Taeko Bufford and Diane Cervelli (Photo Credit: Eric Risberg/AP)

A judge in Hawaii’s first circuit has ruled that the Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Hawai’i Kai was violating state law when it discriminated against a same-sex couple and imposed an injunction preventing it from ever doing so again. Lambda Legal represented the couple, Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford, but the Hawai’i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) also joined in the suit.

The couple had been visiting a close friend and her newborn baby, and they contacted the Aloha B&B because it was near where she lived. When they asked for a single bed, owner Phyllis Young asked if they were a lesbian couple, and when they confirmed they were, the owner said she was uncomfortable having lesbians in her house because of her religious views. During an HCRC investigation, Young admitted that she turned the couple away because she believes that same-sex relationships are “detestable” and that they “defile the land.”

Hawaii first passed LGBT nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations in 2006, and Cervelli and Bufford experienced their discrimination in 2007. The law stipulates that it is illegal to refuse services based on sexual orientation. Notably, Hawaii does not have same-sex marriage, so though conservatives have already started to claim that this lawsuit victory “tramples religious liberty,” they cannot claim that this case has anything to with the advance of marriage equality. Instead, it’s a clear example of how religious beliefs simply do not justify blatant discrimination.

A new study from University of Hawai’i economics professor Sumner La Croix suggests that if Hawai’i lawmakers pass the proposed marriage equality legislation, it could provide a significant boost to the state’s economy. Same-sex couples that visit the state to marry, out-of-state guests for same-sex weddings, and same-sex couples who honeymoon there would all generate new tax revenues. The ultimate benefit could be somewhere between $46 million and $258 million over the 2014-2016 period. Conversely, marriage equality is not expected to burden either public or private employers with substantial increases in health insurance expenditures for employees.

Hawai’i's state Senate has only one Republican, and Sen. Sam Slom has conceded that proposed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage will likely pass:

SLOM: Same sex marriage probably will pass this year. You’ve got a preponderance of Democrats who support it in both Houses, you’ve got the Congressional delegation, you’ve got our Governor!

Despite his concession to inevitability, Slom will still oppose the bill:

SLOM: To me, I don’t care if gay people want to get married but to force other people to do things or to subsidize certain activities– that I oppose.

In other words, he believes that it’s perfectly fair to provide security and support for opposite-sex families but not for same-sex families. Fortunately, his position does not have the support to get anywhere.

Hearing dates have still not been set for the proposed bills.

A new poll from Equality Hawai’i shows that a majority of Hawai’i voters favor marriage equality, with 55 percent in support and only 37 percent opposed. Among voters under 35 years of age, support soars to 64-32, though even voters over the age of 50 support the change 53-38. Marriage equality bills were introduced in both chamber’s of Hawai’i's legislature last week.

Former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI)

In a Hawaii Senate debate last week, former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI) came under fire for a 2010 move described by LGBT-rights activists as “unwarranted cruelty.” Rep. Mazie Hirono, her Democratic opponent and a supporter of marriage equality, noted that Lingle invited supporters of civil unions to attend what they thought would be a bill-signing ceremony, only to veto the bill.

Lingle, asked about marriage equality, said that she continues to believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and that she would support putting the question up for a popular vote in the Aloha State. When Hirono reminded viewers of Lingle’s civil unions veto, the former governor said she thought the move was “respectful”:

HIRONO: We all remember when as governor she vetoed the civil unions bill and, in doing so, before she vetoed it, she invited members of the [LGBT] leadership to join her. And they thought that she was going to sign that bill into law. And instead, right in front of them, the very group that had worked so hard to pass this legislation, she vetoed that bill. I thought that was extremely insensitive and disrespectful of their position. Her position, my opponent’s position on marriage equality, is very much in line with national Republicans and is certainly not what the Democrats stand for.

LINGLE: … she gave the impression that I only invited one side in and then went against their point of view… in fact, I had invited both sides in. The passions were running so high, I didn’t feel it was something I should do in my office, or away from the public. And because both sides had spoken extensively on this very important topic, I invited both sides to be with me as I read my statement that day. It was a very difficult decision to make, but one I tried to do in the most respectful way possible.

HIRONO: Well, clearly, to invite the very group that had hoped she was inviting them to sign the bill into law, and instead vetoed it, I think is a very insensitive thing to do. I certainly wouldn’t have done it.

Watch the video:

Donald L. Bentz, executive director of Equality Hawaii, told ThinkProgress in August 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. Lingle made the ThinkProgress Anti-LGBT Senate Candidates Dirty Dozen based on her opposition to hate crimes protections, employment protections, and marriage equality for LGBT Hawaiians.

Lingle’s explanation for this heartless gesture is that because she also invited the anti-LGBT people to see her veto the bill, it was “respectful.” Her successor, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D), signed a similar civil unions bill into law in 2011.

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.

The Hawaii Democrats’ GLBT Caucus has made a slightly unusual endorsement in the U.S. Senate race. Rather than endorse one candidate, they have endorsed both Ed Case and Mazie Hirono, one of whom will beat the other in the August primary election. Caucus Chair Jo-Ann Adams explained that on LGBT issues, either would be ideal to defeat former Republican Linda Lingle for the seat because of her “unwarranted cruelty” to the LGBT community:

ADAMS: There are significant differences between the candidates, and members of other Caucuses have urged the Caucus to support only one candidate, because of these differences that are the purview of other caucuses. However, on our issues they both have been consistently supportive for several decades.

Linda Lingle at her best did nothing for the LGBT community. At her worst, she invited members of the LGBT Community to have assigned front-row seats at the press conference when she announced her veto of the civil unions bill. Her unwarranted cruelty will not soon be forgotten.

As of January 1, 2012, civil unions are now the law in Hawaii, but not thanks to Lingle. Her 2009 veto led the ACLU and Lambda Legal to sue the state for equal treatment for same-sex couples. They withdrew the case last year after Lingle’s successor, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D), signed civil unions into law.