A lesbian couple is suing the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville for discrimination. The resort, which is a renowned tourist destination in the Northeast Kingdom, refused to allow the couple to hold a reception on the premises because the two women are gay.
The Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is representing the couple.
Katherine Baker and Ming-Lien Linsley of New York City were planning a Vermont wedding and put Linsley’s mother, Channie Peters, in charge of the reception. Peters emailed the Vermont Convention Bureau for help finding a venue and was contacted by the Wildflower Inn, via email. “You could not offer a better ‘destination wedding’ location for your guests,” a staffer said.
Five minutes after Peters’ phone call to Wildflower’s Meeting and Events director, in which she clarified that the reception consisted of “two brides” and not a bride and groom, she received a second email with the subject line: “I have bad news.” The email went on to state that “due to [the Inkeepers’] personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.” In a later conversation, the same employee said the same thing had happened to three different couples over the course of a year.
The lawsuit filed by Baker and Linsley claims that this policy is in violation of Vermont’s Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which states that the owner or operator of a “place of public accommodation” cannot deny accommodations to anyone on the grounds of “race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
The lawsuit, which was filed in Caledonia County Superior Court, requests nominal damages of $1, and a declaration that Wildflower’s conduct was in violation of state law, and Wildflower coverage of the couple’s legal fees.
Baker said they were “sad and shocked” when they learned of the inn’s policy. Linsley said that until this event, she had never been discriminated against to this extent and now she felt the need to stand up to ensure no more couples were turned away based on their sexuality.
The couple plans to be married and hold a reception at another Vermont location – which they would not disclose for privacy reasons – this fall.
Baker and Linsley were engaged in October 2010. According to the lawsuit, they had planned “a traditional Buddhist wedding ceremony at a religious retreat,” followed by a reception for friends and family at another location.
The Vermont Convention Bureau recommended the Wildflower Inn to the couple. The 24-room Wildflower Inn has been featured in articles in the National Geographic Traveler, Boston Magazine, Yankee Magazine, Bing Travel, the Boston Globe, Montreal Gazette, Vermont Magazine, Bloomberg.com, Travel and Leisure and USA Today. The lawsuit states that the resort has 50 employees and annual revenues of $2.5 million and $5 million.
A receptionist at the resort who was contacted for this story said the innkeepers “are not taking any calls.”
Under Vermont statutes, there are two narrow exemptions to the public accommodations statute that applies to religious organizations and lodging accommodations with fewer than five rooms. The Wildflower Inn does not qualify for an exemption under either category, according to the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that Baker and Linsley have been “aggrieved by violation of” public accommodation laws and have suffered “stigmatizing injury and deprivation of personal dignity that accompany denials of equal access to public establishments.”
Greg Johnson, a professor at Vermont Law School who specializes in sexual orientation and the law, said “this [case] seems like a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.” Johnson said the defense was likely to try to argue that they fall under the religious exception, which allows religious organizations to turn away potential customers based on sexual orientation, race, or other traits. The Wildflower Inn, however, has no apparent religious affiliation stated on their website or elsewhere, said Johnson.
Johnson said there was a somewhat similar case in New Jersey in 2008 in which a lesbian couple hoped to get married at a beachfront pavilion were turned away because they were lesbian. That couple won the case, the court stating that the venue had violated New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination despite being operated by a church group.
Unless the defendants present surprising evidence in their defense, Johnson said, the case seems to strongly favor the plaintiffs.
Vermont’s Department of Tourism and Marketing released a statement shortly after the lawsuit was announced, in which Commissioner Megan Smith stated ““I don’t know the details of this case, but I do know that Vermont businesses in the tourism industry welcome LGBT travelers with open arms. Vermont was the first state to establish civil unions and the first to legalize same-sex marriage without a court order, and we are deeply proud of these historic milestones.”
In an interview, Smith stated the importance of the gay community to Vermont’s tourism industry. Since she took the post in January, Smith has been specifically directed by Gov. Peter Shumlin to reach out to the LGBT community.
Steve Cook, deputy commissioner of the department, said this is the first his office had heard of any businesses turning away gay couples. Cook emphasized that this was a choice made by one business, and it did not reflect the opinions of Vermont’s tourism community.
“Vermont as a gay wedding destination is a very important part of our state,” Cook said.
The department has never had any partnerships with the Wildflower Inn.
Willy Docto, president of the Vermont Gay Tourism Association, said he thinks the Wildflower’s practices are isolated and that Vermont as a whole is a very welcoming place for gay travelers. The gay tourism association has 30 member businesses, according to its website.
“This is an aberration,” said Docto. Many businesses in Vermont are catering to LGBT travelers, he said. Vermont’s reputation as a gay-friendly state is so strong that this incident isn’t likely to have a significant effect on the industry, Docto said.
