Appeals Panel Made Up of ‘Gay Rights’ Activists Allow Fine to Stand Against B&B That Declined Same-Sex Ceremony

Timber CreekSPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A bed and breakfast owner in Illinois says that the unsuccessful appeal of his discrimination ruling and fine was “fixed” and “corrupt” as he has learned that two of the three commissioners appointed to the case are homosexual activists.

“The fix was in from the get-go,” TimberCreek Bed and Breakfast owner Jim Walder opined to reporters. “The public probably assumes that these three commissioners were non-partisan, fair and neutral when the exact opposite was the case.”

As previously reported, Walder runs “an upscale Christian country bed and breakfast,” situated in the midst of a small farming community. The facility hosts church retreats, baby and bridal showers, business meetings and other events.

In 2011, Todd Wathen contacted TimberCreek via email to inquire if the bed and breakfast would be hosting civil union ceremonies after Illinois approved the unions that year via the “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.” Jim Walder replied that the facility had no such plans, and allegedly advised Wathen that “homosexuality is immoral and unnatural,” and that “it’s not too late to change your behavior.”

Three days later, Wathen filed a discrimination complaint with the Illinois Human Rights Commission. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU) also soon became involved and sought emotional damages for Wathen and his partner, Mark.

In March, Michael Robinson, an administrative law judge appointed by the Commission, ordered Walder to pay $30,000 in damages to the men ($15,000 each), as well as $50,000 in attorney’s fees and more than $1,200 in costs.

Robinson also mandated that Walder follow the Illinois Human Rights Act by not declining further events, and that he additionally host Wathen’s celebration at the bed and breakfast within one year. The two men held a ceremony in their yard in 2011 after being declined; they did not seek other facilities as alternatives.

  • Connect with Christian News

However, Walder, who advised that he could not comply with the order because of his Christian faith, filed an appeal. Last month, Commissioners Duke Alden, Terry Cosgrove and Patricia Bakalis-Yadgir, who were assigned to the case, issued an order stating that they had “declined further review” of a “recommended order and decision,” allowing Robinson’s order to stand.

However, in 2014, Cosgrove had been inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame, and himself had filed a discrimination case against a local bar. He has also lobbied for state laws about the matter.

Alden serves as the chairman of Howard Brown Health, a health and social services organization for homosexual and transgendered persons. He also was a part of a “Presidential Debate Viewing Party” for homosexuals in Chicago to “cheer on Hillary Clinton.”

“[A]ssigning two out of three commissioners who are either LGBT activists or openly gay to review our case is corrupt and indefensible,” Walder consequently told the Paxton Record. “[B]oth commissioners should have honorably recused themselves from the review.”

“This feels like blatant reverse discrimination against all business owners, Christian or otherwise, by the IHRC, which is supposed to be an unbiased, neutral party in resolving complaints,” he said. “It begs the question how this unelected commission’s rulings can ever be taken seriously again.”

Walder is considering his appeal options at this time. He says that homosexuals are welcome to visit the bed and breakfast, but he just cannot be a part of their ceremonies.

“None of this goes back to hate. None of this goes back to bigotry. None of this goes back to being homophobic. … All of this goes back to the Bible and how God sees homosexuality,” Walder said. “I don’t want to see someone not go to Heaven, because the opposite of that is unfathomable.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Michael C

    Businesses cannot deny people employment, housing, or public accommodations on the basis of their religion, sex, national origin, race, color, etc. This has been federal law for over half a century. This b&b would not be permitted to refuse to rent their facilities out for an interfaith or interracial wedding even if their strongly held, personal religious beliefs were in strong opposition to such ceremonies.

    The question here is this;

    Should businesses be permitted to deny gay people employment, housing, or public accommodations (service at stores, restaurants, ect.)?

    If your answer is ‘no,’ then you understand that this particular business is in the wrong for refusing to provide the same products and services that they regularly offer to straight customers. Currently, discrimination against gay people is 100% legal in most of the United States. Illinois just happens to be one of the minority of states that prohibits such discrimination.

    • Amos Moses

      “Illinois just happens to be one of the minority of states that prohibits such discrimination.”

      …… and living in Chicago is such a treat …….

      • Michael C

        Nobody mentioned Chicago (or Canada).

        This took place in Springfield.

        • Oboehner

          Very minor detail.

        • Amos Moses

          but Chitown is in Illinois ……….

  • bowie1

    Sounds like a conflict of interest not unlike the KKK panel deciding on a BLM case or vice versa.

    • Roy Hobs

      Where are these ‘kkk’ many keep referring to? Such an elusive group I guess. I’m 50 years old and never have I once seen with my two eyes a man in a hood.

      • Liberal Elitist

        Well, I just turned 61 and I have seen them. I was around 15 years old at the time, and they were attending a prayer meeting in Tennessee.

      • bowie1

        Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group. They may have been mentioned with the recent election of Trump although he has disassociated himself from them.

        • Roy Hobs

          KKK sure gets mentioned a lot in the media for a group that is totally irrelevant. Just more white guilt propaganda.

          • zeddicuskotor

            They’re relevant and growing in power after their dear leader won.

          • Roy Hobs

            Stop watching TV! And stop reading Liberal websites. Get a clue dude.

          • zeddicuskotor

            You’ve clearly not been paying attention.

          • Roy Hobs

            LOL! Didn’t Trump just pick Ben Carson for a post. Not only that, Trump’s family are jewish. What a racist anti-Semite!

          • zeddicuskotor

            All the while you’re ignoring all the white supremacists cheering on Trump and getting cabinet positions.

          • Roy Hobs

            La Raza = Good
            ADL = Good
            NAACP = Good
            Whites desiring representation = EVIL.

          • Tangent002

            Whites lack representation? Since when?

          • Roy Hobs

            Google “White Student Union”

          • Tangent002

            Google “U.S. Congress”

          • Roy Hobs

            As if the US congress represents the 14 words. What a joke. All traitors and thieves.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            MarioKart racers don’t get the blue shell and the lightning bolt when they’re in First Place.

          • Oboehner

            Robert Byrd is dead, he didn’t win.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Byrd was a white supremacists?

          • Oboehner

            I don’t know, he was Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local KKK chapter, you tell me.

        • OhSoGood

          History fail… the primary reason the Klan existed here in New England was those pesky catholics… not race.

  • Roy Hobs

    The Spirit of Anti-Christ on full display. Satan is a Parasite. He hates us, but can’t live without us. Always in our face……………never giving us rest.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    It’s really irrelevant whether the members of the IHRC are “biased” or not. The question is whether their decision comports with the law and Walder never said it didn’t.

    • Oboehner

      You must mean the religious liberty part right?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        If you’re implying that public accommodation laws violate the Free Exercise Clause, feel free to show me a case that has ruled so.

        • Oboehner

          Feel free to show me that court decisions are law. I know the Constitution is.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Art. III, Sec 2: “In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

          • meamsane

            Now you need to read Art. III, Sec. 1 which tells you the actual types of cases that the SC has jurisdiction to take. It would also help you to read the Federalist Papers which is the most authoritative explanation of the actual meaning of the Constitution itself.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why are you moving the goalposts? The topic is whether SCOTUS rulings are law. Please try to keep up.

          • meamsane

            Again with the goalposts? Avoiding much?

          • Oboehner

            Article I, Section I states only Congress can legislate.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Now, what does the text of the Constitution say about public accommodation laws?

          • Oboehner

            I know it states that one has the right to free exercise of their religion. I also know this was a private business, not a public service.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If you need secondary sources, here are some:

            http://www.clsnet. org/document.doc?id=130

            You’ll note on page 10, it says “Federal laws include court decisions…” Later it says, “The Supreme Court’s decisions are law throughout the country.”

            Also:

            https://www.law.georgetown. edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/WHICH_COURT_IS_BINDING_Painter-and-Mayer-FINAL.pdf

            http://faculty.law.lsu. edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm

            http://www.uscis .gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/About%20Us/Directorates%20and%20Program%20Offices/RAIO/Case%20Law%20LP%20(RAIO).pdf

          • meamsane

            This is true, only by ignoring the Constitution itself. Pure Indoctrination contrary to what the Constitution actually says.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The Supreme Court and you both have opinions about what the Constitution “actually says.” But I don’t recall ever citing your opinion in a brief.

          • meamsane

            Neither have I seen yours. You simply believe whatever you are told unthinkingly and then confirming it by reading more of what you already unthinkingly believe.

          • Oboehner

            Court decisions are opinion, NOT law, and I choose the primary source.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            We live in a common law system. Judges help make law in common law systems insofar as their decisions are binding on lower courts that must interpret law. Your concept of how the law works in this country is wrong. Every SCOTUS ruling since Marbury v. Madison reinforces that. You don’t have to like it for it to be true.

            You can’t honestly expect to make a statement at odds with the entirety of the legal system and expect it to be taken seriously.

          • Oboehner

            “ALL legislative powers (making laws) herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article I, Section I – United States Constitution

            You can’t honestly expect to make a statement at odds with the entirety of the legal system and expect it to be taken seriously.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            When courts decide cases, their decisions make law because they become precedent that binds future courts under the doctrine of stare decisis. The legislative branch has legislative power. The judicial branch has judicial power, which includes establishing precedence under the doctrine of stare decisis. This is how common law systems work. The entire US system is a common law system.

            You’re mischaracterizing legislative powers. The Congress has the power to make statutory law. That doesn’t mean they are the only ones that can make law. Regulatory law, after all, exists.

          • Oboehner

            “ALL legislative powers (making laws) herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article I, Section I – United States Constitution
            Is ALL to big of a concept for you? Courts have opinions.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            You keep saying “legislative powers”. I don’t think that means what you think it means.

            Legislative powers involve writing bills to be passed into statutes. That isn’t the extent of law. There are executive orders and agency regulations, all with the power of law, that Congress itself doesn’t directly control.

            Courts interpret laws, and lower courts have to follow those laws. SCOTUS interpreted the law to expand marriage rights to gays and lesbians. All courts now must follow that. That is a part of the framework that surrounds our laws.

            You can deny the rain all you want, you’ll still get wet when you stand in it.

          • Oboehner

            “executive orders and agency regulations” non-law.
            If anyone can make law with no checks and balances, heck I’ll make some.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            You keep saying “legislative powers”, but I don’t think you understand the full nuance of what that means.

            Executive Orders and Agency regulations are laws, with the full force of enforcement behind them, including the power of the courts. All with out or with only attenuated connections to legislative power.

            Judicial decisions are binding on lower courts. All courts must, as a principal of stare decisis, abide by those upper court decisions. That determines whether a legislative statute has the power of law behind it or not.

            This is the reason that the First Amendment applies to Radios and Internet posts, even though the Constitution doesn’t contemplate either. It’s how you have the right to a hearing before your car is repossessed, even though the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t contemplate automobile repossession.

            Additionally, the Ninth Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
            construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            Rights don’t need to be enumerated to exist.

          • Oboehner

            Like those specifically protected.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Including those that aren’t enumerated. Because its in the Constitution, specifically. No matter how much you might disagree, the 9th Amendment exists, and it was expanded to include gay rights. Interestingly, just like it was expanded to include the right to send your child to a private school (Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070 (1925)), and the right to have your guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases (Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304, 26 L. Ed. 481 (1880)), and even the right right to have a presumption of innocence (Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 15 S. Ct. 394, 39 L. Ed. 481 (1895)).

            But clearly those are opinions with no force of law.

          • Oboehner

            The right to send my child to a private school? ROFL Do show the section of the Constitution which states we are to have government schools at all. Plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto states it.

            “and it was expanded to include gay rights” by whom? Religious protection is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, the right to force others to recognize sexual deviance is not.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            The Constitution isn’t the only law of the land. The government created public schools and required that children attend them. The Supreme Court made it legal to send your children to public school, establishing a right that was not enumerated by the Constitution, but is nonetheless a right. It doesn’t have to state that there are state public schools for the existence of public schools to be legal for there to be an enumerated right to send your children to private school. The Legislature exercised their constitutional powers to create the public school system, and the Supreme Court found a right to not participate in that system. I don’t see what is so hard to understand about the system.

            Again, the same argument can be posed unsuccessfully to free speech on the internet: The Constitution doesn’t contemplate internet conversation, but the First Amendment protects online speech. Unenumerated rights are still rights, as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
            construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            By the Supreme Court. Which has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. See Marbury v. Madison. Your religious rights aren’t being impacted: You don’t have to recognize sexual deviance personally. The government does have to extend the right to marriage to all people regardless of sexuality. Therefore, anywhere that government recognition or enforcement is necessary, those rights will be upheld.

            You have the right to refuse to recognize them as a private citizen. A public business owner who avails himself of the benefits of operating a business within U.S. jurisdiction is obliged to meet the standards laid out by law for equal service as a condition for availing themselves of the benefits of operating a business. Anywhere the government is called in to adjudicate a dispute is a situation where the government will not enforce a position contrary to civil rights law.

            If you respect the Constitution so much, you should see that it gives rights beyond those that it explicitly mentions, and that the Supreme Court is empowered to make determinations of constitutional interpretation, which necessarily means interpreting those unenumerated rights.

          • Oboehner

            “The Constitution isn’t the only law of the land.” It is the bedrock upon which ALL others must adhere to.
            “By the Supreme Court. Which has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional.” – period, not the power to make new ones, or to embellish upon old ones.
            The Christian bakery owners were established before the sexual perverts targeted them, the mentally challenged perverts came to them to infringe on the bakery owners protected rights.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            If you want to talk statutes, lets talk statutes. Federal law isn’t actually in play here, because the substantive law falls under Illinois law, and as per the Erie Doctrine, Illinois substantive law is applied by federal courts in the absence of federal statute. See Rules of Decision Act, 1 Stat. 92 (1789). The federal government has not expanded the Federal Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on the basis of sexuality in certain public accommodations, but Illinois has: 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-102.

            And that’s ignoring that, under the 9th Amendment, SCOTUS can make determinations on rights not enumerated. And that under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS can include due process protections for classes of people. Like it did with women, blacks, and, ultimately, gays and lesbians.

            Applying Illinois law, the bakery was legally in the wrong. In applying federal Constitutional law, the bakery was legally in the wrong. There isn’t any way to slice it any other way.

            And that’s ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret law by being vested in judicial power and bound by stare decisis through Art. III, Section 2 of the Constitution and through the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.

          • Oboehner

            State law is subject to the Constitution “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (Your 14 Amendment). The 9th Amendment does not give carte blanch to citizens to trample specifically protected rights such as the right to practice ones religion. Due process is not for the purpose of coercing others to accept your sexual perversion. In applying federal Constitutional law, the perverts were legally in the wrong.
            Art. III, Section 2 of the Constitution does not give the courts power to legislate.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            State law is subject to the Constitution, which, through Article III Section 2, is the domain of the Supreme Court.

            Its your 14th Amendment, too, and it guarantees everybody equal protection under the law. Including gays and lesbians. The Supreme Court gets to regulate those ambiguities that arise when the Constitution isn’t exhaustive. This is a recognized power of the Supreme Court and has been since the late 1790’s, approved by just about every Founding Father.

            Nobody’s right to practice their religion was taken away. The B&B operators could disagree all they want. They can go to church, take communion, pray to whatever god they want, and generally practice their religion. However, they held their business open to the public as a public accommodation, and therefore fell under Illinois law governing discriminatory practices. They could no more have declared that serving black people was against their religion and refused black people service. Probably less so, because that *is* a federal question under the Federal Civil Rights Act. There is a sharp distinction between practicing your religion in your personal life and enforcing it on others in your public accommodation business.

            The 9th Amendment deals with unincorporated rights, including the right to marry. It takes no rights away, but vests in the Constitution’s framework the ability to extend rights not explicitly listed. Ultimately, no rights are unlimited, and all are subject to reasonable limitations for the ultimate functioning of society, but those limits are extremely high. We limit discriminatory behavior because it provides an actual harm to the public.

            But if you disagree, I suggest you go to law school, get good grades, practice, and hope you get nominated as a federal judge. My arguments are being taken out of excerpts of actual law written by people who actually understand the law. Your opinions, near as I can tell, were scooped out of a toilet. Prove me wrong. Become a federal judge and issue a RULING to that end.

          • Oboehner

            Interpretive domain is not legislative power.

            The 14th does not in any stretch of the imagination trump religious freedom, it protects from actions against citizens, as well as protecting them from oppressive state laws.

            The B&B operators are well within their rights, they did not take away the gays ability to sodomize each other, or any other sick twisted activity they wish to engage in. Even though their business was open to the public, it is still their privately owned business, the sodomites were free to take their poop fetish elsewhere. Your argument would make it permissible for someone who owns a rent-all store to be forced to rent out their children if some pervert wanted it – after all, “public accommodation”. There is a sharp distinction between practicing your perversion in your personal life and forcing it on others in their private business. What next, churches will be forced to host orgies with gays and farm animals? Daycare centers to host NMBLA conventions? After all they are open to the public.

            Comparing sexual perversion to race doesn’t even qualify as a weak argument, the protections are already there, COURTS CANNOT LEGISLATE – period.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Interpretive domain is not legislative power. Its judicial power. Which includes determining how the courts rule on laws. Effectively changing laws.

            The Fourteenth Amendment was expanded to include gay and lesbian couples being protected by recognizing that they have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. They have the same right to the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms, and freedom from unlawful discrimination. Your religious rights expand to practicing it in your private life. It doesn’t allow you to force it on others or to break the law. This is literally no different than claiming your religion allows you to refuse to serve black people in your business.

            The B&B operators were holding their business open to the public under Illinois law, and are therefore obligated to offer it to anybody who can pay under 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-102. If you don’t like it, become a citizen of Illinois and change the law. I doubt you’ll get anywhere.

            Private businesses that hold themselves out for access to the public are held to particular standards. Among them include various health codes, because you can’t own and operate a private restaurant open to the public and not follow the health code, tax law, because you can’t operate a private business without paying taxes, and discrimination law, because society doesn’t function when some individuals are systemically mistreated.

            Your example with the church is an appeal to absurdity. If churches already held orgies with farm animals, they would be obligated to allow people to participate regardless of race, creed, nationality, or sexuality. However, they never offered that service previously, so I don’t see why they would have to offer it now.

            Your example about the rental store is equally an appeal to absurdity, because children under the age if 18 are unable, as a matter of policy, to rent pornographic material, regardless of their race, creed, nationality, or sexual orientation. If the store wouldn’t rent to an interracial couple, or a lesbian couple, that would be illegal.

            Your example about the daycare is also absurd, because day cares are services for watching children, not hosting conventions. If the day care refused to take the children of a Pakistani couple, or a gay couple, that would be illegal.

            If you have examples not based in utter absurdity, I’ll happily address them, but your examples have no logical corollary with the B&B, because the uses you suggest do not coincide with their intended service. Unlike with the B&B, which was approached to offer the same services they offer to a heterosexual couple but to a homosexual couple.

            Courts do not legislate. I agree. They do, however, interpret law with binding consequences, which effectively modifies the law. Legislature is not the only branch that makes or changes law. The Executive branch creates law every time an executive agencies, like the FBI or Department of Education, publishes binding regulations. Alternatively, the President issues Executive Orders as law.

            There is a difference between Legislative law, which is made by Congress, both federal and state, and Law in general, which includes court rulings and executive decisions.

            It almost looks like you’re mad. Its kinda cute that you get so worked up about a friendly internet discussion between pals.

          • Oboehner

            “Effectively changing laws” is not in their job description either, simply yes or no is.
            And for the umpteenth time, state law DOES NOT trump the Constitution even if it is from Illinois.

            “Your example with the church is an appeal to absurdity.” No more absurd than going after the B&B, they weren’t holding sodomite celebrations any more than the church would host an orgy with gays and their farm animals. They are both open to the public.
            “The Executive branch creates law every time an executive agencies, like the FBI or Department of Education, publishes binding regulations.” Nope, it is non-law just bureaucratic bilge.
            “There is a difference between Legislative law, which is made by Congress, both federal and state, and Law in general, which includes court rulings and executive decisions.” Neither federal and state, nor law in general trumps constitutional law. Court rulings and executive decisions are non-law.

            It almost looks like you’re defeated. Its kinda cute that you feel the need to post such stupidity. Let me know when BET starts airing KKK rallies.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            I don’t see how I’ve been defeated. Not only has the court ruled in my favor, I have the laws and court precedent to back it up. What have you cited? Your own opinions, which are founded in all the legal training fifteen minutes on Conservapedia could give you. I’ll start considering myself threatened by your arguments when you can cite mandatory precedent and law, in the appropriate legal citation, to validate your point. Until then, its all unsubstantiated.

            The courts rule on precedent. Establishing precedent changes how laws are interpreted. That is the job of SCOTUS and every single superior court in a common law system. That dates back to the old English Common Law from before anybody sailed across the Atlantic and was born out of ancient Roman arbitration. That’s factual denial on a nearly unprecedented scale. Might as well say the Earth is flat.

            Churches don’t hold orgies of any kind, least of all involving farm animals. It would be absurd to require them to hold open a service to one demographic that they don’t hold open at all. The B&B holds open their services to heterosexuals. Ergo, it is in violation of the state statute to not hold it open to homosexual couples.

            And since the federal courts are obliged by their own Constitutional interpretation to apply state substantive law when there exists no overriding federal statute, as per the Erie Doctrine (which you aren’t even aware of, I might add), Illinois law is applicable.

            The Constitution doesn’t say that the First Amendment allows one to engage in discrimination. In fact, the court has rather emphatically said the opposite of that. Which is why federal statutes have backed that up in the form of anti-discrimination law.

            I take it you have a citation for how executive law isn’t actually law? If that is truly the case, I suppose you’ll be ignoring the ATF’s restrictions on certain classes of firearm? After all, its just “bureaucratic bilge”, and not real law according to you. I’m sure the SEC won’t have a problem if you engage in insider securities trading, either. They aren’t making “real law”, despite generating massive amounts of federal cases every year by establishing securities exchange law.

            If you would kindly cite a primary source, supported by peer-reviewed citations that claim that regulatory law and judicial precedent aren’t law, I’d love to hear it. Even the most conservative of the federal judges and lawmakers in history didn’t subscribe to that nonsense.

            Still cute, though. This conversation made my Constitutional Law professor laugh so hard he nearly choked. Then I think he might have wanted to weep at the state of civics classes these days. I, personally, am not surprised. Civics classes that get into this tend to be available in high school, and that’s a long time to be failed by the system, I bet.

          • Oboehner

            “Not only has the court ruled in my favor, I have the laws and court precedent to back it up.” Yet again, court opinion is (say it with me now) not law. Precedent is more opinion, just made to be popular opinion. Opinions change (like Plessy v. Ferguson) while constitutional law does not.

            If the courts could legislate we would have an oligarchy, which is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

            Churches let their buildings out quite often for different meetings, clubs, what have you. Using your twisted logic since an orgy (with or without farm animals) can be considered a meeting and would be subject to you flawed idea of “discrimination”. But churches do not lend their facilities out for orgies any more than the B&B did for sexual pervert parties. Not wishing to participate in celebrating someone else’s mentally deranged sexual practices is not different. How can one discriminate against an activity choice? One cannot, it would be asinine to even consider that.

            “I suppose you’ll be ignoring the ATF’s restrictions on certain classes of firearm” Hardly an good example, gun laws are unconstitutional. Would you ignore a murderous gunman when he demanded your money with a pistol to your head?

            “I take it you have a citation for how executive law isn’t actually law?” “If you would kindly cite a primary source, supported by peer-reviewed citations that claim that regulatory law and judicial precedent aren’t law, I’d love to hear it.” How about Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution? That “peer reviewed” and authoritative enough for you?

            “my Constitutional Law professor laugh so hard he nearly choked.” Good for him and his lame opinion, he has the right to be ignorant.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No you don’t because I showed you text from the Constitution that says that the Supreme Court is vested with power over law and fact and you didn’t care about that either.

          • Oboehner

            You failed to show me in the Constitution that says the SC can MAKE law.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Whether you believe that a Supreme Court ruling “makes law” or not is irrelevant. This is how our system works: SCOTUS rules, and that’s what the law is. It’s that simple. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don’t, but that’s equally irrelevant because every one of them is binding.

            I can’t figure out what kind of system you’re envisioning it should be (and I say “should be” because, again, this is NOT how it actually works). Do you think people should be free to pick and choose which SCOTUS rulings they have to follow?

          • Oboehner

            “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” U.S. Constitution
            Sorry doesn’t include the SC, ALL is the kicker. If the SC can make law contrary to the Constitution, then the postman can as well. Any SC ruling is ONE particular case, not the law of the land.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know what country you’re looking at, but I see same sex couples getting married all over America. And I saw Kim Davis punished for refusing to grant marriage laws licenses.

            So, apparently, SCOTUS rulings DO have a nationwide effect. Unless you missed all that?

          • Oboehner

            You must have missed the Kim Davis law then.
            Just because the masses are @$$es and don’t know the law, doesn’t make it legal.

          • meamsane

            Ambulance Chaser doesn’t know what he is talking about, though he seems to think he does. From the garbage he reads, he seems to think that the SC is the “law of the land”, and not the Constitution itself.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I “seem to think that” because it is. At least according to–quite literally–every colleague I’ve ever worked with, every lawyer I’ve ever opposed, every judge I’ve stood in front of, and every law professor who has ever taught me in class or wrote a textbook I’ve read.

          • meamsane

            This is called Indoctrination. The Founders created the Constitution as having a fixed meaning, an original meaning of those who framed it. Read:

            Board of Visitors of The University of Virginia. March 4, 1825

            “…of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are
            to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental
            act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The
            Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by
            all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general
            opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution
            of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning.” Page 83

            According to the Federalist Papers, SC opinion is not law. Only Congress can make law. (And limited at that) Read Article 1.

            The SC does not follow the Constitution, neither does Congress (It makes laws that it does not have the authority to make). Look at our National debt of 20 trillion $$. That is because it taxes on objects that are not within it’s power to make by law. Read Article 1 again.

            It seems to me that you believe lies because you were taught those lies in school. It is hard to unlearn something you have believed all your life!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            They’re not “lies” it’s just that over 200 years the system has evolved. It has evolved in a manner you disapprove of, but that’s the way it is. I practice law in the world that actually, not a hypothetical world.

          • Oboehner

            SC and bureaucracies.

          • Tangent002

            In Illinois it is illegal for a business to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation. That is a state statute, not a court ruling.

          • OhSoGood

            Good luck.

          • Oboehner

            Does not trump the Constitution.

      • OhSoGood

        Religious liberty has limitations… it always has, it always will.

        • Oboehner

          Do quote the passage in the Constitution that states sexual deviance is a limitation.

          • OhSoGood

            The constitution is not the sole source of law.

          • Oboehner

            It is the bedrock that all other laws MUST follow.

  • https://www.facebook.com/psiphiorg David Henderson

    If this B&B had discriminated against a couple based on their race, should commissioners who are of that race have recused themselves? If another business supposedly discriminated against a female employee, should the panel have only consisted of men? If a cafe was accused of discrimination against a Christian customer, should only Jews, Muslims, atheists, and other non-Christians have been allowed to determine whether the restaurant was at fault?

    In all cases, the answer is no. Likewise, a lesbian is no less able to determine whether or not sexual-orientation-based discrimination occurred than a heterosexual person is.

  • PStJTT

    Not clear from the article how the two were “assigned” to the case. If the assignment was fair and the decision follows the law, then I don’t see the problem (other than everyone hates to lose.) It would be no more fair to insist that a discrimination case be decided only by people who had no interaction with the gay community.

    • Scott Unchained

      You do realize that you could never fool anyone? You’re a man in women’s clothes. Looks so silly.

      • PStJTT

        Good answer — on topic and right to the point. What you don’t realize is that it’s not my intent to fool anyone. I am a transgender person, so I look exactly as I should. Thanks for noticing.

        • Scott Unchained

          Do you use a women’s restroom? That isn’t right. It’s so obvious that you are a man and not a woman, you could be very intimidating to women in the restroom. Don’t you have any respect for other people’s feelings? Restrooms are places where privacy is very important. Women don’t want a man in their restroom, even if he is dressed up like a woman. If I saw you go into a women’s restroom, I would not let my wife or daughter go in there, it could be dangerous.

          • Michael C

            This is a discussion board. Not an outlet for harassment.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Then why are YOU here?

          • Scott Unchained

            Another little lefty who opposes freedom of speech. Typical. Go on a Christian blog, then tell the Christians to shut up. All liberals are fascists.

            Just click “Block” and you won’t ever have to read my comments again, you sensitive little thing.

          • TwoRutRoad

            You said: “Don’t you have any respect for other people’s feelings?”
            I say to you: You don’t have any respect for other people’s feelings. You labeled this person as dangerous. I can easily say that PStJTT should be more afraid of YOU.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And what is your basis for that belief?

  • Pandorea

    Looks like the term “justice” is as meaningless as “social justice warrior.”

    • Palsgraf’s Scale

      It looks a bit more like you don’t really understand the concept of “justice”.

  • SFBruce

    There’s nothing remotely ambiguous about Illinois law: discrimination by a public accommodation based on sexual orientation is forbidden. Why is it at all noteworthy that the commissioners of the IHRC, whose mission it is to resolve this kind of dispute, agree with Illinois’ anti-discrimination laws? It’s their duty to do exactly what they did. If you don’t like the outcome here, take it up with the Illinois legislature, but these commissioners are merely doing their jobs.

  • tchowski

    A publicly-run company, supported by all Americans’ taxes (roads, schools, police, military) is finally being forced to serve ALL AMERICANS! Great! Stand up to the Radicalized Christofascist Bigots, before they turn their merciless political activism on YOUR family’s citizenship. Before the Vile Bigots decide what WILL NOT BE TOLERATED is YOU!

  • kivlighn

    These owners should be allowed their preferences. If the potential ‘buyers’ don’t like the services, then find another business. This is government overreach. Appeal again

    • OhSoGood

      Is it government overreach that people who choose to follow religion get the exact same accommodations protections?

    • https://www.facebook.com/psiphiorg David Henderson

      The potential customers *did* like the service, and wanted to buy it. The business refused because the customers were gay.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    USA’s current Nazism is for unconditional support of sexual depravity instead of racism or nationalism. The West should stop intimidating the people with forcing homosexuality. Christianity is good and sexual immorality is bad. People should be made to seek the good instead of the bad. A common sense. Freedom was established for living out God’s truth, not to become enslaved to the powerful Western pervs in the 21st century. EVeryone has rights to God’s truth and to sane morality. Sin is slavery.

    • johndoe

      Quit insulting Americans by calling them nazis. Very inappropriate and unchristian. Flagged.

    • OhSoGood

      Anuthah kid yessah-bub hahd tellin’ not knowin’ Have a good one. ayuh up t’ camp jeezly, Bangah Bah Hahbah huck. Auguster nummah than a faht swampdonkey kid Moxie Jeesum Crow suppah ayuhpawt numb Moosetown, batrees Katahdin gettin’ ugly hawsun around Shit the bed. Feed ‘uh the hot suppah. got in a gaum no-see-um, no-see-um hoppa cubboard ‘Roostik idear, lobstah paut clammin’ down cellah Hammah Gohd Dammah, feeder’ the beans potatoes wee bit nippy wicked cunnin’ well theyah noseeum Bangoah. Whawf Fryeburg Fayah some eleghant gettin’ ugly lobstah, Up in thah county Chundah. Gohd dammah. cunnin’ buggin’ Bangah, naw grindah geez bud nummah clammin’ puff Bangah, kife wicked cunnin’ Bean’s can’t get theyah from heeyah clam chowdah hoppa Yessah.

      Swampdonkey no-see-um Bangoah ankle biteah. Lobstah kid hoppa, bub aht mugup. Katahdin moose numb tunk Ahcadiuh native naw, numb rig up ayuh Fryeburg Fayah, wreckah Bangoah hoppa ayuh, cah unthaw yut Jeesum Crow down cellah If you can’t stand the wintah you don’t deserve the summah. Well theyah hum-dingah some wicked buggin’ back woods. Ahcadiuh gummah Katahdin dinnahbucket some wicked kife, Bah Hahbah podunk Outta Staydahs stove-up Outta Staydahs.

    • David

      You clearly don’t know that original Christianity, and its bible is as pro-gay as you can get…
      Love between two consenting human beings is never immoral. Love is the fulfilment of the law.
      Try to find “the gospel for dummies” and start at page one. You might learn something.

      God’s truth:
      There are ONLY two commandments: Love God & Love your neighbour, all other laws are build upon these. (Matthew 22:40).

      Homosexuality doesn’t violate these two commandments and therefore is not a sin.

      However, if homosexuality is practiced within a idolatrous setting (Lev 18, 20, Romans 1, etc.), it does become a sin, just as any other sexual practice within that setting.

      The bible is pretty clear about bearing false witness being a sin though…

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. God condemns homosexuality itself. Read the passages again. Those who endorse homosexuality are practically saying that there is no sin, and they are not of the truth or of Christianity at all. “Do you not know that the
        unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.
        Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” ( I Corinthians chapter 6) The Western culture got totally weird by applying racial equality upon the heinous sexual immorality. Decades of nudism did the evil trick. USA must not force Sodomy upon the people. It’s anti-truth and anti-freedom.

        • johndoe

          Your book of fairy tales only applies to you.

        • David

          Sweetheart. You are reading an english biased translation. The word homosexuality didn’t exist until hundred years ago. And even the word Sodomite had a totally different meaning till approx. 4th century. The fact that you use this specific translation doesn’t prove that homosexuality is sinful, it only is evidence of your prejudice.

          Paul used the word Arsekonoites for these two texts you refer to. It was the first time anybody used this word. Why did he not use one of the words for homosexuals of that time? Even the KJV translators didn’t know how to translate it, and instead of your “sodomite” choose for abusers of themselves with mankind. Which also can mean anything (mankind does not necessarily refer to male).

          Some say that Paul used specifically the word Arsekonoites because it is closest to the words used in Leviticus 18&20. And we know already that Lev 18&20 is not about homosexuality, but about sexual practices within the context of Molech worshipping.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. God condemned the physical marriage-like intimacy of the same-sex members, however people call it, throughout both the Old Testament and New Testament time. Read the entire Holy Bible. English translations including KJV are altogether accurate. You secular Westerners are trying to enslave mankind with homosexuality because you guys have been too well-fed and bored for the longest time and want to bully gentle people like Biblical Christians this century. Childlessness also contributes to the West’s irresponsibility for the future. No submission to Western pervs. It’s a disgrace as a human being, not just as a Christian, to submit to the perv Western culture today. You guys need to read the Word of God to retain sanity and morality.

          • David

            I read the entire holy bible multiple times. In many languages. Not all english translations are accurate. They are interpretations of the original text in the original language. Interpretations subject to the context of the translator. There are thousands of different versions. There is no reference to homosexuality in the original koine greek version of the NT. There is also a Queen James Version, which has a much more pro Gay stance. You surely don’t mean to say that this version is also accurate? Don’t be silly and don’t be naive….
            And who says I am secular?
            Yes, homosexuals not necessarily procreate. But God clearly has a role for them in his creation, because otherwise he wouldn’t have created homosexuals in the first place. The fact that you don’t understand the reason doesn’t mean there isn’t. It only means that you do not fully understand God’s greater plan. You are being arrogant to think you know better than God.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You didn’t read the Holy Bible and you don’t remember any verses and cannot comprehend even a few verses in the Holy Bible. King James was never a queen to start with. God did not create homosexuals. People chose to sin. Sinners need to repent sins. (Romans chapter 1-8)

          • David

            You fool. Of course King James was never a queen. But that doesn’t mean that there is not a Queen James version. According to your reasoning that is a valid translation.
            Jesus himself tells you that homosexuals are born so from mothers womb (Matthew 19). Isaiah tells you that homosexuality is not a sin, but that there will be a bigger monument for homosexuals (amongst others) in heaven than having children.
            Other proof can be found in Genesis 2: God tells you that it is not good for a man to be alone. He therefore creates a fitting “helper”. For most men that means a women. However, as there are more baby boys being born than baby girls (a biological fact from all ages, all cultures and all countries) this means that some boys have been created as a fitting helper for other boys…
            Homosexuality has never been a sin. There is not an 11th commandment saying that homosexuality is a sin. Read Matthew 22:40 and try to understand the true meaning of this verse…
            Homosexuality has never been a sin. That you believe it to be a sin means you believe in a human construct.

    • Roy Hobs

      I totally understand your use of ‘nazism’ to make a point.
      If you ever get some free time, please watch — The Greatest Story Never Told. For a balanced perspective. Peace to you.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The way they bully people are too similar. Whoever heard of an empire that persecutes people for not-endorsing homosexual immorality? Where are the real parents? Today’s secular Western culture is insane. You guys need Christian morality to be human, seriously.

        • johndoe

          Nobody is asking for endorsement…just for people to do their job and not discriminate.

        • Roy Hobs

          Please watch — Communism by the Back Door.
          Watch also — The Greatest Story Never Told.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Germans bullied the world for racist nationalism once before. Americans would bully the world for not-supporting homosexuality 80 years later. Both had the unequal superb Protestant legacy which they only scorn or dis-remember, but USA’s case is more tragic and pathetic because now people are committed to infanticide(abortion).

    • OhSoGood

      Jo-Jeezly cunnin’ back woods Chundah. Gohd dammah. queeah, scrod mummah over t’ anuthah Shit the bed. Feed ‘uh the hot suppah. kid gettin’ ugly, well theyah Mount Dessuht wicked pissah yut, kid aht some cunnin, Saddee stove-up front dooryahd Hammah Gohd Dammah, feeder’ the beans scrod wickid decent. Dinnahbucket crittah rhubaahb hawsun around.

      Up t’ sumpin’ fierce Chundah. Gohd dammah. Katahdin grindah bub Allen’s Coffee Brandy hum-dingah. Moosetown up t’ Hold’er Newt she’s, heddin for da ruhbarb! mistah man yut, yahd from away yessah-bub grindah flatlandas gettin’ ugly puckahbrush Bean’s wreckah gawmy.

  • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

    This is scandalous. Heads should roll. And that is in addition to the requirement that those that commit sodomy should be executed by the state.

    • OhSoGood

      Aw, look at that Christian Love™! You are the reason states have protections for gay folks.

      You’re a powerful and appreciated ally to all gay citizens!

    • Tangent002

      You understand that straight people commit sodomy all the time, right?

      • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

        Sicko.

        • Tangent002

          Prude.

        • OhSoGood

          Per the CDC, ~30% of straight couples enjoy buttsex.

          Why does that bother you?

          • Tangent002

            Sodomy also includes oral sex. Who doesn’t enjoy a good hummer?

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            The “D” in “CDC” stands for Disease. They examine such matters on account of their role in disease. Disease maketh sick, sicko.

          • OhSoGood

            Yes, yes it does stand for disease…. diseases I do not have.

            Yet you completely run around the point… 30% of people like you do the exact same thing you want to kill gay people for.

            You’re my friend and my ally… I like you.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            You too can be a statistic. You can change from outlier to liar in a moment. It is written: To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

          • TwoRutRoad

            “It is written…”
            The law is written.
            The decision and order is written.
            There will also be several large checks written.

        • johndoe

          Coward

    • johndoe

      Love that christian call for violence. What is your problem? Big talk on the Internet by a little man.

      • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

        Oh, it’s just the injustice of it all – but you’re completely on the side of the perpetrators of this injustice. How did you become so estranged from justice? By trampling God’s law and his grace. And here you are, vainly hoping to make right the wrath of God in your life by false accusation against his law and those that know his grace. Your descent into sin cannot satisfy, and somehow it is everyone else that is at fault.

        • johndoe

          You’re the one calling for the death of those who practice sodomy. You’re the one estranged from justice.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Death for sodomy is justice. The whole country is estranged from justice.

          • Trilemma

            You must also believe death is justice for grilling hamburgers on Saturday before the game.

          • johndoe

            You’re pathetic.

          • OhSoGood

            Justice for whom? According to whom?

        • OhSoGood

          Your god’s law is your choice to follow. Your concept of sin applies only because you have accepted it.

          I have not. I will not bow to your mythology. No one should be forced to.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Challenge accepted. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

          • OhSoGood

            Meh… so says the myth.

    • Trilemma

      Would you also like the state to execute adulterers, rebellious children, and people who work on Saturday?

      • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

        This is your only point of contention – you believe I have not gone far enough. You don’t contest that it is scandalous. You don’t contest that it should be punished. You merely object that I do not go far enough in my recommendations for law reform. Some of your additional ideas have merit.

        • This style ten and six

          Why does what people do in their bedrooms bother you so much that you want to kill them?

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            That’s not what they do. It’s a touching fictional tale, but it’s not reality.

          • OhSoGood

            Tell us oh wise one… what is “reality” according to you?

            What do they do in reality?

          • This style ten and six

            I don’t get what you are trying to say.

          • OhSoGood

            What is he trying to say?

          • This style ten and six

            Beats me!

          • Bob Johnson

            Not my thing, but if you want I can provide references.

        • Trilemma

          I was curious if you think the state should enforce all 613 requirements of the Old Testament Law or just a few of your favorites.

          There’s nothing scandalous about what happened to TimberCreek. Jim Walder broke the law and got in trouble. The IHRC was right in allowing Robinson’s order to stand. It would have been scandalous if two of the three commissioners had been Christians and decided to reverse Robinson’s order.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Curiouser and curiouser the twisty dark paths of your futile attempts at reason.

    • OhSoGood

      So you call for the death of US citizens and this site removes my post about how christians are costing themselves the culture wars… nice! Killing people must be a christian value.

  • OhSoGood

    Christians receive the exact same accommodations protections as the gay couples in this case. If christians showed up at my place of business and asked for services (such as a venue for a wedding or bible study) and I refused them based on the fact that I disagree with their religious views and how those views affect other citizens, they could sue me in all 50 states because they receive special protections for their religion in the civil rights act.

    As long as they receive such protections, they deserve zero exemption from the law in states and municipalities who extend such protections to people christians do not like.

  • Tangent002

    An appeal has to have a basis other than, “I don’t agree with the ruling.”

    Also, recusal is only required if one of the parties has a familial relationship with someone directly involved in the suit or stands to have some material gain or loss dependent on the ruling.