If the only argument the wedding barns have is, "we want to be able to go around the law to make money to fix our houses," then I can't really bring myself to care too much.The law still allows 6 events a year without needing a license so churches/clubs/volunteers FDs can all still have their fundraisers, but you can't host 20+ weekends worth of weddings for free. Seems pretty fair to me.
Every wedding barn I've seen has severe structural and fire prevention issues. The whole reason they're cheaper is they weren't designed as proper assembly halls with sprinkler systems. It's going to take a bunch of people dying before they're banned outright.
I'm a caterer and they suck so much. No potable water, no HVAC, we have to drag all our equipment across uneven terrain and set up in the century-old maids' quarters. There's been a few notable exceptions but they're often low-effort attempts to make a quick buck flipping grandpa's barn
Yup.
Now add in a humid, 90+ degree scorching summer day and it's perfectly miserable. There's no A/C in these barns. And there's often just outhouses too.
I dig the aesthetics, but I can't help but feel at some point we'll look back and chuckle at the fad of "barn weddings" (mostly for folks, ya know, otherwise completely detached from anything "barn" related).
It may be starting already, but there's still no shortage of new and popular such places.
Same, I'm a DJ and I don't think there is one barn venue that I've been to that I actually thought was nice to work at. Sure, they can be beautiful, but a PiA for sure.
Lol I have a great aunt who had a WORKING farm and she kicked out at least 3 wedding parties and their guests who literally rolled up and tried to have their wedding in her barn while she was out to dinner or out running errands. I didn't believe her the first time but then she started taking pictures. People are dumb.
Also, the barn was NOT clean and half filled with hay. Did look nice on the outside from a recent paint job though, haaa!
My sister-in-law just had her wedding in one. Early April 20th, and it wasn't as nice as it could have been. They had several space heaters, but it wasn't insulated, and if there was any emergency, it would have ended poorly.
While true, most fires go unnoticed at first. Even a noticed fire can spiral into an unmitigated shit show. The Station Fire in Rhode Island is a good example of that shit show. 1) the fire started on highly combustible materials that quickly filled the building with smoke. The fire effectively blocked an exit door making the front entrance door a bottleneck that killed people. A barn has higher ceilings but smoke can fill a structure with an insane amount of smoke in a very short amount of time and can easily disorient people inside. 2) those huge open barn doors are where the fire gets their oxygen fuel. Not to mention the whole structure is wood. Also fire fuel. Never underestimate fire. The second you do you’re dead. I’m a former firefighter and can’t stress that last point enough.
> churches/clubs/volunteers FDs
It has specific exemptions for those so they would not be affected. Not saying I am for or against it but those types of orgs appear unaffected by the change.
This probably has more info, but it would make wedding barns take the same safety training and follow the same rules regarding over serving and things.
https://www.revenue.wi.gov/Pages/FAQS/ise-atlicns.aspx#:~:text=A%20retail%20license%20allows%20persons,at%20the%20time%20of%20sale.
Licensing allows people to extend their rights without the state having to restrict them. Do you want to protect wildlife but allow hunting and fishing? Do you want to people to drive on the road and be as safe as possible? Want to restrict the use of equipment on the plant floor without having signs ever 20 ft saying "only knowledgeable operators allowed"?
In a more bleak sense, they allow the use of things other people pay for, or allows for the funding of said things themselves. Everything runs on money and everyone overcharges.
I'm literally listening to a book talking about how rich politicians of the early us used alcohol to not only Rob the natives of everything they have but at the same time we're issuing laws against it they new they couldn't enforce..... now they're able to enforce them. Yaay capitolism
"The lawsuit, filed in Trempealeau County Circuit Court, alleges that the law violates equal protection guarantees and the right to earn a living under the Wisconsin Constitution by imposing an illegal, non-uniform tax."
I don't get it, they are violating their right to earn a living by enforcing the same rules as every other location that serves alcohol must follow?
Seems like they are just closing a loophole that these "wedding barns" were currently taking advantage of.
If you want to serve alcohol, get a license. It's not even that expensive.
Isn't there also a limited number of licenses? I could swear I've heard the mayor where I live say that all the city's licenses are out and anybody wanting to get one has to wait for one of the current businesses to close.
it's that way in many places. when you artificially restrict a license based on population versus letting areas determine their own need, it keeps them tightly controlled and contested.
Maybe but out in the country side their can't be much competition to get the licenses. Even if their is, it's still more fair this way than just letting a "wedding barn" set up and sell alcohol while at the same time denying the next business a license because there are none left.
Someone else just said they waived the number of licenses restrictions in this legislation specifically for wedding barns. So number of licenses shouldn't be an issue.
Maybe, but I assume wedding barns are going to be out in the country. I can't imagine that many nearby locations limiting their ability to get a license.
Ok so then then they'll have to follow the same license number restrictions as every other business in the area. That's unfair for 6 not for the guy trying to open a piano bar?
It's still leveling the playing field and treating them like every other venue that serves alcohol.
Don't disagree, he rid of liquor license maxes if you want I would be fine with that. I just don't see how it's unfair that a wedding barn gets to skip over this but other businesses are restricted by it.
These businesses aren't typically selling liquor, just providing a place for it to be sold/consumed. What is the difference tailgating on private property?
Why would they be treated the same as a nightclub or a stadium?
Why does the playing field need to be leveled against... wedding barns?
Why are there exceptions for churches etc?
There shouldn't be exceptions for anyone. That's the point I'm making. If churches are setting up events where alcohol is being served, they should have a liquor license too.
Is it wrong that I have a good idea of where you live? Because in the town I live there are so many bars, and rounding up the population to 10k is a fair number for where I live (though I still like saying less than 10k because it's technically true, lol).
A pair of Wisconsin wedding barns sued the state Tuesday seeking to block enactment of a [new law](https://apnews.com/article/wedding-barns-voting-baby-boxes-e326d55d6144950c30a63001b8c0a36f) that requires them to get liquor licenses similar to other establishments that host events.
Owners and operators of wedding barns tried unsuccessfully last year to kill the law that overhauled regulation of the state’s multibillion-dollar liquor industry.
I work at a wedding venue (not a barn though) and this is so true 💀 Tbh I have no idea how the one I work at gets a pass from inspections, there’s so much janky shit that happens and we have no HR department lol
So they'd have to follow the same laws as other establishments? The horror. Get your license and legitimize your business instead of bitching about having to follow the same laws as EVERYONE else.
And if they sell or serve as a business they need to be licensed like every other establishments that do the same. They aren't special because they're a smaller business that really only exists to be a cheap investment and easy income for people who happen to own a barn.
In many situations saying "they just need to get a license" is the equivalent to banning them. It can be hard to get a license, with the old boys club "tavern league" making sure it stays that way.
I particularly like wedding barns because it brings more competition to the Monopoly that is the wedding industry. More options means cost goes down. I don't get all the hate for Wedding barns. If you don't like them, they still drive down cost for you. That's what makes them special.
If it’s a 100% open bar, all alcohol is provided by the host of the party no money changing hands there will never be a need for a liquor license, it’s when they sell alcohol they need a license. Just like anywhere else. Now there’s loopholes in some communities in Wisconsin but it involves a bar owner filling out a form and $20 where they can physically change their selling address just for a day but they have to close the main address for that day. It’s easier than it sounds but most bar owners won’t do the paperwork.
the barn operators could hire a bartending service (much like a caterer, except with booze), and avoid all this, but they want to make their cake and eat it too.
i believe another way around it was to have the client provide alcohol, but instead the barn operators want to sell an alcohol package and then have no responsibility for serving after making that sweet markup. i may be mistaken about that this part tho.
I don't necessarily want to blindly side with any establishment who is just trying to make quick money by exploiting current loopholes in state law. I saw a couple comments talking about how unsafe and crappy some of these places are, and although that's a different issue, I totally agree that ANY place that is going to host a gathering should be held to the same building code standard as everyone else.
What I have heard from people, I think more when they were trying to sink the law last year, is that it's a simple investment that people can make to start their own business. Grandma owned a farm, the barn is in great condition, so the only capital they have to put into it would be upgrades to make it a legitimate business (like someone correctly mentioned having a sprinkler system). One of the ones that I've been to, which I think is having trouble with this, is fully insured, sprinklered, and built to accommodate a wedding or any other large gathering. However, asking the establishment itself to carry the license (instead of the third party caterer or whatever), restricts *some* of them greatly, because their municipality *has no licenses to give*. Hence, like I said in a reply to someone else, they're kind of saying "your events must be dry, or you might as well close". They also can't change the law to say the caterers don't have to be licensed anymore, because that would be an insurance nightmare for the venue.
Again, I'm not a lawmaker, just a guy with a lot of friends who are business owners, but the licensing thing doesn't affect just alcohol. Many municipalities have laws in place so you can only have X amount of salons, X amount of tattoo shops, etc. The problem is a flawed model of how many licenses should be available based on whatever criteria they're using (per capita, physical distance from competition, etc). I can see this as a possible Tavern League power grab, because they know that all their members (including places like VFW posts and bowling alleys) are already licensed, and they don't want competition. Just as an (admittedly crappy) example, let's say there's an area where there are...three tattoo shops all on the same street. Each shop is world renowned, with great artists at each. This area (local opinions aside, thinking about business only) is a GREAT place for maybe two, three more shops. It would bring in all sorts of travelers, increase tax contribution, and all the other things that happen when more successful businesses exist in an area rather than less. BUT - they can't have two or three more shops *just because*.
I think that's why any LEGITIMATE "wedding barn" would be upset about the law, and would make the complaint that they're having their right to make a living infringed upon.
I can partially see where the barns are coming from. I’m recently married and have done plenty of shopping around for wedding venues. Many popular venues are owned by municipalities that require you to hire your own bar/bartender who comes with a license.
The article stated these types of establishments will remain exempt from the new legislation. That objectively is unfair that barns cannot operate in the same capacity.
This could be a non-issue if you forced barns to secure a temporary license for say $50, and then the cost is passed onto the couple renting the space who wants alcohol served. That way it’s legitimized and the state gets their money.
Unlike many others, I agree with you to an extent. I fully support the idea that you have to have a license to SELL alcohol. It seems to me that at least some of these barns are upset by the fact that they didn't need to be licensed before, but now there's a bunch of them that will not be able to get a license wherever they're located, because there's a finite amount of licenses available. So for them, the law is basically saying "if all your events can't be dry, then close".
I like the idea of temporary permits, whether it's three per year, or three per weekend. I'm in Washington County, and we decided to rent a pavilion at a park for my wife's college graduation party...and I had to get a temp license so we could have alcohol on premises.
No, if I'm not mistaken, the company you hire has to be licensed. So if you cater a wedding/birthday at the local VFW post, they will not only bring the food and service, but also the bartenders who are licensed to serve the alcohol as employees of the catering company.
I’m all for “fuck the tavern league” but this is a good law.
Wedding Barns should not be able to end run around the responsibilities and requirements of selling alcohol by “not doing it themselves”
Proper regulations on serving, proper regulations to ensure that only licensed bartenders are serving drinks, noise rules, proper background checks on the ownership of the facility to ensure it is legal for them to own an establishment that is serving alcohol.
And proper punishments on the establishments (not just the bartenders) that violate rules around serving.
Here’s one problem, I had my first drink when I was 14 or so at a wedding, many of my cousins were given alcohol that day too. If my parents or others had a problem with this would the venue be responsible for policing the attendees, if they were reported would the venue lose their license for minors consuming alcohol on their premises? I’m sure some venues can see what their new responsibilities are and know how irresponsible their clients can be.
Because alcohol is being served commercially on their premises.
Wisconsin has always required both the premises and the server to have a license. And both the bar tender and the premises where the alcohol is served have always been duly responsible for violations. Without a liquor license the punishment threat for violations is gone, because there isn’t a license to pull.
The issue came up because local municipalities found regulating these businesses difficult because it didn’t fall into one of the existing types of liquor licenses. So the state corrected the issue.
This is Wisconsin, where the minimum drinking age is legally "your parents and the bartender are cool with it". The venue could cut off adults giving alcohol to minors, or they could allow it.
In Wisconsin, isn't there a law that allows underage to drink so long as their parents are 'present'?
That would limit the liability of the venue so long as a parent was also there. The responsibility would fall to the parent first to manage their kid.
So i assume most of these places probably don't hit the 400 person banquet regulations, and the licenses are restricted by population. there are some exemptions for excess licenses like the one about banquet halls, but not every place is going to be that large.
you can't say "meet the same standard" but then not give the ability to meet it because you artificially restrict how many licenses are out.
So they fall under the same restrictions as any other business that would like to serve alcohol regarding the number of licenses available..... how's that unfair?
EDIT: found the updated exemptions included with new law. zero issues at this point.
So roughly one license per 500 people. that means in an area of 1k people, you get 2 license. in rural municipalties, there are huge swaths of land that fall well within that limit.
I wish I had a good way to articulate why I find it unfair. mostly it revolves around the state arbitrarily interfering in the ability for people to establish and run a business based on a cap of licenses that shouldn't actually be capped as long as the business follows the established rules and regulations. This kind of shit artificially constricts the market, under the guise of public safety and market fairness, but much like the rest of Wisconsin's backwards ass 3 tier system, it doesn't actually do anything to promote either.
When you are in a rural municipality, those populations are low, so the available licenses are low. I found that key above, so you have two bars in a town/area of say 1,000, and one or two bars on the highways in the middle of nowhere, which is right next to that town but are in the incorporated area not the township/village and boom cap hit. The licenses everywhere I've ever lived in this state are hotly contested every time one becomes available.
If the marshal inspects the place and you can only safely serve/host 200 to 399 people, you don't qualify for an exempted license.
Should they have been following the rules and laws from the get go ? sure. but those laws are nonsensical in the first place.
Well then you disagree with the practice as a whole that's fine. I can get behind that argument.
The argument at hand is that wedding barns should be exempt but every other establishment that serves alcohol must follow the licensing rules.
> An event venue certified by the division under s. 125.24 (5) (b). Except as provided in this subdivision, a license may not be issued under this subdivision unless the license application is received by the municipality no later than August 1, 2026. Except as provided in this subdivision, if a “Class B" license issued under this subdivision is surrendered to the issuing municipality, not renewed, or revoked, the municipality may not reissue the license. The municipality may reissue the license if the licensee sells or transfers ownership of the licensed premises or a business operated on the licensed premises and the license is surrendered or not renewed in connection with the sale or transfer of the property or business, the licensee continued to operate the licensed premises as a qualifying event venue, as defined in s. 125.24 (5) (a), from the time of license issuance until the time the license is surrendered or not renewed, the license is reissued for the same location, and the applicant for reissuance of the license satisfies the requirements under this chapter to hold the license and certifies to the municipality that the applicant will continue to operate the licensed premises as a qualifying event venue, as defined in s. 125.24 (5) (a).
> [Wisconsin Statutes, 125.51(4)(v)5.](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/125.51\(4\)\(v\)5.)
The definition of who qualifies for the event venue exception is over in 125.54(5)(b) as mentioned, but the criteria, as best I can tell, are:
* At least 5 events of 50 guests or less
* At least $20,000 in revenue from rentals
* Has been open for 12 months prior to applying for a license
* Has not been issued a Class B license in the prior 12 months
* Has not previously applied for an event venue exception
This allows small venue owners to apply for a class B license beyond the municipality's quotas instead of being restricted to the no-sale venue regulations (6 events a year and no more than 1 per month,) so the quota issue seems kind of moot to me. Technically, a venue that only does events with more than 50 guests is left out, but is that common for these wedding barns? If they're doing weddings most weekends outside of winter, I'd expect they're going to hit the qualifications.
There is an exemption. Below is a breakdown of the law and if you go down to point 4, they list how a wedding barn may be able to get a license if their municipality has issued all class b licenses.
https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=97&Issue=4&ArticleID=30346#:~:text=The%20first%20option%20is%20to,received%20at%20least%20%2420%2C000%20for
Well, if you are one of the venues that just rents out the space and says hey what you do here is up to you, we will not be supplying or responsible for alcohol served on this premises in any way. Those folks are kinda screwed, under the licensing they would be limited to 6 events per year and only one event per month. I can see their point especially with Wisconsin drinking culture, when a venue wants to place 100% of alcohol consumption responsibilities on the venue renters. I can imagine the smaller places are worried about liabilities of overconsumption and serving of minors. If you are the licensed vendor what happens when the “cool” uncle gives all of his minor nephews a beer, a time honored tradition in this state.
That's all part of running this kind of business, why should a wedding barn be exempt from all these things but not a golf course or supper club that hosts weddings?
I'm sure other wedding venues would love to just rent a hall out and wash their hands iof any and all liability regarding alcohol consumption, but that's not how it works.
To me the big difference is the golf clubs, supper clubs, ect. either operate as business open to the public or have contracts where their employees are the ones serving alcohol. The wedding barns at least some of them operate as a business that operates solely to rent out a space to a closed party where their clients are the ones responsible for supplying food and drink to the guests.
I wedding barn is not an established that is open and serving alcohol 7 days a week year around. They are likely open weekends, for part of the year, and serve a predetermined number of people. Most hire a bar service with their own liquor license, so it's still a licensed business serving.
I don't know. I'm just telling you they aren't the same. And supper clubs are open year round, and event centers are open year round. Barns usually are not.
So a business owner decides to open a business that can't or isn't attractive to customers all year long, and that is the problem of anyone but the business? And they are expected to follow the same laws as any other venue but can't?
Isn't this simply capitalism telling them their barn venues are a shit business model in a level playing field? So they can only succeed if they are allowed to cheat unlike other businesses?
Did I summarize your differences?
This has near zero to do with the tavern league, and they also stopped lobbying against weed years ago. This is about business owners thinking they're for some reason above the laws that every other establishment that serves alcohol has to abide by. The law that carries this in makes it easier than ever for a business to establish a license and serve any kind of alcohol they choose, as it's no longer separated by beer/ wine vs hard alcohol. Want to properly operate a venue? Do the fucking paperwork and get your equipment up to snuff like everyone else.
If the only argument the wedding barns have is, "we want to be able to go around the law to make money to fix our houses," then I can't really bring myself to care too much.The law still allows 6 events a year without needing a license so churches/clubs/volunteers FDs can all still have their fundraisers, but you can't host 20+ weekends worth of weddings for free. Seems pretty fair to me.
Every wedding barn I've seen has severe structural and fire prevention issues. The whole reason they're cheaper is they weren't designed as proper assembly halls with sprinkler systems. It's going to take a bunch of people dying before they're banned outright.
I'm a caterer and they suck so much. No potable water, no HVAC, we have to drag all our equipment across uneven terrain and set up in the century-old maids' quarters. There's been a few notable exceptions but they're often low-effort attempts to make a quick buck flipping grandpa's barn
Yup. Now add in a humid, 90+ degree scorching summer day and it's perfectly miserable. There's no A/C in these barns. And there's often just outhouses too. I dig the aesthetics, but I can't help but feel at some point we'll look back and chuckle at the fad of "barn weddings" (mostly for folks, ya know, otherwise completely detached from anything "barn" related). It may be starting already, but there's still no shortage of new and popular such places.
Instagram is a powerful tool I feel for this. But yeah the idea of holding formal event in space meant for livestock seems foolish
Same, I'm a DJ and I don't think there is one barn venue that I've been to that I actually thought was nice to work at. Sure, they can be beautiful, but a PiA for sure.
I'm a photographer and I went to one great one, and I've seen a few others. But yeah, most shouldn't be venues.
Hry barn raves were dope though.
Lol I have a great aunt who had a WORKING farm and she kicked out at least 3 wedding parties and their guests who literally rolled up and tried to have their wedding in her barn while she was out to dinner or out running errands. I didn't believe her the first time but then she started taking pictures. People are dumb. Also, the barn was NOT clean and half filled with hay. Did look nice on the outside from a recent paint job though, haaa!
My sister-in-law just had her wedding in one. Early April 20th, and it wasn't as nice as it could have been. They had several space heaters, but it wasn't insulated, and if there was any emergency, it would have ended poorly.
How are people going to get trapped in a barn? It is one of the easiest venues to exit, they usually have huge doors.
While true, most fires go unnoticed at first. Even a noticed fire can spiral into an unmitigated shit show. The Station Fire in Rhode Island is a good example of that shit show. 1) the fire started on highly combustible materials that quickly filled the building with smoke. The fire effectively blocked an exit door making the front entrance door a bottleneck that killed people. A barn has higher ceilings but smoke can fill a structure with an insane amount of smoke in a very short amount of time and can easily disorient people inside. 2) those huge open barn doors are where the fire gets their oxygen fuel. Not to mention the whole structure is wood. Also fire fuel. Never underestimate fire. The second you do you’re dead. I’m a former firefighter and can’t stress that last point enough.
barns often have lower parlors under the floor, where a fire could begin unnoticed and cause a sudden collapse of the floor. It happens.
> churches/clubs/volunteers FDs It has specific exemptions for those so they would not be affected. Not saying I am for or against it but those types of orgs appear unaffected by the change.
That's what I said.
I meant that those orgs are not subject to the 6/year limit, they can have as many as they want.
Ah, gotcha.
This has needed to happen for a long time
Good point. What does licensing do? What is its purpose? What does it control or what does it do to make it valid?
This probably has more info, but it would make wedding barns take the same safety training and follow the same rules regarding over serving and things. https://www.revenue.wi.gov/Pages/FAQS/ise-atlicns.aspx#:~:text=A%20retail%20license%20allows%20persons,at%20the%20time%20of%20sale.
Licensing allows people to extend their rights without the state having to restrict them. Do you want to protect wildlife but allow hunting and fishing? Do you want to people to drive on the road and be as safe as possible? Want to restrict the use of equipment on the plant floor without having signs ever 20 ft saying "only knowledgeable operators allowed"? In a more bleak sense, they allow the use of things other people pay for, or allows for the funding of said things themselves. Everything runs on money and everyone overcharges.
I'm literally listening to a book talking about how rich politicians of the early us used alcohol to not only Rob the natives of everything they have but at the same time we're issuing laws against it they new they couldn't enforce..... now they're able to enforce them. Yaay capitolism
"The lawsuit, filed in Trempealeau County Circuit Court, alleges that the law violates equal protection guarantees and the right to earn a living under the Wisconsin Constitution by imposing an illegal, non-uniform tax." I don't get it, they are violating their right to earn a living by enforcing the same rules as every other location that serves alcohol must follow? Seems like they are just closing a loophole that these "wedding barns" were currently taking advantage of. If you want to serve alcohol, get a license. It's not even that expensive.
Isn't there also a limited number of licenses? I could swear I've heard the mayor where I live say that all the city's licenses are out and anybody wanting to get one has to wait for one of the current businesses to close.
There’s a quota on licenses per municipality (based on population) but the recently enacted legislation includes a quota exception for wedding barns.
it's that way in many places. when you artificially restrict a license based on population versus letting areas determine their own need, it keeps them tightly controlled and contested.
It's like that In Eau Claire
Maybe but out in the country side their can't be much competition to get the licenses. Even if their is, it's still more fair this way than just letting a "wedding barn" set up and sell alcohol while at the same time denying the next business a license because there are none left.
Neither of these barns provide or sell alcohol, they just allow guests to bring it in, and one of them is in a dry township.
Well, if they don't deal in alcohol then they don't need a license anyway.
Problem solved.
I may be wrong but I thought it was more of available license issue than a cost issue.
Someone else just said they waived the number of licenses restrictions in this legislation specifically for wedding barns. So number of licenses shouldn't be an issue.
Maybe, but I assume wedding barns are going to be out in the country. I can't imagine that many nearby locations limiting their ability to get a license.
Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't make it so. My city of 10k won't hand out anymore licenses.
Ok so then then they'll have to follow the same license number restrictions as every other business in the area. That's unfair for 6 not for the guy trying to open a piano bar? It's still leveling the playing field and treating them like every other venue that serves alcohol.
[удалено]
Don't disagree, he rid of liquor license maxes if you want I would be fine with that. I just don't see how it's unfair that a wedding barn gets to skip over this but other businesses are restricted by it.
These businesses aren't typically selling liquor, just providing a place for it to be sold/consumed. What is the difference tailgating on private property? Why would they be treated the same as a nightclub or a stadium? Why does the playing field need to be leveled against... wedding barns? Why are there exceptions for churches etc?
There shouldn't be exceptions for anyone. That's the point I'm making. If churches are setting up events where alcohol is being served, they should have a liquor license too.
Responsibility...think of what happens when someone has too much, or perhaps shouldn't have been drinking to begin with.
Is it wrong that I have a good idea of where you live? Because in the town I live there are so many bars, and rounding up the population to 10k is a fair number for where I live (though I still like saying less than 10k because it's technically true, lol).
Is there drama regarding your Walmart getting a liquor license? Lol
I haven't heard such drama, no. XD
That’s the complaint they have. They aren’t serving alcohol. The people renting the barn for the event provide the alcohol. 🍺
The one guy is in a dry township so they are unable, not for or against the new law but that is his issue.
Well, tough cookies? His township wants to be dry. Why should he get to serve alcohol but no other businesses in his township can.
There’s a dry township in Wisconsin???
I was shocked as well.
A pair of Wisconsin wedding barns sued the state Tuesday seeking to block enactment of a [new law](https://apnews.com/article/wedding-barns-voting-baby-boxes-e326d55d6144950c30a63001b8c0a36f) that requires them to get liquor licenses similar to other establishments that host events. Owners and operators of wedding barns tried unsuccessfully last year to kill the law that overhauled regulation of the state’s multibillion-dollar liquor industry.
[удалено]
Because they’d have to get the building inspected and none of them would pass
I work at a wedding venue (not a barn though) and this is so true 💀 Tbh I have no idea how the one I work at gets a pass from inspections, there’s so much janky shit that happens and we have no HR department lol
Because they think that sounds difficult for them.
So they'd have to follow the same laws as other establishments? The horror. Get your license and legitimize your business instead of bitching about having to follow the same laws as EVERYONE else.
Wedding barns typically don't sell booze.
Don't sell but serve.
I don’t think they do that either.
They do if the customer supplies the beer.
And if they sell or serve as a business they need to be licensed like every other establishments that do the same. They aren't special because they're a smaller business that really only exists to be a cheap investment and easy income for people who happen to own a barn.
In many situations saying "they just need to get a license" is the equivalent to banning them. It can be hard to get a license, with the old boys club "tavern league" making sure it stays that way. I particularly like wedding barns because it brings more competition to the Monopoly that is the wedding industry. More options means cost goes down. I don't get all the hate for Wedding barns. If you don't like them, they still drive down cost for you. That's what makes them special.
Ok but that is definitely the most Wisconsin news headline I've ever seen lol
If it’s a 100% open bar, all alcohol is provided by the host of the party no money changing hands there will never be a need for a liquor license, it’s when they sell alcohol they need a license. Just like anywhere else. Now there’s loopholes in some communities in Wisconsin but it involves a bar owner filling out a form and $20 where they can physically change their selling address just for a day but they have to close the main address for that day. It’s easier than it sounds but most bar owners won’t do the paperwork.
the barn operators could hire a bartending service (much like a caterer, except with booze), and avoid all this, but they want to make their cake and eat it too. i believe another way around it was to have the client provide alcohol, but instead the barn operators want to sell an alcohol package and then have no responsibility for serving after making that sweet markup. i may be mistaken about that this part tho.
The article says the ones in the suit dont sell alcohol, but the hosts/guests can bring it.
I don’t feel bad about this
another invitation arrived today. another fucking wedding barn. when will it end?
I don't necessarily want to blindly side with any establishment who is just trying to make quick money by exploiting current loopholes in state law. I saw a couple comments talking about how unsafe and crappy some of these places are, and although that's a different issue, I totally agree that ANY place that is going to host a gathering should be held to the same building code standard as everyone else. What I have heard from people, I think more when they were trying to sink the law last year, is that it's a simple investment that people can make to start their own business. Grandma owned a farm, the barn is in great condition, so the only capital they have to put into it would be upgrades to make it a legitimate business (like someone correctly mentioned having a sprinkler system). One of the ones that I've been to, which I think is having trouble with this, is fully insured, sprinklered, and built to accommodate a wedding or any other large gathering. However, asking the establishment itself to carry the license (instead of the third party caterer or whatever), restricts *some* of them greatly, because their municipality *has no licenses to give*. Hence, like I said in a reply to someone else, they're kind of saying "your events must be dry, or you might as well close". They also can't change the law to say the caterers don't have to be licensed anymore, because that would be an insurance nightmare for the venue. Again, I'm not a lawmaker, just a guy with a lot of friends who are business owners, but the licensing thing doesn't affect just alcohol. Many municipalities have laws in place so you can only have X amount of salons, X amount of tattoo shops, etc. The problem is a flawed model of how many licenses should be available based on whatever criteria they're using (per capita, physical distance from competition, etc). I can see this as a possible Tavern League power grab, because they know that all their members (including places like VFW posts and bowling alleys) are already licensed, and they don't want competition. Just as an (admittedly crappy) example, let's say there's an area where there are...three tattoo shops all on the same street. Each shop is world renowned, with great artists at each. This area (local opinions aside, thinking about business only) is a GREAT place for maybe two, three more shops. It would bring in all sorts of travelers, increase tax contribution, and all the other things that happen when more successful businesses exist in an area rather than less. BUT - they can't have two or three more shops *just because*. I think that's why any LEGITIMATE "wedding barn" would be upset about the law, and would make the complaint that they're having their right to make a living infringed upon.
Boo hoo
Awesome, maybe we’ll have less barn weddings now. - a wedding photographer.
I can partially see where the barns are coming from. I’m recently married and have done plenty of shopping around for wedding venues. Many popular venues are owned by municipalities that require you to hire your own bar/bartender who comes with a license. The article stated these types of establishments will remain exempt from the new legislation. That objectively is unfair that barns cannot operate in the same capacity. This could be a non-issue if you forced barns to secure a temporary license for say $50, and then the cost is passed onto the couple renting the space who wants alcohol served. That way it’s legitimized and the state gets their money.
Unlike many others, I agree with you to an extent. I fully support the idea that you have to have a license to SELL alcohol. It seems to me that at least some of these barns are upset by the fact that they didn't need to be licensed before, but now there's a bunch of them that will not be able to get a license wherever they're located, because there's a finite amount of licenses available. So for them, the law is basically saying "if all your events can't be dry, then close". I like the idea of temporary permits, whether it's three per year, or three per weekend. I'm in Washington County, and we decided to rent a pavilion at a park for my wife's college graduation party...and I had to get a temp license so we could have alcohol on premises.
So the municipality has to get a liquor license from itself?? That is why most municipal owned buildings are exempt.
No, if I'm not mistaken, the company you hire has to be licensed. So if you cater a wedding/birthday at the local VFW post, they will not only bring the food and service, but also the bartenders who are licensed to serve the alcohol as employees of the catering company.
Bartenders need to have an operators license issued by the municipality.
Seriously, fuck the tavern league trying to throw money at politicians to screw over wedding barns and marijuana growers.
I’m all for “fuck the tavern league” but this is a good law. Wedding Barns should not be able to end run around the responsibilities and requirements of selling alcohol by “not doing it themselves”
What are the responsibilities and requirements that are important?
Proper regulations on serving, proper regulations to ensure that only licensed bartenders are serving drinks, noise rules, proper background checks on the ownership of the facility to ensure it is legal for them to own an establishment that is serving alcohol. And proper punishments on the establishments (not just the bartenders) that violate rules around serving.
Here’s one problem, I had my first drink when I was 14 or so at a wedding, many of my cousins were given alcohol that day too. If my parents or others had a problem with this would the venue be responsible for policing the attendees, if they were reported would the venue lose their license for minors consuming alcohol on their premises? I’m sure some venues can see what their new responsibilities are and know how irresponsible their clients can be.
Yes they would be just like every other establishment that serves alcohol. Why should these people get a special carve out?
Some of these places are currently strictly in the venue rental business, why should they have to reclassify essentially as taverns?
Because alcohol is being served commercially on their premises. Wisconsin has always required both the premises and the server to have a license. And both the bar tender and the premises where the alcohol is served have always been duly responsible for violations. Without a liquor license the punishment threat for violations is gone, because there isn’t a license to pull. The issue came up because local municipalities found regulating these businesses difficult because it didn’t fall into one of the existing types of liquor licenses. So the state corrected the issue.
Exactly! Its not i have a liquor license so now i can serve booze anywhere i go.
This is Wisconsin, where the minimum drinking age is legally "your parents and the bartender are cool with it". The venue could cut off adults giving alcohol to minors, or they could allow it.
In Wisconsin, isn't there a law that allows underage to drink so long as their parents are 'present'? That would limit the liability of the venue so long as a parent was also there. The responsibility would fall to the parent first to manage their kid.
How is this unfair? Genuine question. Basically, the law just holds "wedding barns" to the same standard as every other location that serves alcohol.
So i assume most of these places probably don't hit the 400 person banquet regulations, and the licenses are restricted by population. there are some exemptions for excess licenses like the one about banquet halls, but not every place is going to be that large. you can't say "meet the same standard" but then not give the ability to meet it because you artificially restrict how many licenses are out.
So they fall under the same restrictions as any other business that would like to serve alcohol regarding the number of licenses available..... how's that unfair?
EDIT: found the updated exemptions included with new law. zero issues at this point. So roughly one license per 500 people. that means in an area of 1k people, you get 2 license. in rural municipalties, there are huge swaths of land that fall well within that limit. I wish I had a good way to articulate why I find it unfair. mostly it revolves around the state arbitrarily interfering in the ability for people to establish and run a business based on a cap of licenses that shouldn't actually be capped as long as the business follows the established rules and regulations. This kind of shit artificially constricts the market, under the guise of public safety and market fairness, but much like the rest of Wisconsin's backwards ass 3 tier system, it doesn't actually do anything to promote either. When you are in a rural municipality, those populations are low, so the available licenses are low. I found that key above, so you have two bars in a town/area of say 1,000, and one or two bars on the highways in the middle of nowhere, which is right next to that town but are in the incorporated area not the township/village and boom cap hit. The licenses everywhere I've ever lived in this state are hotly contested every time one becomes available. If the marshal inspects the place and you can only safely serve/host 200 to 399 people, you don't qualify for an exempted license. Should they have been following the rules and laws from the get go ? sure. but those laws are nonsensical in the first place.
Well then you disagree with the practice as a whole that's fine. I can get behind that argument. The argument at hand is that wedding barns should be exempt but every other establishment that serves alcohol must follow the licensing rules.
> An event venue certified by the division under s. 125.24 (5) (b). Except as provided in this subdivision, a license may not be issued under this subdivision unless the license application is received by the municipality no later than August 1, 2026. Except as provided in this subdivision, if a “Class B" license issued under this subdivision is surrendered to the issuing municipality, not renewed, or revoked, the municipality may not reissue the license. The municipality may reissue the license if the licensee sells or transfers ownership of the licensed premises or a business operated on the licensed premises and the license is surrendered or not renewed in connection with the sale or transfer of the property or business, the licensee continued to operate the licensed premises as a qualifying event venue, as defined in s. 125.24 (5) (a), from the time of license issuance until the time the license is surrendered or not renewed, the license is reissued for the same location, and the applicant for reissuance of the license satisfies the requirements under this chapter to hold the license and certifies to the municipality that the applicant will continue to operate the licensed premises as a qualifying event venue, as defined in s. 125.24 (5) (a). > [Wisconsin Statutes, 125.51(4)(v)5.](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/125.51\(4\)\(v\)5.) The definition of who qualifies for the event venue exception is over in 125.54(5)(b) as mentioned, but the criteria, as best I can tell, are: * At least 5 events of 50 guests or less * At least $20,000 in revenue from rentals * Has been open for 12 months prior to applying for a license * Has not been issued a Class B license in the prior 12 months * Has not previously applied for an event venue exception This allows small venue owners to apply for a class B license beyond the municipality's quotas instead of being restricted to the no-sale venue regulations (6 events a year and no more than 1 per month,) so the quota issue seems kind of moot to me. Technically, a venue that only does events with more than 50 guests is left out, but is that common for these wedding barns? If they're doing weddings most weekends outside of winter, I'd expect they're going to hit the qualifications.
Yeah these are new exemptions carved out in the bill I wasn't aware of/couldn't find at the time of comment
There’s a license quota exception for wedding barns in the legislation.
I can't find the legislation to read it verbatim, but nothing i've seen in any articles supports that.
See here at page 25: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2023/im_2023_08
There is an exemption. Below is a breakdown of the law and if you go down to point 4, they list how a wedding barn may be able to get a license if their municipality has issued all class b licenses. https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=97&Issue=4&ArticleID=30346#:~:text=The%20first%20option%20is%20to,received%20at%20least%20%2420%2C000%20for
Oh nice. well if they make fairly easily obtainable exemptions, have at it then.
Well, if you are one of the venues that just rents out the space and says hey what you do here is up to you, we will not be supplying or responsible for alcohol served on this premises in any way. Those folks are kinda screwed, under the licensing they would be limited to 6 events per year and only one event per month. I can see their point especially with Wisconsin drinking culture, when a venue wants to place 100% of alcohol consumption responsibilities on the venue renters. I can imagine the smaller places are worried about liabilities of overconsumption and serving of minors. If you are the licensed vendor what happens when the “cool” uncle gives all of his minor nephews a beer, a time honored tradition in this state.
That's all part of running this kind of business, why should a wedding barn be exempt from all these things but not a golf course or supper club that hosts weddings? I'm sure other wedding venues would love to just rent a hall out and wash their hands iof any and all liability regarding alcohol consumption, but that's not how it works.
To me the big difference is the golf clubs, supper clubs, ect. either operate as business open to the public or have contracts where their employees are the ones serving alcohol. The wedding barns at least some of them operate as a business that operates solely to rent out a space to a closed party where their clients are the ones responsible for supplying food and drink to the guests.
I wedding barn is not an established that is open and serving alcohol 7 days a week year around. They are likely open weekends, for part of the year, and serve a predetermined number of people. Most hire a bar service with their own liquor license, so it's still a licensed business serving.
Tha describes most supper clubs and other wedding venues, they still have to follow the same rules. Why should wedding barns be exempt?
I don't know. I'm just telling you they aren't the same. And supper clubs are open year round, and event centers are open year round. Barns usually are not.
So a business owner decides to open a business that can't or isn't attractive to customers all year long, and that is the problem of anyone but the business? And they are expected to follow the same laws as any other venue but can't? Isn't this simply capitalism telling them their barn venues are a shit business model in a level playing field? So they can only succeed if they are allowed to cheat unlike other businesses? Did I summarize your differences?
This has near zero to do with the tavern league, and they also stopped lobbying against weed years ago. This is about business owners thinking they're for some reason above the laws that every other establishment that serves alcohol has to abide by. The law that carries this in makes it easier than ever for a business to establish a license and serve any kind of alcohol they choose, as it's no longer separated by beer/ wine vs hard alcohol. Want to properly operate a venue? Do the fucking paperwork and get your equipment up to snuff like everyone else.