Last July, the Wildflower Inn in Vermont denied a same-sex couple use of its facilities for their wedding reception. Kate Baker and Ming Linsley (now the happily married Linsleys) sued, and today they settled their suit, with the Wildflower Inn acknowledging it had broken the law.

At question in the suit was the distinction between discouragement and discrimination. A 2005 decision by the Vermont Human Rights Commission prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, but allowed public establishments to advise customers of the owners’ anti-gay beliefs. Informed by that decision, the Wildflower Inn would ignore calls and emails from same-sex couples, but if confronted, would tell them they would host the reception if they really wanted to. The anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the inn was abiding in accordance with the law, but that simply isn’t true given the email Ming’s mother received saying that  the owners “do not host gay receptions at our facility.”

According to ACLU-Vermont attorney Dan Barrett, the settlement essentially overturns the 2005 decision:

BARRETT: What this settlement makes clear is that you can’t discourage and get away with it. Discouragement or any unequal treatment of LGBT customers is [legally] the same as an outright refusal.

ADF senior counsel Byron Babion claimed that such lawsuits constitute “attempts to coerce and police private expression,” but of course the expression is no longer private when it impacts a public customer. This would be true even if same-sex marriage were not recognized in Vermont, because this is a case about discrimination based on sexual orientation, not a “consequence” of marriage equality.

The Wildflower Inn will pay the Vermont Human Rights Commission a $10,000 civil penalty and establish a $20,000 charitable trust for the Linsleys. The couple has said it will likely donate a large chunk of the settlement to the The Trevor Project suicide prevention hotline.

Former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle (R)

Fourth in a series examining how anti-LGBT Senate candidates have worked to hurt the cause of equality.

With her primary win earlier this month, former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI) will be the Republican nominee against Rep. Mazie Hirono (D) for the open seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Akaka (D). Unlike Hirono, a 100 percent supporter of LGBT equality, Lingle has opposed the LGBT community on several major issues.

Over her time as Mayor of Maui County, Hawaii GOP chair, and as Governor:

1. Lingle has consistently and vocally opposed marriage equality. In her unsuccessful first run for Governor in 1998, her website noted that “Our state should not legalize same-sex marriage.” She endorsed a 1998 state constitutional amendment that allowed the legislature to ban same-sex unions. In a 1997 interview, she argued that marriage discrimination will always be permissible because it is currently popular, saying marriage equality “cannot ever be adopted in Hawaii because the people don’t support it. They simply don’t support it.” In 2002, when she mounted her successful second campaign for governor, her website debunked any rumor that she might support equal marriage, boasting “Linda Lingle opposes same-sex marriage, and in 1998 voted to preserve traditional marriage.”

2. Lingle demonstrated “unwarranted cruelty” when vetoing a civil unions bill. In 2010, Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill that passed the state legislature, arguing that it was “essentially marriage by another name,” and should be decided by referendum. Making matters worse, she invited LGBT activists to attend her announcement ceremony, only to devastate them with her decision. Donald L. Bentz, executive director of Equality Hawaii, told ThinkProgress that Lingle made “an inhumane spectacle.” Activists were told on arrival “you’ll be seated with the media, you are not allowed to react, there will be no questions. If you react in any way, shape or form, you’ll be escorted out of the conference.” Supporters were not even permitted to cry from the disappointment. Her successor, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D), signed a similar civil unions bill into law in 2011.

3. Lingle refused to sign a hate-crimes bill. While she allowed the bill to become law without her signature, Lingle refused to sign a 2003 bill to add gender identity to the state’s hate crimes protections. Though members of Hawaii’s transgender community testified about the intimidation and attacks they had experienced, Lingle dismissed the importance of the bill, explaining that she did not sign the measure because “It was just not something that I felt strongly about.”

4. Lingle vetoed non-discrimination protections for transgender Hawaiians. In 2005, the state legislature passed House Bill 1450, a bill to ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Lingle vetoed the bill, calling it “objectionable because it contains no limiting terms or interpretational guidelines” and could lead to “controversy and unwarranted lawsuits.” Her successor, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D), signed a similar non-discrimination bill into law in 2011.

Watch Lingle announce her veto of a civil unions bill:

Lingle pledges on her 2012 campaign site that “No matter who proposes an idea, law, rule or regulation: if it’s good for Hawaii and our people, then I’ll be for it. If it’s not in our interests, then I’ll be against it. You have my commitment on that.” Her record would suggest that she does not believe that principal applies to LGBT Hawaiians. Her election to the U.S. Senate would be a huge threat to LGBT people and families.

In his debate with Dan Savage, the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown admitted that nothing, not even decades of marriage equality without consequence, could convince him to abandon his opposition to same-sex marriage. When Mark Oppenheimer, who moderated the debate, profiled Maggie Gallagher earlier this year, she similarly said that “Nothing could make me call a same-sex couple a marriage, because that’s not what I believe a marriage is.” Responding to the debate today, Gallagher qualified exactly what it might take for her to retreat from her campaign against LGBT families:

I would want to see two generations of gay marriage and some society that in that time-span was able to create a basically functioning marriage culture i.e., one in which the ideal for a child is mom and dad was upheld as a norm and supported in theory (and at least to some degree in practice).

In that case, I might personally not believe gay unions are marriage, but I would no longer believe the law’s definition had any effect on the things I care about, and so would not oppose same-sex marriage.

I would add: If really good scientific evidence disproved the idea that children benefit from their mom and dad, that would rock my world in ways that I can’t say what would happen.

Social science rarely amounts to proof. It generally counts as “evidence” that requires judgment.

In other words, there really is nothing that could convince her, but her answer is revealing. As Jeremy Hooper notes, Gallagher simply wouldn’t live to see two generations of gay marriage, but even if she did, her expectations that the ideal of heterosexuals as parents be upheld “as a norm and supported by theory” would never exist in any timeline of reality. Research already shows that a biological connection and having parents of both genders are not requirements for a child’s successful upbringing, so there’s no valid reason to uphold such a norm. None of the studies that show that children benefit from their mom and dad show any difference in how children benefit from their dads or their moms, if same-sex couples are even included in them. Of course, stigma against adoption and same-sex parenting definitely can be obstacles to child development. As long as Gallagher continues to reinforce that very antipathy, she has painted a self-defeating future that will never exist. Given her adamant investment in hetero-supremacy, she’s made it clear what “judgment” she will apply to any evidence she encounters.

Earlier this week, more than 20 Zimbabwean police officers raided the office of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ), claiming they were looking for undisclosed “data.” This was the latest in a series of police crackdowns on the LGBT organization, which have included unwarranted arrests and beatings. On at least one occasion, police officers were visibly drunk as they assaulted the activists. Today, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State issued an official condemnation of the raids:

The United States condemns the Government of Zimbabwe’s violent arrest and detention of 44 members of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe on August 11 and a second raid by police on August 20.  Several of these members sustained serious medical injuries from the attacks and were detained without charges.  The Government of Zimbabwe has also targeted these same members’ homes and singled out their families for interrogation and harassment.

The United States stands in solidarity with Zimbabwe’s civil society, including LGBT activists.  We are deeply concerned when security forces become an instrument of political violence used against citizens exercising their democratic rights.  We call upon the Government of Zimbabwe to end this pattern of abuse and to eradicate the culture of impunity that allows members of the security sector to continue to violate the rights of the Zimbabwean people.

Zimbabwean officials have promised that the country will maintain laws banning homosexuality. Last November, President Robert Mugabe warned that gays and lesbians would be “punished severely” if discovered, calling the suggestion of gay rights “diabolical” and a “stupid offer.”

Mixed messages from Matt Barber (Liberty Counsel) and Peter LaBarbera (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality).

The most vociferous opponents of LGBT equality are now railing against the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” designations, accusing the group of inciting the shooting that took place last week at the Family Research Council. But as Joe.My.God. noted yesterday, many of these same anti-gay leaders condemning the SPLC originally — and even quite recently — wore the label as a “badge of honor,” arguing that any group not demonizing gay people enough to earn the label was falling short of its goals:

MATT BARBER (2010): Like any bully, the SPLC only goes after those it believes it can push around. But really, it confers a badge of honor upon every legitimate Christian and conservative organization it so disingenuously mislabels ‘hate group.’ I’d like to officially request that the SPLC add my name to its spurious ‘anti-gay hate list.’ It’s good for one’s conservative and biblical bona fides.

PETER LABARBERA (2010): We are one of the rare groups that is opposed single-mindedly against the homosexual activist movement. The so-called gay lobby has reached the zenith of its power. They are everywhere. I don’t feel like a homophobe; as one guy said, I’m homo-nauseated. If you are not on the SPLC hate list, you are not doing enough.

SCOTT LIVELY (2012): When a Riverside County, CA area journalist asked the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center what it would take for me to be dropped from their list of hate groups, they said ‘Recant The Pink Swastika.’ Frankly, I don’t want to be dropped from that list, because, considering who they are, it is a badge of honor to be so designated.

MICHAEL BROWN (2012): I am flattered to be on the SPLC’s hit list and I wear it is as a badge of honor. And being associated with a ‘radical’ cause is hardly an insult to me if that cause be a righteous one. The more radical, the better. I want to publicly thank the SPLC for making my day and bringing a real smile to my face. I am overflowing with thanksgiving and appreciation.

That these same anti-gay talking heads are now attacking the SPLC shows that their entire argument is a rhetorical scam seeking to politically exploit a violent tragedy. They want to characterize themselves as victims to further marginalize the actual mistreatment of LGBT people that they propagate. With motives so obvious, they’re going to have to do more than complain if they want to have that “badge of honor” removed.

The dinner before the debate (via Stuart Isett/New York Times).

The New York Times’ Mark Oppenheimer has written about his own perspective as moderator of the Dinner Table Debate between Dan Savage and the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown. It seems that both Brown and Savage, as well as Savage’s partner Terry Miller, found the debate to be unproductive:

MILLER: Brian’s heartless readings of the Bible, then his turns to ‘natural law’ when the Bible fails, don’t hide his bigotry and cruelty. In the end, that’s what he is. Cruel.

BROWN: There’s this myth that folks like me, we don’t know any gay people, and if we just met them, we would change our views. But the notion that if you have us into your house, that all that faith and reason that we have on our side, we will chuck it out and change our views — that’s not the real world.

SAVAGE: Playing host put me in this position of treating Brian Brown like a guest. It was better in theory than in practice — it put me at a disadvantage during the debate, as the undertow of playing host resulted in my being more solicitous and considerate than I should’ve been. If I had it to do over again, I think I’d go with a hall.

Indeed, Brown did not once acknowledge the lives of same-sex families or their children, even though he was enjoying one such family’s home and hospitality. But Savage perhaps underestimates how the civil tone demanded by his hosting may very well help viewers better appreciate the cogent arguments he was making, as opposed to how much more abrasive he may have let himself become in a hall with an audience cheering him on. Indeed, as Jeremy Hooper points out, NOM posted its own separate (and branded) copy of the debate video in hopes of getting more positive responses on YouTube, because the original video is overrun with comments criticizing Brown’s arguments.

Many who have watched the debate identified a key quote from Brown that encapsulates not only all of NOM’s hypocrisy, but also the cold reality that its motives must be connected to anti-gay animus. At one point in the debate, Oppenheimer challenged Brown to explain why, if his organization is so concerned about defending marriage, that it devotes all its resources to obstructing same-sex marriage instead of advocating against divorce. Brown explained, “Just because you believe something is wrong, it doesn’t mean that you make it illegal”  — words he clearly doesn’t live by.

Here again is the full debate: