1. Dave says

    The only language the anti-gay Christians understand is money. If you are being discriminated against you need to get the best lawyer you can find and sue the person or people or company for all they have. Then give some of the money to fight the anti-gay Christian agenda that wants to kill gays.

  2. Vint says

    I wonder if Kristen Stewart has the same reaction to other marriages she doesn’t think are valid…say, Buddhist weddings. Has she turned a lot of non-Christians away from her venue?

    And I also wonder if this “biblical” Christian would have turned Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Saul, David, and Solomon away from her facility…

    By the way, Kristen, the “biblical” way to turn people away from your public facility is to tell them there’s “no room in the inn”, not that you disapprove of their relationship. No one lectured Mary about being an unwed mother on television in Bethlehem.

  3. Sargon Bighorn says

    If the club rents their space as a business to the public, normally they should not be allowed to discriminate based on anything other than the ability to pay. Illinois law most likely states such. They may hate Gay-folk, but if they are renting out space for profit, they may get sued.

  4. Javier says

    Lawsuits will only help the growing meme that gay rights laws persecute CHristians and people of faith. I believe that the law should not force people to endorse any type of relationship or marriage they disagree with for religious reasons, including same-sex marriages. It is one thing to discriminate against gay individuals because of their orientation or identity, but another to not want to participate or host actions that go against one’s religious beliefs. Lawsuits will only have a chilling effect on the passage of same-sex marriage in the 44 states without same-sex marriage, and 29 states without basic antidiscrimination laws.
    Boycott them all you want, but don’t use the law to try to force them to go against their religious beliefs.

  5. Jay says

    Javier, a lawsuit will make these so-called Christians realize that religious belief does not give one the right to discriminate against the public if one operates a business. They will say they are persecuted no matter what we do. However, if do nothing, we become complicit in the idea that we are not worthy of equal rights. Sue the bastards.

  6. Mark says

    Would Ms. Stewart similarly have refused to rent to an Illinois couple that was entering into a civil union (since same-sex marriage is illegal in Illinois)? Would she have refused to rent to a Missouri couple that was celebrating a commitment ceremony (since both ssm and civil unions are illegal in MO)? Would she have refused to rent the hall for a high school graduation ceremony of a student with gay parents? If so, what good is IL’s public accommodations law?

  7. Ronny says

    Their website also describes them as “Where modern meets elegant.” Stackable chairs and white Christmas lights on a silk ficus tree? They should look up “elegant.’

  8. Sargon Bighorn says

    Javier, the problem with your argument, though well made is that what America ends up becoming is a Nation where my “Religious Christian Faith” does not allow me to rent space nor do business with people named “Javier” because my deeply held faith tells me “Javier” was the the true name of Satan or what ever my belief is. That’s bad for America. To discriminate against a couple because they are getting married and happen to be of the same gender, BECAUSE of one’s faith means FAITH is the tool to discriminate against EVERYONE. Nope nope nope, that is not what America is about.

  9. says

    I agree with Javier. I’m all for discrimination in the private sector. I’d rather find a other venue that give my money to a Christian owner who doesn’t agree with my wedding/celebration.

    Having said that I think they should have to declare that discrimination in all publications, like on their website and business flyers. Make it known rather than a hidden thing.

    In doing so these businesses will face more backlash than a single law suit can bring. They’ll see a reduction in business from other “traditional” marriages who will no doubt rather find an alternative venue than support blatant discrimination.

    I believe allowing people to be outspoken about their discrimination is preferable to sending it underground where it will fester hidden away. Bring it into the light and let society decide, I think we’ll come out on top and these people will evolve their opinions or go under.

  10. Chris says

    other news sources are saying that this woman had no authority to do this, she is only the bar manager. The husband and parents (the actual owners) sat this Isnt their policy.

  11. bravo says

    I’m with Javier and Tyroga. I think private entities should be allowed to choose their customers. Public outrage and the almighty dollar will force many of them to change. But the more private organizations are ‘forced’ to accomodate gay events, the more we will hear the same old “war on Christianity” song. Why would you want to go to a place that doesn’t want you? Support a business who wants your business. I think having their wedding at the University Club is like giving money to the religious right. In fact, it is giving money to the religious right.

  12. One of the CA 36,000 says

    Well why is Mrs. Hatchet-Face “Biblical Christian” shooting off her chapped, egg-sucking piehole and contradicting what her husband says?

    Doesn’t the Buy-Bull say something about womenfolk submitting meekly, silently and happily to their husbands?! 1 Timothy:2ff. If these “Biblical Christians” are going to pick and choose among the few verses (NONE quoting Jesus at any point) they interpret to condemn homosexuality, they need to follow the multitude of times in the Buy-Bull where a women’s place is squarely defined– under men’s thumbs.

    In other words: Shut up, b!tch, your husband will fix your little red wagon when you get off-camera.

  13. john patrick says

    If she’s a biblical christian, I guess that means they don’t allow anyone to serve shrimp at their receptions. After all, the bible specifically forbids shellfish.

    I do believe there is a court case here and they might regret their decision.

  14. ChristopherM says

    Don’t think of it as a lawsuit. Think of it as a refund of the taxes these women paid for the roads and utilities that service this public business and the firemen and police who protect it. You run a public business that benefits from the public largesse, you have the obligation to serve the public.

  15. Michaelandfred says

    Sorry Javier, but their lisence to run and operate a business is sanctioned by “we the people.” I own a business. To do so I must have a license. In being granted that lisence I agree to run my business by ALL the laws “we the people” have decided every business must follow, for the good of all the people.

    If you can’t abide by these rules, maybe running a business is not for you. It’s very, very simple.

  16. UFFDA says

    Just give me your actual reasons mam and I will take them one by one with you.

    In the end, at the very least, you can either get stubborn and refuse to govern your life by reason.

    Or admit that the Bible seems to be mistaken in the matter and that you are therefore wrong and don’t really know what you’re talking about, which means that gay people might be very nice people. Not the fruity ones of course, but you know, most of them.

  17. Macmantoo says

    If it were me, I would go in and ask to speak to a male and make it very clear that the Bible frowns upon women in business. According to the Bible she has no standings. See if that bursts her bubble.

  18. Bob says

    @RANDAL OULTON Thanks for the link to their site — I used the “contact us” to send this:
    Your hairdresser, your florist, the best of your kids’ teachers, your interior designer, many of your wait staff.
    Will you be buying everyone of them little maid outfits and telling them to not speak to White people without being spoken to?

    Do you watch TV shows or listen to music by Gay people? For instance, do you like Cole Porter songs? Steven Sondheim? Perry Mason? Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy are all Gay creations.
    You need to stay away from all of those

    Of course, your comment is nonsensical, as well as hateful: people come to you because they do not want to “live in sin”, and you refuse to help them be married.

    AN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN MIGHT HAVE SAID — “PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED, BUT WE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE HOSTING GAY EVENTS” — which might be illegal in many States, but it would not be a cheesy sermon and condemnation of others.

  19. stevenelliot says

    Why not just take the damned lesbian couples greenbacks…..hold your nose and let then have a commitment ceremony? Whats so complicated with that?

    OH but I guess then you wouldnt get your 15 minutes of fame on faux news, cbn, and focus on the family. These dastardly christians always have to tell you theyre a christian.And they dont just tell you. They scream it at you until your ears hurt.

    Growing up I was taught being a christian is shown from your actions. Like compassion toward others. I guess nowadaze thats just too much work to actually DO something christian. Its just better to throw hate and say you ARE a christian. so much easier than getting all icky shoveling food onto styrofoam plates at the shelter…..

  20. jim says

    C U Next Tuesday, Biblical Christian.

    I have the feeling a certain family member is going to be taking a long, much-needed vacation until all this blows over, LMAO!!

  21. wkm1965 says

    i would like to ask this manager if she would refuse to rent the hall to a couple who have been divorced and getting remarried to other people? she and every other proclaimed christian are hypocrites on this subject because the bible is very clear on divorce and remarriage, but this is ok according to them.

  22. buster says

    Those of you who keep saying that “private” entities should be entitled to discriminate against you don’t understand the nature of civil rights. Almost every entity with which you might deal is a “private” entity. It’s not all little B&Bs run by a grandma (and often very very small businesses ARE exempt from public accomodation laws.) “Private” entities include big-box retailers, supermarkets, international hotel chains, restaurants, etc. etc.

    The whole point of civil rights accommodation laws is that any entity that choses to be open to the public, must be open to ALL of the public. Imagine yourself arriving at midnight on a holiday weekend at a big hotel where you have a reservation only to be told they won’t honor the reservation because think you are gay. Or taking a group of customers to a business dinner only to be told that — “sorry, we don’t serve latinos.” Or arriving bleeding to a private hospital that says “nope, no blacks here – go bleed elsewhere.”

    These kind of things HAVE happened and will continue to happen unless there are laws preventing it AND people who are willing to make the extra effort to sue businesses who like to think that these laws don’t apply to them. Sure, it’s annoying and gives some homophobes grist for their mill, but it’s the only way to get some people to understand that the jig is up and they have to comply with the law.

    Rolling over and saying “oh it’s just some stupid business in Moline, who cares?” is exactly the wrong approach. If nothing else, there are all sorts of little gay boys and lesbians being raised in Moline who need to hear that these laws are being enforced in their town, too.

  23. Luke says

    very judgemental, calling their love and want to be married a sin, i mean really, and calling herself a biblical christian and yet judging them which is a sin as well.

  24. andrew says

    The answer is: Gay people and their friends should take their business elsewhere. Give your business to people who respect you and shun the rest.

  25. Jami says

    As someone who, as a bisexual, ended up in a monogamous relationship with another woman, I’d rather give my money to a business who doesn’t discriminate. When we decide to have our commitment ceremony, be it legal marriage or not, depending on the state… It will be all 150-200 family members+friends. If they don’t want our business, we’ll support businesses who do.

  26. says


    The problem with your line of thought is the scope of it all. You end up with any establishment or service treating any client with disregard on any type of factor. Hotels, restaurants, reception halls, super markets, airlines, banks, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. etc. could all deny service to any subset of people for whatever reason because they are “private”.

    Suppose a person who is known to be gay lives in a very remote area with the only market within a two hour drive decides to not allow that person into the market to shop because they don’t “support their lifestyle”…

    Perhaps a private hospital that is run by a religious organization holds true to the “you shall not suffer a witch to live” so refuses to treat a pagan…

    Perhaps a gay couple books a hotel in a remote area only to be turned away… or a bus driver leaves a gay couple on the side of the highway should they do something like holding hands…

    Private companies that provide goods and services to the public must do so for the whole public without obstruction – unless said obstruction is that they run out of goods or do not have the bandwidth/capacity to provide said service. Anything less than that opens the door to great hardship and inequality in the lives of countless Americans based on any number of factors from race to religion to nationality to sexual orientation to gender identity.

    I don’t know about everyone else, but I hardly want to live in a country where I walk down the road and see “Straights only” on the signage for any number of establishments. That, to me, is absolutely unacceptable.

  27. says

    Properly speaking, the headline should read: “MANAGER AT Illinois Reception Hall…” In fairness to them, I believe the owners of the wedding hall themselves were quite clear that their position is not the manager’s.

  28. Bill Michael says

    I believe in the god, “Goo-Goo-Da-Dah” and he says to me that I don’t have to pay my bills or pay my taxes or obey the law. I can get into any business I want and accept taxpayer funds and I run my business anyway I please because “Goo-Goo-Da-Dah” said so.

  29. Elangay says

    First of all, congratulations to the couple wishing to marry. Sorry you have met the ugly face of bias in this woman who is so obviously willfully ignorant of what the Bible actually says, is ignorant of the history of marriage, is ignorant and fearful of same gender love. This establishment must have a license to operate, making it subject to civil rights laws. The laws exist to protect against discrimination. Suing is the only appropriate response. Neither we nor society gain anything by allowing this kind of behavior to stand, regardless of the twisted justifications of brain-washed, hard hearted “Christians.” Fear and ignorance create prejudice and prejudice unchallenged becomes bigotry. Find a public interest law firm or the ACLU to represent you in suing the University Club for a substantial amount of money. Younger LGBT people — and, judging from some of the comments, some conservative older ones, too — need for you to stand strong against this violation of your rights. I hope other venues will step forward to offer their services to you so you may enjoy a happy wedding day.

  30. ratbastard says

    There are a lot of ‘biblical Christians’ in the tri-city [Moline-Rock Island-Davenport] area. A Godly number of them do not practice what they preach.

    A boycott would send a message, but I don’t know how what real good it would do in that part of the world. Some kind of lawsuit would send a stronger $message$

  31. johnny says

    What’s so idiotic about this woman’s reasoning is:

    She doesn’t need or have to be present at the ceremony or reception.

    They aren’t asking her to change her beliefs or validate a gay relationship or lifestyle in any way. Nor are they asking anyone else at the establishment to do so.

    Their holding these events in her establishment does not mean the establishment endorses gay relationships or marriages, it simply holds events of all kinds.

    It’s a facility open to the PUBLIC for various events, therefore it’s not a private, members-only club. “Public” means everyone, not just a chosen majority.


    I see validity in a lawsuit, based on all of the above.

  32. Bart says

    “I’m a biblical Christian,” which means she doesn’t follow Christ at all. She follows a rule book written when people thought the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth.

    She’s unable to think for herself, unable to process fact. Thank God her parents gave her a job. Who would want to have a wedding reception at any place owned by this sick woman, gay or straight?

  33. Daniel in the Lions' Den says

    As a Bible Christian™ I suppose this women also doesn’t keep the center open on the Sabbath – a clear violation of one of the 10 commandments, punishable by death. Also, no shrimp, lobster, or shellfish at the reception. That’s an abomination. No women allowed when on their periods. Or is she just a pick-an-choose bible hypocrite?

  34. anon says

    Could they not find a gay-friendly venue? That’s the first place I would look for.

    Christians have made gay rights a kind of line-in-the-sand issue for their own sense of political privilege. In the past it was prohibition, segregation, antisemitism and prayer in school. They labor under the notion that if they can forestall gay rights they will gain back the political power they’ve lost over the years. However, that’s all wishful thinking.

  35. chuck says

    Guaranteed lawsuit: the Hall will not rent to ‘colored’ or ‘biracial’ weddings. So why not, if LGBT weddings are turned away …if not, typical LGBT cowards. No one’s attitudes are going to change if we always run away.

  36. says

    no doubt they rent it non-Christian on occasion.

    these folks tend to only become “Christians” when The Gays figure into things.

    oh well. three cheers to a massive boycott from everyone with a social conscience, may this place go out of business.

  37. jamal49 says

    Of course and God forbid that a bigot such as that execrable woman might provide the EXACT chapter and verse that establishes “God’s covenant” on marriage. There is none of course. She needs to be reminded that where Adam and Eve are concerned there was NO marriage ceremony. None. And, the Virgin Mary was, um, raped by God and forced, against her will, to (a) bear a child she did not want and (b) to enter into a marriage with a man who was not the father of her child.

    Such is the hypocrisy of the “holy” bible.

    Such is the hypocrisy and bigotry of christians.

    My patience is wearing thin with the whole lot of them.

  38. Mary says

    For pragmatic reasons, the gay rights movement should leave places like this alone. The bad PR isn’t worth it. If David Blankenhorn could come around in time, then so could the owners of this club. There is no reason why every last club/restaurant/hall has to be open to gay events. It’s not like there aren’t more businesses becoming flexible on this issue all the time.

  39. walter says

    the funny part to all this goproud and lcr still support the hate poured on gays by the repuk and endorsed mitt for president how much hate will they endure before get a clue?

  40. says

    This worked just as it should. A couple pointed out how they were discriminated against. The business was made aware that if you’re in the public hospitality business you need to abide by the public accommodations laws of your area (i.e. you don’t get to pick and choose your clientele based on personal bigotries–no blacks allowed, no gays allowed, no christians allowed etc.), end of story. The ACLU made a statement, as they should have. And the couple now has all kinds of offers from businesses that are happy to accommodate them and who other gay couples can note down as gay-friendly so they don’t have to waste their time with unfriendly business. The business is certainly opening themselves up for lawsuits with this behavior, but oftentimes just the threat will either get them out of hospitality or make them think twice. Win-win.

  41. Mary says

    Ernie, “getting them out of hospitality” carries the price tag of making middle-of-the-road people angry that someone has to (assuming this is even possible for everyone) change his profession rather than host an event he finds morally objectionable. What you’re forgetting is that even if we will eventually reach a point where discrimination against gays is viewed the same way as discrimination against blacks, we aren’t there YET. Isn’t it unwise to take needless risks when things are increasingly going your way?

  42. wtf says

    wrong again, Mary. You obviously know NOTHING about the legalities of business in the US. Because if you did, you’d realize that discriminating against people based on immutable traits like sexual orientation is equivalent to discriminating against someone based on the color of their skin. If businesses who are owned by Christians MUST serve Jews (as is protected by law) HOW do you justify not serving gay people even if you claim that homosexuality is a choice, as SO many right wingers do? The reality is that if a business is going to ONLY serve the “Christian” community, they NEED TO PUBLICIZE their business as a “CHRISTIAN ONLY” business. And then sit back and just watch the lawsuits roll in. So it’s in our best interest to just shut up and take it? Go EFF yourself. Repeatedly. You’re so wrong that you’re beyond STUPID. NO GROUP IN US HISTORY HAS EVER BEEN HANDED THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS. YOU HAVE TO MAKE NOISE, MAKE TROUBLE, AND TAKE THOSE RIGHTS! Now go and get some education and STFU.

  43. says

    @Mary, it’s not a “needless risk” to point out illegal behavior by a public business. Failing to point it out enables discrimination. No one has to change their profession because they don’t like a certain class of people–they simply have to abide by the law. And if they can’t, then they should be out of business.

    In this case, the manager said her husband’s family does not share her views (talk about family dysfunction) and disagrees with her decision to break the law. But the gay couple, obviously, politely decided to go elsewhere. (Unlike the homophobic manager, they come across as decent people.) A similar case happened in VT, where an inn refused to host the wedding of same-sex couple solely because they were gay. Clearly illegal. And my straight brother-in-law, who had previously attended events there, wrote to the owner explaining why he’d never return. He wouldn’t have known not to give the inn his business if their bigotry and illegal business operations had been covered up. Many people are grateful for the knowledge. And, by the way, there are legal ways to cater to certain clientele–but it’s up to the owners to stick within the law.

    And, for the record, marriage equality is inevitable because people took the risk of speaking out for justice regardless of whether it was the popular stance. I live in an equality state; we didn’t get there by letting discrimination slide.

  44. JAMES says

    What’s even more shocking is the fact that the husband and wife aren’t on the same page. I’m glad he sort of threw his wife under the bus saying gay couples can talk to him, but how embarrassing for them.

  45. Dejae says

    Unpopular opinion here, but good for her! I’m glad someone still has the nerve to stand up for themselves and their convictions. I suppose if Jerry Sandusky wanted to hold his NAMBLA convention there, this place should fold and allow that too. At some point even business owners have to know when to favor conviction over the almighty dollar.

    Why would this lesbian couple even want to have their celebration there to begin with? Find another venue. Going where you’re not wanted seems a bit masochistic to me.

  46. says

    @Dejae: Apparently you didn’t watch the video. They don’t want their reception there, and, by calling attention to the illegal discrimation, they actually have offers to host their reception for free from one gay-friendly business. But they’ve done other gay couples a service by exposing this business. Receptions to rape children aren’t really an apt comparison to a wedding reception now is it? Good rd herring attempt though!

    Furthermore, the point of anti-discrimation laws is to prevent discrimination like this and expose it. Which is exactly what the couple did– stand by their convictions not to allow discrimation in violation of the law. In places with anti-discrimination laws you can’t hang out your no blacks/Jews/Christians//gays/disabled sign and expect to be given a pass because it goes against some personal belief. That’s the very nature of public accommodation. The funny thing is that the bigot manager’s husband, whose family owns the business, agrees with th lesbian couple. Must be fun times in their staff meeting!

  47. Mary says

    WTF, I’m tempted to ask “what the f**k?” All I did was advocate a different strategy. What you you so worked up about?

    My point is that this is a PR battle we will lose because those who sympathize with these club owners can make the argument that gay couples have plenty of other halls to choose from. I understand the legal angle well. But not all laws need to be enforced every minute. Giving these changes time to be accepted throughout the culture is a wise move. Many homophobic people will use issues like this to justify their homophobia. Your positition gives them another reason to (unjustifiably, but that won’t matter to them) see gays as upper-middle income bullies who try to use lawsuits to make everyone accept them. In time you’ll start to see people accepting the business of gay couples and then deliberately ruining the receptions. This is an escalation of conflict that we want to avoid. Even legal victory takes you only so far if people end up despising you.

    If the whole gay marriage cause hinged on this issue I could see your point, though.

  48. says

    @Mary, if non-discrimination laws aren’t enforced, or are only enforced if the group discriminated against is popular enough to win some PR battle, then there is no point in having them. Your advice is both illogical and condescending.

    Like I said, by exposing this business, the couple saved others from dealing with the homophobic manager, and they got offers from some gay-friendly businesses. Those businesses will benefit. If someone is so offended by a business being called out for violating public accommodations laws that they’d reject the whole idea of marriage equality, then their support was nonexistent to begin with. Enabling discrimination doesn’t win culture wars, it just allows businesses to think that discrimination is ok, as long as it’s against certain people. Your constant advice to have people sit on their hands and wait for the culture to come around may be well-intentioned but it’s not backed by historical precedent for how change comes about.

  49. Ben says

    Hold on. Once ObamaCare gets bashed it’s going to be a long slow slide down for Obama. And it’s only June. This was his major achievement as President. Gays better hold their breath, because DOMA is next with The Supremes – any clue how that will go over with this court?? Love to see that upheld.

  50. PeterSM says

    I believe Javier and Tyroga are wrong in their basic premise: this facility is a public serving business, not immune from following the rules it agreed to operate within. Any establishment that decides to operate as a licensed business yet ignores the 1st Amendment that separates secular/civil law from religions should be prosecuted or sued in civil court. The Pilgrims in Massachusetts would not allow any immigrant to remain there unless they swore to follow the Pilgrim mode of worship and rules of daily living. They expelled Roger Williams for his freedom of conscience preaching and writings, so he established the colonies now known as Rhode Island. He knew the need for keeping religious norms out of the rules of a democratic, secular community.

Leave A Reply