Lesbian Couple Denied Stay at Bed and Breakfast, Files Lawsuit
Two Southern California women, Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford, filed a lawsuit Monday against a Aloha Bed & Breakfast (in Hawaii), saying the business denied them a room because they are gay.
Cervelli called the business in 2007 to book a room, but when she specified they would need one bed, the owner asked if they are lesbians. Cervelli responded truthfully and the owner said she was uncomfortable having lesbians in her house because of her religious views, the lawsuit said.
Their lawsuit claims the business violated Hawaii's public accommodation law prohibiting any inn or other establishment that provides lodging from discriminating based on sexual orientation, race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, ancestry or disability.
The couple ended up booking a room in Waikiki and the experience with the bed and breakfast "soured" their trip, Cervelli said Monday while in Honolulu with Bufford. "In my past experiences in Hawaii, people have been so friendly," she said. "It was just hurtful. It made me feel we weren't good enough."
Reached by phone, Aloha Bed & Breakfas owner Phyllis Young declined to comment and referred questions to her attorney. Honolulu attorney Jim Hochberg said he is representing her on behalf of the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization of attorneys representing people whose religious freedom is infringed. He said he hadn't yet seen the complaint.
According to the lawsuit, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission investigated. During the investigation Young told the commission homosexuality is "detestable" and "defiles our land." The commission issued a notice of "reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discriminatory practices have been committed" and notified the couple of their right to sue.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
I feel that the lesiban couple is trying to enforce thier lifestyle on the owner. This is not a hotel, it is the Young's home she has the right to refuse service. She said no, they should have went else where. this is why hetereosexuals hate homosexuals. The problem with our so called community is shoving stuff in everyones face; if we were truely happy with ourselves we would go on with our lives. Sexuality is a small part of a indivdual in my opinion; being a human being comes first.
The complication is that it isn't purely the owner's home, it's a "bed and breakfast", a business open to the public. A business has the right to refuse service in certain situations, but refusing service in this situation, even if motivated by the owner's sincere beliefs, amounts to discrimination.
I'm like you in that, if I was on the receiving end of such discrimination, I'd likely just shake my head and find another place to stay. But, another way of looking at it is this: if the owner's convictions are so deep, then shouldn't she, as a fellow human being, just as sensitively have recognized that operating a business within such personal convictions unnecessarily forces her beliefs upon customers, and therefore, that the humble alternative was to NOT open the business in the first place?
If a business has the right to refuse service based upon its owners' personal beliefs, then some of the scenarios I observed even as recently as the early 1960's in the US would still be happening, including Afro-Americans being refused service at restaurants and women being refused service in small-town sporting goods stores; and, as history records happened during earlier periods in US history, Roman Catholics, Jews, Japanese-Americans, Native Americans,and immigrants likewise could still be refused service by businesses. As history also records, it was often only after some among the various discriminated acted as this couple is doing and challenged discriminatory business owners that earlier discriminatory business practices desisted.
Certainly, each of us holds beliefs, convictions, and yes, prejudices. While we're all free to exercise convictions and personal biases on our private property, we each, as you point out, ultimately live in communities, not on isolated islands. Community life inevitably involves business interactions, which are essentially public, not private, interactions. The best interest for the community is business interaction free of discrimination. If I cannot operate a business without discriminating based upon subjective beliefs, then, I think it's generally in the long-term best interest of my community of fellow human beings that I don't operate that business at all.
Her discrimination is based on religious beliefs which protected under the first amendment of the united states. Young does not allow unmarried heterosexual couples either, I believe Young has a solid case.
The woman's 1st amendment rights are not being violated. She is free to continue her bigoted beliefs without fear of government interference. However, her bigotry may not violate the civil rights of others.
Using her home as a Bed and Breakfast means under Hawaiian law it is a place of public accommodation and subject to their anti-discrimination laws. The fact she finds certain people unworthy of her services is irrelevant.
She has no legitimate business reason to deny access to gays, unwed couples, blacks, Muslims, etc. The courts have consistently decided the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the business owner's right to exclude if based on arbitrary and unlawful reasons.
This is interesting..it involves a person's right to choose and in both cases both exercised their rights...would love to see how this one plays out.
Author Lisa Eve
How did treatment of blacks even come up in this story. Lesbianism is a choice being Black is not!
Author Lisa Eve
Being gay is not a choice, you cannot choose sexuality.
I think this is what I find sad, is that anyone who does not feel that this type of sexual preference should be not only tolerated but accepted openly and with loving abandonment will be punished to the point of persecution and obliteration.
Is an absolute complete turn of the table correct or is it merely those that are in power now exacting a very heavy revenge on those they hate?
History repeats itself in many forms and ways, sadly however always with the same results, the inhalation of society.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson ~ A mis-quote? Well worth checking out :-)
Hawaii's public accommodation law prohibiting any inn or other establishment that provides lodging from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Whether lesbianism offends the business owner or not does not matter to the law. The business owner does not have to be in that line of business.
I feel sure that there is absolutely NO concern for money here..... could I be wrong? I can sympathize with the couple but I also have empathy for a small business owner who cannot make her own decisions about how to run her business - is she not protected by government also? It's pathetic that we are so "protected" by the government - it makes more sense to make decisions about your life and then deal with it. There will be no point here in starting what you hope will be a heated debate on homosexuality because I will not participate. Thank you.