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"?

When I first read the title I thought for sure this had to do with shaving with both hands. Read and learn, hey?

If the team is truly "private", it can admit and exclude whomever it wants, even if its choices are based on discriminatory/bigoted criteria. If the team is not truly private, its ability to set up membership rules based upon discriminatory criteria is circumscribed by law.
The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization (some have tried to argue otherwise, but the courts have so far disagreed, I believe) and it therefore can refuse admission to those who don't comply with their membership criteria, including gays. Same with the Catholic Church-it's a private organization not funded by taxpayer dollars and therefore has unfettered discretion over who it wants to admit or exclude.
Does the dichotomy between between truly private vs. public organizations lead to litigation in instances where it is unclear or disputed as to whether they are indeed private or public? Sure. But tell me: what other mechanism exists in this country to resolve this type of dispute if the parties can't otherwise agree? And although it might take a court case to resolve this particular matter, the court's decision (or possibly the final appellate ruling, if needed) will resolve the dispute for a host of other similarly-situated matters, eliminating the need for them to file separate lawsuits.
Just my 2 cents...

Originally Posted by JMS

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:

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!