Thread: Switch hitters need not apply.

Local News | Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias | Seattle Times Newspaper

Okay, I read this story and I laughed my arse off but the story begs the question as to how far we let this sort of thing go. I mean that this really puts the cherry on the litigious cake don't you think.

This quote here really caught my attention:

In any case, Allen said, the alliance is a private organization and, as such, can determine its membership based on its goals.

Do you think the Boy Scouts could say this? How about the Catholic church?
Hey, I want to start my own all white, all men, all heterosexual club. Lets see how far that will go.

All responses to the story and or my question are welcome.

BillyJeff2 need not reply
Just teasing Billy!

I actually have to disagree with your argument on this one...
It is a private group, and it can set it's own rules for membership.

Sure, other organizations would get a lot of attention if this were reversed, but there is nothing preventing it.
Oh, and you can't start the aforementioned club, it already exists: KKK.
(ok, I'm not that familiar with the Klan, but as I understand, it only allows white hetero males...)

I still think the pants lawsuit was better, but this one will definitely have more personal drama...

Originally Posted by HNSB

I actually have to disagree with your argument on this one...
It is a private group, and it can set it's own rules for membership.

Sure, other organizations would get a lot of attention if this were reversed, but there is nothing preventing it.
Oh, and you can't start the aforementioned club, it already exists: KKK.
(ok, I'm not that familiar with the Klan, but as I understand, it only allows white hetero males...)

You don't disagree with me at all. I haven't even presented my argument. I only showed what I believe to be an inconsistency in the existing argument.

Oooh.. You are a master baiter Mark.

Originally Posted by JMS

You don't disagree with me at all. I haven't even presented my argument. I only showed what I believe to be an inconsistency in the existing argument.

Originally Posted by JMS

You don't disagree with me at all. I haven't even presented my argument. I only showed what I believe to be an inconsistency in the existing argument.

Good point. I made assumptions based on the questions. Sorry.

So... In answer to the questions: I do think it is ok for a group to discriminate. I don't think it should be a big deal.
I do think it would be a media circus if a large well known group decided to discriminate against members of a "protected class". But there's nothing to stop a group from doing it, and there should not be anything to stop them. Ever.

Did you read the article? IF the Gay World Series is a "public accomidation" AND sexual orientation is a protected class under state law, then it seems that there is at least SOME rational basis for the suit.

IF on the other hand, the alliance (and the World Series) is strictly private, then it seems MUCH less likely that there is anywhere for the suit to go.

That question, however, is one that will need to be decided by the court.

To what seems to be your point....wait...what's your point? Lawsuits are bad? Lawsuits based on sexual orientation discrimination are bad? Foie Gras is murder (tasty, tasty murder)?

And your questions: I think we had the answer to the Boy Scouts question, already. And the Catholic Church only gives certain "rights" to Catholics, correct? And to heterosexuals....and I think they are still tax-exempt.

My point is that no matter the law these sorts of suits and others such as the infamous hot coffee suit, the pants suit, the motor home suit where the guy sued because he went back to get a drink and the vehicle went of the road, etc. etc. etc. make a joke of the whole damned system. When will common sense be restored?
Reminds me of little children fighting. Where is the guiding influence for these "children"?

Originally Posted by JMS

My point is that no matter the law these sorts of suits and others such as the infamous hot coffee suit, the pants suit, the motor home suit where the guy sued because he went back to get a drink and the vehicle went of the road, etc. etc. etc. make a joke of the whole damned system. When will common sense be restored?
Reminds me of little children fighting. Where is the guiding influence for these "children"?

Ever read this one?

It wasn't just "hot" coffee. It resulted in third degree burns. The woman took a risk putting it between her legs sure. It was proven in court that McDonald's (who refused initial settlements that were ONLY for her medical costs) knowingly provided coffee that was hot enough to cause serious burns even in the face of evidence that their reason for selling coffee so hot was not valid.

I can't comment on the rest of these cases, but in this one there is certainly a lot more to the story than most people realize. She tried mediation and McD's denied. She went to court and McD's got what they deserved based on the facts of the case.

-Rob

Not quite. Coffee should be served scalding hot. If that women was stupid enough to put scalding hot coffee between her legs, then she had it coming. And I don't blame MickyD for not wanting to mediate. If she had had integrity, she would have sued for damages, not for a big lottery style 'never have to work again' paycheck for something that was caused by her own stupidity.