Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias

Seattle Times:

Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias

Three bisexual men are suing a national gay-athletic organization, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in the Seattle area two years ago.
The three Bay Area men say the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance in essence deemed them not gay enough to participate in the series.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle accuses the alliance of violating Washington state laws barring discrimination. The alliance organizes the annual Gay Softball World Series.

Beth Allen, the alliance’s attorney, said the lawsuit is unwarranted and that the three plaintiffs “were not discriminated against in any unlawful manner.”

You mean there are lawful ways to discriminate? Tell me more, please.

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

A private organisation like . . . the Boy Scouts?

Discrimination carries a negative vibe in everyday speech, but strictly speaking it’s basically differentiation and so, as long as there are valid and good enough reasons for treating people differently, that’s lawful discrimination, though you won’t normally hear this expression.

:rotfl:

I always flip the tables on this.

Okay, let’s have a softball tournament for straights only.

Let’s have the White Music Awards.

Let’s have the White Music Entertainment TV station.

I am wondering why it is okay to discriminate against whites, males, or heterosexuals.

I am not a racist. Why don’t we just say discrimination is wrong no matter what?

Discrimination is pretty much always legal unless specified in law.

[quote=didymus]A private organisation like . . . the Boy Scouts?[/FONT]
[/quote]

Exactly.

:shrug:Because it’s not.

Originally Posted by didymus
A private organisation like . . . the Boy Scouts?

I wonder if this organization will be denied access to some public locations like the Boy Scouts are.

[quote="Brendan, post:7, topic:195871"]
I wonder if this organization will be denied access to some public locations like the Boy Scouts are.

[/quote]

That of course will depend on local law. Governments are free to enact laws that limit access to public facilities to those organizations that don't discriminate on whatever basis, but most governments do not do this, AFAIK.

The real reason for this 'discrimination' is that bisexuality is hard to explain with the gay is an absolute; like your race or sex, dogma of the homosexualist movement who are on the vanguard of secularist lefts war on the human race and the logos.

Why is that we assume that to discriminate is wrong? What is a discriminating taste? A dictionary analogy is to distinguish or differentiate. It means to see a difference. The assumption is that to discriminate is always wrong. Why? We are taught to think this way. It is bad thinking. A little more mental effort would involve including the concept of fairness. So it is bad to discriminate unfairly. I don’t like that person because he is _____. And all ____'s are bad. But we must discriminate and integrate as well as generalize in order to think. But we’ve also heard it’s bad to generalize. Why again? I think the reason is to shut down thought; to make people passive to the politically correct dogma that poisons our age.

Why is that we assume that to discriminate is wrong? What is a discriminating taste? A dictionary analogy is to distinguish or differentiate. It means to see a difference. The assumption is that to discriminate is always wrong. Why? We are taught to think this way. It is bad thinking. A little more mental effort would involve including the concept of fairness. So it is bad to discriminate unfairly. I don’t like that person because he is _____. And all ____'s are bad. But we must discriminate and integrate as well as generalize in order to think. But we’ve also heard it’s bad to generalize. Why again? I think the reason is to shut down thought; to make people passive to the politically correct dogma that poisons our age.

**

Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias

I wish I could stop laughing............because it's so sad. :(**

Under Comments, comment #3: “I guess they didn’'t want any switch hitters.” :D:D:D

I wish I could stop laughing.

On a serious note, if there are any lawyers out there, please explain the discrimination issues, and why Boy Scouts would be different.

I’m not a lawyer, but I like to follow these legal issues. [list]
*]Private organizations have the right to discriminate as they see fit. You can’t sue the Aryan Nation when they deny your membership because you’re black. So baseball leagues, fraternal organizations, lobbying groups, etc can all discriminate in their membership or whatever other ways they choose. So the Boy Scouts are no different.
*]Providers of public accommodations or other services may not discriminate unreasonably in providing these services. So suppose the Elks Club owns a lodge building in a big city that has a number of residential units. They may be able to limit the doorman position to Elks Club members - in other words, discriminating against women. But they can’t discriminate against a protected class in renting rooms to the public.
*]The main protected classes under federal law are race, color, national origin, religion, sex. Other classes have been added since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 codified those five, but I think they may only apply in certain situations - only housing or only employment, for instance. These include age, disability, and veteran status. Local laws may add additional classes - e.g. Cincinnati prohibits discrimination against Appalachian-Americans. Sexual orientation is one that is relevant to this thread. But even in a city or state (such as Washington) where discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, it doesn’t apply to private groups, as we discussed above.
*]The government itself is generally under the same or stricter standards in hiring and providing services. I believe it is bound not to support any group that discriminates against protected classes. The KKK can rent a public building or get a permit on neutral terms, but in cases where the government has the discretion to provide “sweetheart deals” [my term], it cannot do so with groups that discriminate. The cases I’m most familiar with are where the Boy Scouts had favorable terms in place to lease a city building for its headquarters, or part of a public park for outdoor activities, at much lower than the fair market rate. In other words,you would not have been able to get the same lease terms if you approached the local government on behalf of the Fraternal Order of ManOnFire. I’m honestly not sure about the exact extent of local and federal law on this issue, so I may have mischaracterized it as just a local issue in my post above. I think in cases like sexual orientation which are not federal protected classes, local law would have to specifically mandate this approach.[/list]As I see it, the only way I can see the plaintiff prevailing would be if somehow the baseball league could be shown to be a public accommodation rather than a private association or club. However, if the baseball league has a favorable lease on ballfields in jurisdictions where the local government is bound not to provide support to discriminatory groups, it could lose those leases.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.