U.S. top court hands defeat to Hawaii B&B that spurned lesbian couple

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court handed a defeat on Monday to a bed and breakfast owner in Hawaii who turned away a lesbian couple due to her Christian beliefs, but it could soon take up another major case on the conflict between gay and religious rights.

The justices refused to hear an appeal by Phyllis Young, who runs the three-room Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Honolulu, of a lower court’s ruling that she violated a Hawaii anti-discrimination law by refusing to rent a room to Diane Cervilli and Taeko Bufford in 2007.

A state court ruled that Young ran afoul of Hawaii’s public accommodation law, which among other things bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Litigation will now continue to determine what penalty Young might face.

The Supreme Court’s action came nine months after it sided on very narrow grounds with a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two men, citing his Christian beliefs. The justices could decide as soon as next week whether to take up a strikingly similar case from Oregon in which a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple for religious reasons.

-snip-

SUPREME COURT MARCH 18, 2019 / 9:48 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
Lawrence Hurley
5 MIN READ


Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-top-court-hands-defeat-to-hawaii-bb-that-spurned-lesbian-couple-idUSKCN1QZ1LK

[oldsoftie]

1. 2007? How did it take 12 years to get where we are??

[onenote]

2. Many layers of process

the case started out with a complaint filed with the Hawaii human rights commission. I'm not sure when the complaint was filed, but I get the impression it was not immediately after the denial of service. An investigation followed and in 2011 a "right to sue" letter was issued to the complainants. That led to a complaint being filed in Hawaii state court. Various motions etc followed before a decision in 2013 in favor of the plaintiffs. That decision was appealed. For reasons that are not evident on the face of the record, the appeals court did not decide the case (affirming the lower court) until 2018. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which resulted in today's action.

[oldsoftie]

4. Good lord thats a LONG winding road..

[azureblue]

3. "Christian beliefs"

The problem with all of these cases is this: The defendants all claim "Christian beliefs". This is not what the case is built on. It is built on them cherry picking Bible verses to suit their bigotry. The proper way to rebut them is to ask, "do you refuse to serve people who eat pork? Bacon? Shrimp? Lobster? Men who trim their beards? People who lie? People who wear glasses to Church? (and more, as described in Leviticus). Do they ask people if they eat pork, etc, before they serve them? Of curse the bigots will say no, so, with that, their defense falls apart, fro they are refusing to abide by certain biblical prohibitions, yet choosing to abide by ones more of their liking.

And, even more to issue- these Bible verse they choose to obey are almost always in the Old Testament. Ask them about what Christ tells his followers to do and what rules He lay down, like take care of the poor, the sick, the elderly, and they will give you a blank look. It boils down to, if you are a Christian, then you do what Christ tell you to do. But they do not.