Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Bed-and-breakfast which refused service loses another round in court

Posted in:

Illinois

An Illinois appeals court is standing by its decision to dismiss a Paxton bed-and-breakfast’s appeal of $80,000 in penalties imposed by the state’s Human Rights Commission in connection with the discrimination of a same-sex couple.

The Fourth District of the Illinois Appellate Court entered an order Wednesday denying a motion filed by Chicago attorney Jason Craddock that had asked the court to reverse the dismissal of the appeal.

Craddock filed the appeal on behalf of Jim Walder, co-owner of the TimberCreek Bed-and-Breakfast west of Paxton, who is facing penalties that include paying $30,000 to Todd and Mark Wathen for their emotional distress and paying the Wathens’ attorneys $50,000 in fees.

The penalties were imposed last year by a three-member panel of the Human Rights Commission, as recommended by an administrative law judge appointed by the commission. The judge and panel both found that Walder violated the civil rights of the Wathens, who live in Tuscola, by refusing to host their civil-union ceremony at his B&B in 2011, and then sending them a series of emails citing Biblical verses and denouncing homosexuality as “wrong and unnatural.”

* AP…

The Wathens’ attorneys noted the case’s dismissal was based on “a series of failures to comply with deadlines and rules violations.”

Craddock said he would continue to contest the decision.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 12:36 pm

Comments

If you want to serve the public, serve the public. If you don’t want to serve the public, start a private club or religion or something

Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 12:38 pm
==If you want to serve the public, serve the public. ==

Just to be clear, you’re saying private businesses should serve anyone, no matter if they disagree with their views they express via avenues protected by their civil rights?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 12:50 pm
==Just to be clear, you’re saying private businesses should serve anyone, no matter if they disagree with their views they express via avenues protected by their civil rights?==

Public accommodation. Don’t want to deal with the icky gay people? Then get out of the public accommodation business. Or heck, just be less stupid. Quote a really high price. Don’t send them a bunch of unhinged emails quoting the Bible.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 1:01 pm
I’m not sure how to answer that question as I’m honestly not sure what that sentence means

Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 1:08 pm
They should reverse the penalty. $50,000 to victims and $30,000 to attorney

Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 1:10 pm
Former caterer here. First, being picky about your clientele is a very good way to tank your business. But if you insist, then you’re all booked up on the dates the people you don’t want to serve wish to be served.

Not “the Lord will smite me if I serve you.”

Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 1:56 pm
I don’t understand why people want to patronize (and pay money to) someone who doesn’t like/value/respect them in the first place.

Comment by Shemp Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 2:21 pm
Shemp, in some parts of the state there aren’t a lot of options. If there is only one diner, are the people who are being discriminated against supposed to travel to another town?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 2:47 pm
Definitely bad business practices. But like Shemp said, why would you try and give these bigoted people your business? Maybe the plan was to sue all along?

Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 2:55 pm
Let private businesses refuse to serve homosexuals all they want. But require them to post this information in plain sight on all advertising and promotional materials.

Comment by Dr. M Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 3:08 pm
Additionally, if I were a business owner, I’d want to refuse to provide goods and services to people like white supremacists, and I’d be more than happy to post signage explicitly stating this. Let everyone put their money where their mouths are.

Comment by Dr. M Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 3:11 pm
@Dr. M -

The Illinois Human Rights Act forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It does not forbid discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint.

A “private business” that is a place of public accommodation cannot “refuse to serve homosexuals”. The definition of “place of public accommodation” can be found here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=2266&ChapterID=64&SeqStart=2600000&SeqEnd=3200000 B&Bs clearly fall under that definition.

Comment by JoanP Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 4:21 pm
For all you supporters of homophobic religious based denials, consider that the “bible” enforcement doesnt include enforcement of 99.9% of the bible. If your just prohibiting gays, and not adulteres, liars, tax cheats, those that covet etc wtc then its not a religious viewpoint.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 4:53 pm
DrM, gay is an identity, coded in a person’s dna. (If anyone wants to argue it’s a choice, preface your argument with the story of when you chose to be straight or gay.) That gives a gay person equal protection under the law.
White supremacism is a choice. It does not grant a person protected status.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:00 pm
The Atlantic: No, Scientists Have Not Found the ‘Gay Gene’
The media is hyping a study that doesn’t do what it says it does.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/no-scientists-have-not-found-the-gay-gene/410059/

Comment by Liberty Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:27 pm
So when did you choose to be whatever you are, Liberty? It must have been momentous, I’m sure you remember. Were you surprised? Shocked? Relieved? Do tell.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:41 pm
Perhaps he can open a whites-only lunch counter to raise the money for the damages.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 7:39 pm
Even if sexual orientation is a choice (it’s not), so is religion and the Human Rights Act does not allow discrimination by a public accommodation on the basis of religion. So whether it’s genetic or a choice is irrelevant to the illegality of the discrimination.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 7:44 pm
Robert the First == Maybe the plan was to sue all along? ==

It often is in this type of case, but how else do you get people to comply with the law?

Comment by Whatever Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 8:29 am