AdWatch: Ad against R-74 raises fear of lawsuits
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — TITLE: "Examples"
LENGTH: 30 seconds.
AIRING: The ad started airing statewide Tuesday on broadcast and cable channels.
SCRIPT: Announcer: "Experience shows how Referendum 74 can harm people who oppose gay marriage."
Jim O'Reilly, owner of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vt., with wife Mary seated beside him: "A lesbian couple sued us for not supporting their gay wedding because of our Christian beliefs. We had to pay $30,000 and can no longer host any weddings at our inn."
Damian Goddard, former host on Rogers Sportsnet: "I was a national sportscaster in Canada. When a sports agent spoke out in favor of traditional marriage, I sent a personal tweet that I agreed with him. The next day I was fired."
Announcer: "Don't redefine marriage. Reject R-74."
KEY IMAGES: The ad begins with an image of Goddard with the word "fired" superimposed over him, and a picture of the O'Reillys, with the word "sued" superimposed over their photo.
ANALYSIS: The TV ad, the second from Preserve Marriage Washington, which opposes the state's gay marriage law, implies that the threat of being sued or fired will increase in Washington state if gay marriage is approved by voters next month.
Referendum 74 asks voters to either approve or reject the state's gay marriage law. The case of the O'Reillys has been highlighted in other TV ads in places where gay marriage is on the ballot, including Maine.
Supporters of Referendum 74 argue that the O'Reillys were sued because they violated Vermont's anti-discrimination laws, and that it had nothing to do with marriage.
"There's already strong anti-discrimination laws in Washington state, as there are in Vermont," said Zach Silk, spokesman for Washington United for Marriage. "Regardless of what happens with Referendum 74, these anti-discrimination laws remain on the books. It has nothing to do with marriage."
Washington state's anti-discrimination laws were expanded in 2006 to include sexual orientation, and also cover the use of accommodations or facilities.
Two New York women sued the Wildflower Inn last year, saying it violated the state's anti-discrimination in public accommodations statutes by refusing to host their wedding reception because they're gay.
The O'Reillys settled the lawsuit in August by agreeing to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the Vermont Human Rights Commission, to place $20,000 in a charitable trust and to no longer host any weddings or receptions. A lawyer for the innkeepers said at the time of the settlement that a former employee falsely claimed that the inn wouldn't allow a same-sex reception, and that the inn's business practice was to "to honestly disclose its owners' religious convictions to potential customers while agreeing to serve everyone in accordance with the law."
Washington state has had a domestic partnership law in place since 2007, and officials at the state ACLU and Equal Rights Washington said they were not aware of any lawsuits filed against facilities that may have refused domestic partnership commitment ceremonies.
When asked how the approval of R-74 would increase lawsuits considering the state's current antidiscrimination law, Chip White, deputy campaign director for Preserve Marriage, said "this doesn't have to do with sexual orientation."
"It has to do with your beliefs about marriage," he said.
White noted a second lawsuit that has since been filed in New York this month, where two women who were turned away from a potential wedding site because they are gay have filed a discrimination complaint there.
The complaint filed with the state Division of Human Rights appears to be a first involving a wedding venue since same-sex marriage became legal in New York in July 2011.
In the case of the sportscaster cited in the TV ad, last year, Damian Goddard tweeted his support for hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who used Twitter to voice his opposition to New York Rangers forward Sean Avery's support of same-sex marriage.
Goddard wrote: "I completely and whole-heartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage."
The TV network then issued its own tweet, saying: "Today's tweet from Damian Goddard does not reflect the views of Rogers Sportsnet." The next day, it severed ties with Goddard.
Silk called the inclusion of that case a "red herring."
"It's hard for me to understand why an isolated incident in Canada is relevant to Washington state," he said.
White said that the ad just shows cases of people who have face retribution for opposing gay marriage.
"We want people to know that R-74 can hurt those who oppose same-sex marriage," he said.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.
Maryland legalized gay marriage this year as well, but that state will also have a public vote next month as well. In Maine, voters will decide on an initiative to approve same-sex marriage three years after a referendum overturned a law passed by the Maine Legislature. And in Minnesota, voters will decide whether or not to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage there.
WATCH THE AD:
___
Online:
Referendum 74 language: http://bit.ly/Aog5aO
Preserve Marriage Washington: http://preservemarriagewashington.com
Washington United for Marriage: http://washingtonunitedformarriage.org
___
Follow Rachel La Corte at http://www.twitter.com/RachelAPOly or http://www.facebook.com/news.rachel
I wonder if I could sue a gay Inn for not allowing me to marry a woman.....oh wait, men and women don't really get married anymore...well, at least not to each other
The commercial is accurate. Go against the gays and more than likely you will suffer.
Â
Hopefully the world economy will collapse. That is the only way to end this PC insanity.
 @RalphCramdenÂ
Â
The irony is that if you discriminate against them for a non-protect reason, you are safe. You may have to demonstrate that in court, but you will be on the right side of the law.
Â
its like gay bars preventing women who wear clothing that means they are part of a bridal party. The bar can "discriminateâ against them because being in a bridal party is not a protected class.
Â
So if you're gay you can discriminate against straight people because being straight is not a protected class.
Â
Â
 @RepomanÂ
I can discriminate against whoever I want to for any reason I want to. I am not a business and just an individual.Â
Â
The more government tells me to accept folks that I really don't want to hang around with the more I detest those people government tells me I should accept.
Â
It's a typical paradoxical effect of human nature.
 @Repoman  @RalphCramden I'd say "heterosexual" qualifies as a sexual orientation...
So if it passes, Washington becomes Vermont? Ha ha ha ha ha!! Right.
 @Mikey No, Washington can't become like Vermont. Vermont allows concealed weapons carry without a permit.
 @Mikey All, I can say, is that I voted to reject the measure. I am sick and tired of all the crap. everything from Suing to Schools being robbed of there money.. Bill gates could have used that money for educational institutions. Sick and tired of seeing our kids education getting underfunded and seeing these special rights and such getting all the dough.. So I voted the way I did. if passes then more thought it should have passed, if it fails, then the majority has spoken end of discussion.
Oh and suing some one over there beliefs is a form of Discrimination.
Â
 @lee986321 They were not sued over their beliefs. You can believe that Black people are disgusting. You can even say so. You can't refuse to serve them just because of your belief. You can find same-sex couples disgusting. You can say so. You can't refuse to serve them just because of your belief. You can legally refuse to serve someone if you have reasonable cause to think they are drunk, if they enter an eating establishment barefoot, and for other valid causes that are applied equally to all. If you run a business that serves the general public, you can't arbitrarily refuse to serve someone because they don't agree with your religion. That would be interfering with your customer's freedom of religion.
 @lee986321 Um, Lee...you apparently didn't read that part about "public accommodation".
Â
-- A lawyer for the innkeepers said at the time of the settlement that a former employee falsely claimed that the inn wouldn't allow a same-sex reception, and that the inn's business practice was to "to honestly disclose its owners' religious convictions to potential customers while agreeing to serve everyone in accordance with the law." ---
Â
A "former" employee. How convenient.
 @Mikey How ever a person still has the right to "Refuse Service" like those signs that they have in a bar and grill.
Â
@lee986321 @Mikey Refuse service to black people?
 @Mikey No, I read it through, I still stand by the statement, for any one to be sued over this is utterly ridiculous.
and because of this add that angered me, I rejected the Proposal ..If people are going to either be fired or sued because they oppose such a thing then so be iy, I will use my pen and Vote against it. using fear an intimidation to "Bully some one" because of there values and beliefs are flat wrong. And I Don't care How Much money Mr. Gates, nor any other entity pooling monies in to this..It is a choice that a person makes, Continuing to force it in peoples faces will only anger the people more.. Like I say, You want to sue and hurt people, don't expect any sympathy from me.
 @lee986321 What you miss about their whole ad, is it actually supports gay marriage, to any reasonable person.  The fact that there IS fear of lawsuits means they ARE discriminating, and points to the need for protection from discrimination.
 @lee986321 It sounds to me like this fear mongering ad worked on you.
@JustAnotherPerson @lee986321 JustAnother... simple question, do you believe that any institution, private chapel, church or organization should be sued or recieve any civil or criminal repurcussions for refusing to marry or support same-sex marriage? Without a dodge, I'd like you to answer that question.
 @MacNCheez An organized religion? No, not if their beliefs were against such unions. And no one should think any the worse of them for that decision.
Â
A secular wedding chapel? Yes, because if they are open to the general public they should not be discriminating against anyone based on their religious beliefs.
Â
A government employee? Yes - because they have no right to discriminate based on religious belief. Their job is to serve the public whether they agree with their beliefs or not.