Windowseat Never heard that, huh? Must just be very young.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Â
Â
 @two loons  @Windowseat Even scarier is that it was only in 1995 that over 50% of the American public thought interracial marriage was "ok".
@strangel00p. Yeah. My wife and I got married in Conn where gay marriage is legal and the JP said it was better than interracial marriage. Sad.
 @two loons Hey i'm only 24 and I know about that! Don't group us young'ins in with stupid.
 @Windowseat Actually... It wasn't until loving v virginia in the 1970s that all males and females were allowed to get married. Many states had laws on the books that made interracial marriages illegal for a very long time.  The exact same conversations were had as well - about boycotting and exposing racist venues in states where interracial marriage was legal.
@Windowseat Well 40 years ago yes based on your race and the race of the person you wanted to marry. This is the same issue.
@sb in seattle - a hundred years ago, you were ostracized by your family and excommunicated from the Catholic Church if you married a Protestant. Had nothing to do with color. Not sure what it had to do with actually, just know it happened to my grandmother.
 @sb in seattle  Nope, not the same issue.  That was about race, this is about sexual orientation.
 @Vertex  @sb in seattleÂ
The ruling concluded that "marriage" is a fundamental human right. Look up "Loving vs Virginia-1967".
@Vertex they are BOTH protected categories. Think idiot! Orientation is just as protected as race is. IT IS THE SAME THING!
WHO CARES. CRY ABOUT IT. Tired of hearing about meaningless BS like this...Enough!
 @SwishasNKush Then why did you read it?
 @SwishasNKush you cared enough to not just read, but comment.
 @two loons  @SwishasNKush That was a "comment"? My dog make more coherent comments than that!
 @SwishasNKush Man, people fighting for equality is such bs.Â
Yea stop with the "Everything revolves around my Genatillia attitude" already Prove you are Gay anyway, Oh wait you can't ! ,..... who you have sex with doesen't make you a minority! SORRY! not in my book anyway!
 @Clawed You cannot spell genitalia and lack understanding of just what issues are going on here. Gay people do not think anything revolves around anyone's genitalia with regards to equal rights under the same constitution for all American citizens.
 @Clawed Prove that you are not gay. Oh wait you can't!
Â
Is it not a sin to judge others? Should they not be judged by god? Where is it our place to say "no you can't do that because my god says its wrong"?
@SwishasNKush Yes agreed. Tired of hearing BS from an idiot like you.