Eugene couple says wedding venue discriminated against them
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- An Eugene, Ore., couple says they were told their wedding wouldn't be "a good fit" for a Washington venue because the couple is gay.
The owner of the venue refused to comment on the issue, but the couple said 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 said 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 said 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 said 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 said 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 said 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.
If it is the law that businesses that serve the public cannot pick and choose who they serve, discriminate if services are offered to the public (even if they are private) and cannot deny service to someone based up their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation...then the venue is in violation of the law. Discrimination is illegal and they should not be allowed to violate the law.
Â
Then there is the statement..."If the same-sex marriage law passes, more couples may face similar problems if business owners try to get around the law." I think it would be more accurate to say that business owners who attempt to circumvent the law are going to be the ones who have the problem!!
What was the venue?I'd like to not patronize it.
Well I believe that a business ought to be able to do business with who ever they want. Now what I would do if a business refused service to me for something I did not feel right about, I would just go to the next place, and tell all my friends about the previous place. This does not seem good enough for gays, they have to try to get the whole world to accept their lifestyle. I am sorry for these two and their affliction and hope that they can come to terms with the fact that not everyone approves of their condition, which in my opinion is not natural. That said I wish them no harm, and hope that they can find some peace within themselves without everyone having to approve of them.
 @souptonuts Then businesses open to the public should be allowed to openly refuse service to people on the basis of race, gender, age, disability, etc. then? Those constitutional protections just obliterated?Â
@PleaseBeSmart I think there is probably some case law out there somewhere that would deal with this type of issue, based on religious beliefs, harm to the business, etc. etc. Now if I went to a business and they said we don't want you here, then I would leave and notify my friends that maybe they might want to consider not patronizing such as business. I have never felt the need to do anything more than that. I kind of feel the same about a rental house. I should be able to rent to who I want to. I should not be forced to rent my private property to someone I don't want in there. I have always considered myself to be reasonable and would be willing to help someone that I wasn't able to serve, by steering them to a different location or business. What about my rights? Also I don't need anyones acceptance or approval of anything I do. If someone does not like what I do, stay away from me. If I don't like what you do I stay away from you. Why force someone to do something they totally don't believe in, all you do is create hatred and further uproar. Just my opinion.
@PleaseBeSmart I don't believe they were there to start with in regards to private property even if it is open to the public. I think lawyers have twisted the meaning and intent of the constitution in this regard. I can't believe the founding fathers would even believe what lawyers and judges have done to the constitution and the bill of rights. Frankly I think they would start all over if they could see what is happening in this day and age. Would I scrap the constitution? Not on your life, but I will fight to try and get it back to what I think was intended in the first place. Do I believe people of color should be treated any differently than myself? No. Do I believe that people with disabilities should be treated differently than myself, yes, they probably need more help than I do. Do I believe in gay marriage? No. Do I believe in women fighting in combat on the front lines, no. Do I believe in parole for convicted murderers, no. The list goes on and on. So you see we are right back where we started, you have your opinions and I have mine. I hope you have a good day.
 @souptonuts I get your personal feelings of how you would handle the situation, but you really didn't answer the question. Should those constitutional protections be removed?
OhFerCryinOutloud! PRIVATE business owners can tell me that they don't want my business because they don't like my looks. They can refuse to serve me. They can ask me to leave because they don't like the gun on my hip. (Even if they don't have it posted.) It's THEIR business and it's THEIR right to decide who they want to serve. WHY should it be any different for other reasons? If someone doesn't want to play with you...GO PLAY WITH SOMEONE ELSE!!! Simple...elementary school lesson that all parents should teach their kids. If you haven't figured it out by the time you're an adult, you need to grow the heck up!
 @SwiftlyJust I really don't feel like rewording this, so I'll just copy and paste what I wrote to someone else... Public vs. private, legally speaking, is more of a spectrum. Businesses that are open to the public often have signs which read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." In reality though, the scope of their legal ability to do so is limited. Despite being private property, their status as a business open to the public compels them to follow the same constitutional laws that wholly public institutions must abide by.Â
If what this couple says is true it is a shame. But I feel that only reporting one side leads me to believe there might be some half truths being told. This is just stirring the pot!Â
Quote from article "When you look back in the 50s, 60s and people being denied service based on their race, this is no different," she said."
 People in the 50s and ,60 were beaten , tortured and killed for the beliefs that they stood up for. This couple is just unhappy that they couldn't upload the wedding to their IPhone5 from their Volkswagen Jetta, while sipping half double decaffeinated half-caf, with a twist of lemon.
 @Ritual99 A small number of blacks were beaten, tortured and killed... the rest faced the everyday forms of discrimination in the form of racial slurs, harassment, separate rules, and yep... denial of service. Likewise, a small number of individuals currently are beaten, tortured and killed for their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Since you're so blind to that, here's at least a partial list of people in this country who have been killed, in part or in whole, for that reason just since 2000: Arthur Warren, Gwen Araujo, Sakia Gunn, Richie Phillips, Nireah Johnson, Glenn Kopitske, Scotty Joe Weaver, Ronnie Antonio Paris, Jason Gage, Michael Sandy, Andrew Anthos, Sean William Kennedy, Duanna Johnson, Lawrence King, Angie Zapata, Lateisha Green, Justin Goodwin, and Seamen August Provost. In addition, Jacob D. Robida and Ronald Gay went on rampages specifically targeting homosexuals. Many more were beaten and many face more common forms of discrimination, like these women. But instead of acknowledging the pain that must cause, you choose to mock them?
 @PleaseBeSmart Those instances did happen but in no way can those horrific instances be compared to this couple not picking their top favorite wedding spot.
No more comparable than you or I comparing ourselves to someone in a Syrian refugee camp because our Smart Phone momentarily can't get Wi-Fi reception
 @Ritual99 You're the one who brought up beatings and murder. The legal director in the article merely said "when you look back in the 50s, 60s and people being denied service based on their race, this is no different." She made a direct, accurate comparison and you mocked the couple for it.
@PleaseBeSmart @Ritual99 I have a honest question. Is there different layers of discrimination. Like the examples you gave above. My heart breaks everytime I hear this....There has to be a stronger word for this than discrimination. If we use the word discrimination for all kinds of things then how can we ever make things right for those we lost to the definition of descrimination. Certainly, you cannot compare by using the word "discrimination" for a refusal of a venue because the couple is gay to the death of a black person because they were black.
 @Dikweed Involved? No. Motivated by? Yes. And add to that list disability, age, nationality, gender, religion, and class.
@PleaseBeSmart @buggyismyman I find it interesting that it's only considered hate crime if blacks or gays are involved.
 @Ritual99 Alrighty. You use your definition and I'll continue using the conventional, dictionary definition. And we'll both agree that squirrels are adorable.
@Ritual99 @Iam1woody oh trust me if you knew me you would know I am not a believer but I am all about freedom to choice and live and let live so long as no harm is done,and most religions have done harm
 @Iam1woody On the religious note, I 100% support churches in denying homosexual marriages. It's their right.
 @Iam1woody Bleah dont say that nasty word "Religion" , Religions are just another word for Cult. Unless they have Snazzy handshakes and beer on Fridays who would want to be in a cult?
@PleaseBeSmart
Yes I am redefining  ; Not being legally allowed to get married thatâs discrimination. Not being able to pick the top wedding spot they want, not discrimination.... Ooh look a squirrel
 @PleaseBeSmart  @Ritual99 gosh i love a good debate when its carried out respectfully ,I can see both side of the fence religious people vrs people who may or may not be religious but are in a same sex relationship.glad I am more jewish than prudish
 @Ritual99 You're re-writing the definition of discrimination then?
 @PleaseBeSmart As white middle class Americans they feel they should have every right automatically given to them. Try reading what happens to gay people's rights in Africa ,now that is discrimination. This is not.
 @Ritual99 And now you're being facetious. :) Lovely.
@PleaseBeSmart@buggyismyman
On behalf of White middle class Americans everywhere i apologize  for what must be a horrible, terrible, traumatic, experience for this couple who appear to be White middle class Americans . Wait till they buy a house and feel prejudiced against when their credit score isnât high enough⦠Â
 @Ritual99 And what rights and they blinded to, specifically?
 @PleaseBeSmart  @buggyismyman Or as this couples suffers from as sang by Carly Simon "You're So Vain" which blinds them to the rights of anyone else in the world but them.
 @buggyismyman In law it's called a hate crime. You can call it whatever you like. It all stems from homophobia, or racism if that be the case. I find it interesting that your "comparison" used sexuality for denial of service, and race for murder. An appropriate comparison would be sexuality for both, or race for both.
Sue them sue them sue them! Hitting them in their pocket book is the only way these policies will change!
@LifeisGOOD007 And yes, this will fix EVERYTHING....good grief.....
That is just wrong! I am so sorry that these gals are being shunned for being gay. However, I would not want to patronize a business that judges who/what I am. I hope they find another awesome spot for their ceremony, where they will be welcome.
I firmly believe whatever you believe in is your business. I also believe that I don't have to like or "accept" your beliefs. Is it wrong to say I am gay? Is it wrong to same I am straight? What blows my mind is that we must all believe the same things or we are labeled discriminatory or racist. It is okay for you to say your gay, but it is not okay for someone to say I don't support that preference? I don't get this? You are a gay couple...I get that...happy that you both love and care for each other...and you deserve to find happiness in your relationship, but is it truly discriminatory that a someone else doesn't believe in your "gayness." Why are they labeled as discriminators because they don't believe in the same thing as you. You could turn the table and say you didn't chose them as a venue for your wedding because they don't support gay marriages. This is exhausting. Everyone has the right to choose their preferences, but we have to be careful with that because we can be quickly labeled. My advice, move on. This venue owner has every right to believe in what they believe in as much as you do, and should be able to do so without the fear of being labeled as a business that is discriminating. I am sure they don't like that label anymore than you like the label that comes with being gay. I could care less what you believe in or who you love. I do care however, that you are good caring, giving people that have compasion for yourselves as well as those around you. You are upstanding citizens, pay your taxes, obey the laws, as a minimum, these are things I expect from my fellow humans.
 @buggyismyman You're trying to equate people's beliefs with discrimination, and that's quite obviously not what it's about as discrimination consists of acts, not just thoughts. Absolutely everyone is entitled to their thoughts, but that doesn't mean that whatever you choose to do as a result of those thoughts is a-okay. You say you care and expect people to obey the laws, but you completely disregard that denial of service at a place of business based on sexual orientation is against the law.Â
 @buggyismyman I agree with you that the owner should be free to believe whatever they want.  However, I also believe that as Americans we should be free to patronize any business we choose without fear of discrimination.  One of the things I believe makes our country great is the fact that no matter what we look like, what religion we believe, what our sexual orientation is, or what are political beliefs are we are completely free to go into any business we choose and be served.  I think if you take away that freedom you are taking away part of the greatness of our country.  Yes, the owner can believe whatever they want, but when they choose to run a business that serves the public they don't have the right to deny service based on things like race or sexual orientation.
@NewsNerd If it is THEIR business, their business rules apply. They don't have people that don't wear shirts, is that being discriminatory? This isn't a public service venue....this is a private service venue, they are not subject to the same laws as a public service (state offices, etc.). They have the freedom to choose their customers. We don't have to like their choices, but I believe that is the fundamental element to this country...freedom of choices. They made one, you don't have to like it, but the exercised their freedom of choice.
 @buggyismyman I don't think you're being intentionally inflammatory, but you obviously don't understand the law. It's really not black and white... public vs. private, legally speaking, is more of a spectrum. Businesses that are open to the public often have signs which read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." In reality though, the scope of their legal ability to do so is limited. Despite being private property, their status as a business open to the public compels them to follow the same constitutional laws that wholly public institutions must abide by.Â
 @buggyismyman But they are discriminating! Get a grip! Change this to a BLACK couple is denied the venue because well "they wouldn't be a good fit"!! See? That's discrimination! Duh
 @LifeisGOOD007  @buggyismyman Why should everyone expect to be granted everything in life? I myself am sueing for Tax discrimination , because paying taxes offends me and everything i stand for ,especially my paycheck.
 @PleaseBeSmart  @Ritual99 If you serve the public you cannot refuse services to people BASED ON CERTAIN FACTORS. That is the law, not open to opinion, it is what it is whether you like it or not. If it is proven it was because of their sexual preference, BY LAW that is discrimination (not a hate crime, BTW).
Â
It discrimination by definition is a matter of law, not whether they were beaten, or called names, or refused service.Â
Â
They are asking for the services afforded the public and that includes them. Hence the problem. They are as much a part of the public as heterosexuals.
 @Ritual99 What were they expecting to be granted, more than lawfully equal treatment from a business open to the public?
@LifeisGOOD007 I don't believe I made any mention about race...regadless my minimum expectations of the human race would apply across the board, including race, sexual preference, religion preference, political arena. With what is going on today, everyone is discriminated against or labeled as one that is discriminating or being racist. I hope that these two lovely people find a place that will be perfect for them. The venue doesn't make the marriage....let's remember that.
 @buggyismyman  @LifeisGOOD007 Exactly its Oregon , go get married on a beautiful beach or meadow , and enjoy your life.
me nope not gay but i am a money hungry sob and would have made them feel comfortable and taken as much money as possible,cause its what i do,and i do it with a smile
 @Iam1woody Hey woody, sounds like you are a wise business man. You know the laws and understand capitalism.
I wouldn't want to get married anyplace that didn't want me..why push it? Find another spot, where you are welcome. Â
Okay bad move by the venue owner.  It sounds like this couple is getting ready to attempt to "cash in" on this via the legal system.  I wonder if there is anyone out there who hasn't been mistreated by a business in these United States, I sure have. My response?  I don't go back to that business. Lawsuits aren't appropriate every time you get your feelings hurt.  Get over yourselves and move on. There are certainly other lovely venues where you two can marry. Â
 @thisBITES! This is about discrimination-they ABSOLUTELY should sue--unfortunately it is often the only way things change.
@LifeisGOOD007 @thisBITES! Wait one minute. This is a private company....meaning probably a family or a couple, or a person owns this venue. The state of Washington doesn't own this venue. The federal goverment doesn't own this venue. They are within the law to turn away customers. I feel for this young couple. They found what they considered the perfect spot to hold their wedding. It is devastating that they can't use it now because the owner a made a decision that they don't agree with. I just can't find where the freedom of choice is at any longer. We have the freedom to choose our religion and sexual preference. We lose the freedom of choice when we choose to not accept another's choice (as long as the choice is in the boundaries of being legal). I want people to be happy, I want citizens of this country to have the freedom of choice, without persecution. This company made a choice and now they are being virtually persecuted and labelled. And you think sueing them is going to fix this? I don't believe that is the answer either....could it be that this young couple is discriminating against the venue owerns because they don't support the gay community? How did we arrive at the place if I don't believe in everything you believe I am discriminating. It is like the freedom of choice has been revised to say, "freedom of choice....if you dare..."
 @PleaseBeSmart  @thisBITES! I always find it interesting when individuals what to change or re-interpret the laws based on their beliefs. It doesn't work that way. PleaseBeSmart: You are correct. I am a business owner and the discrimination laws are very clearly written. It is not what you believe or think, it is based on what you do (actions). Fortunately this will not be decided in the press, but in another venue that is educated in the laws of the U.S.A. and the freedoms of the public (regardless of race, ethnicity, nation of origin, language spoken, sexual identity, etc.).
 @PleaseBeSmart It is always interesting when people want to change the laws or re-interpret them based on their beliefs. You are correct, it is not what one believes or thinks, it is what one does. The law is clear here. Fortunately this is not up to public opinion but up to the law as written. The laws apply to everyone. Ignorance of the laws are no excuse.Â
Â
I am a business owner, business discrimination laws are very clear.
 @PleaseBeSmart It is interesting when people don't understand the law or decide that they can rewrite it based on emotion and personal beliefs. Glad the law doesn't work that way. You are correct, it is not what one believes, or thinks, it is their actions that count. Fortunately this will not work itself out in the press, but in a place where those who are educated will have their say.
 @thisBITES! Obviously the business would not lose the case unless the charge of discrimination is proven. There's no need to be dramatic. I really can't figure out why you think a lawsuit would result in the land becoming a public, government holding. And yes, I absolutely support someone suing when their constitutional rights have been violated. What would you suggest they do?
 @Ritual99  @buggyismyman If you ever decide to own a business in this country you might want to educate yourself on the laws regarding discrimination otherwise you will most likely find yourself in civil court. A lot.
Â
If the company "serves the public" they gave up the right to PICK AND CHOOSE legally. The law doesn't work that way. You cannot discriminate (against ANY group based on many factors).
All successful businesses are very aware of the laws regarding discrimination and some found out the hard way. The smart ones educate themselves before they end up in the situation this business is facing.
Well then you'll support the ACLU and this couple suing them completely out of business.. the State foreclosing on their property and returning it to the "people." Way to go, you've not accomplished anything worthwhile and you'll be putting the "evil" business owners out on the street for what could be a completely legal reason (remember, the charge is discrimination, at this point, that's not proven) for not leasing their property to this couple.
 @thisBITES! *facepalm* I wouldn't even care if it was a matter of opinion. But it's a matter of law. Good grief...
I agree with you completely Buggy. Well said.
 @Ritual99 I guess you conveniently skipped over the bit ^up there^ where I mention that this line of reasoning isn't legally accurate. At all.
 @buggyismyman Well Said , (Applauds)Â
 @LifeisGOOD007 This is really about these people bullying this business into doing exactly as they say . The new Gay movement will allow no free thoughts or actions by anyone else that does not fit with what they want, they are the new Hate mongers.
 @buggyismyman  @Ritual99  @LifeisGOOD007 Standing up for your rights, legally in court, is not bullying.  It is however exercising your rights as a citizen. Let the court work it out.
@Ritual99 @LifeisGOOD007 This is some pretty strong statements. Bullying is a pretty strong word. From the article I found no evidence of bullying....I did read that the business owner made a decision. That is their choice, they have the right to make that choice.
 @Ritual99  @LifeisGOOD007 That is such a twisted train of thought -that you must be Republican! Lol!!! Hahahahaha!