PDA

View Full Version : FDRL JUDGE: Sexual preference discrimination OK!



LWW
06-03-2011, 02:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A gay softball organization can keep its rule limiting the number of heterosexual players on each team, but allegations by three players who say they were disqualified from a tournament because they weren't gay enough can proceed to trial, a federal judge said.

The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance oversees gay softball leagues in dozens of U.S. cities and runs an annual tournament called the Gay Softball World Series. Three men claim in a lawsuit filed last year that their team's second-place finish in the 2008 tournament in Washington state was nullified because they are bisexual, not gay, and thus their team exceeded the limit of two non-gay players.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled Tuesday that the organization has a First Amendment right to limit the number of heterosexual players, much as the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays.

"It would be difficult for NAGAAA to effectively emphasize a vision of the gay lifestyle rooted in athleticism, competition and sportsmanship if it were prohibited from maintaining a gay identity," the judge wrote.

However, Coughenour did say that questions remain about the way the softball association applied its rule, including whether the questions asked about the men's sexuality at a protest hearing were unnecessarily intrusive. Therefore, the case can proceed toward a trial set for Aug. 1, he said.

The San Francisco-based team the men played on, D2, was disqualified after others at the tournament questioned their sexuality and filed a protest. Under questioning, the men, Stephen Apilado, Laron Charles and John Russ, were evasive or declined to discuss their sexuality, according to the organization.

For example, minutes of the hearing say that Charles claimed to be gay but acknowledged being married to a woman, and Apilado initially said he was both gay and straight but then acknowledged being more attracted to women.

The minutes say rumors had persisted for years about whether D2 was stacking its team with straight ringers. In addition to the three plaintiffs, the team had two designated straight players. The organization says it has always considered bisexuals to meet the definition of "gay" for roster purposes, but the minutes also note that one official involved in the decision to disqualify D2 commented that "this is not a bisexual world series. This is a gay world series."

"Plaintiff's allegations about defendant's treatment of bisexuality remain of central importance to this case," the judge said. "Defendant could still be liable for its actions."

Chris Stoll, a spokesman for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, which is representing the three men, said Friday its lawyers were reviewing the opinion and legal options.

"We think that the law is clear; NAGAAA doesn't have a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation," he said. </div></div>
Where does the madness end? (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015218590_apusgaysoftball1stldwritethru.html)

Sev
06-03-2011, 08:41 PM
A bunch of bigoted herophobes.

They are just jealous that the straight guys are better batters.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 11:12 AM
That's exactly the situation with gays in employment and housing today, under the law.

A prospective employer, or someone renting or selling a house, can turn down gays and explicitly state the reason is that they are gay, and that is entirely legal almost everywhere but a few enclaves where a local law prohibits that kind of discrimination.

But state wide, any state, and country-wide, under federal law, that discrimination is not debarred.

Funny, straights only find that a problem if the gays use it against them, in a matter not critical to life (such as housing or employment), but with regard to joining a softball team?

That is hilarious, but sad.

LWW
06-04-2011, 01:00 PM
Man you just never, ever, get it.

I don't have a problem with the league banning straights.

I don't have a problem with a league that only allows one eyed teenage Nazi lesbians.

What I have a problem with is people who incessantly bleat about discrimination and then discriminate themselves.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Man you just never, ever, get it.

I don't have a problem with the league banning straights.

I don't have a problem with a league that only allows one eyed teenage Nazi lesbians.

What I have a problem with is people who incessantly bleat about discrimination and then discriminate themselves.
</div></div>

So by parallel reasoning, you think Miss Black America ought to allow white women to compete, since sometimes a few African-American women now get into the Miss America contest?

What sounds fair at first blush may not stand up to scrutiny.

When gays complain about discrimination over orientation in housing and employment, you think they shouldn't discriminate in what amounts to a private organization's club setting? These are not the same whatsoever, and do not fall under the same analysis.

No one's life is much changed by being allowed or not allowed to be in a softball league. People who can be thrown out of housing, fired from employment for their orientation have massive dislocations in their lives.

These are parallel only upon a shallow and vapid quick take.

Moreover, you've buried the lede in this case, which is that the judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed to trial, despite the ruled legality of LIMITING (not wholly restricting) the various teams' heterosexual players.

Actually, this is fairly hilarious, in that the issue is that these gay guys supposedly aren't gay enough, and may even be bi-sexual, despite having same-sex sex.

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 02:15 PM
Are you suggesting that discrimination is ok, as long as it's for a reason you think is ok?

Is it now just a matter of degree? OK for a ball team, but not for employment?

Are you going to be the one to draw the line?

Or is it just ok if the one doing the discriminating happens to be a minority or opressed group?

Is it ok to give a gay person a job over a straight person, but not the other way around?

Is affirmative action ok when it elevates a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply because of skin color?

Do I owe a group of people something special, because of what my great grandfather did to someone years ago?

It's either right, or it's wrong. Which side are you on?

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 03:05 PM
There's my position, and then there is the law, which I sometimes agree with, sometimes don't agree with.

The law now allows this kind of discrimination, as the judge ruled in this case (correctly, as I understand the law).

I favor changing these laws in areas of housing and employment. For private clubs and such, there is only public pressure that can be brought to bear, which the private organizations can find persuasive or not.

For instance, Augusta National Countryclub is under such public pressure, and continues to resist it.

LWW
06-05-2011, 03:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Man you just never, ever, get it.

I don't have a problem with the league banning straights.

I don't have a problem with a league that only allows one eyed teenage Nazi lesbians.

What I have a problem with is people who incessantly bleat about discrimination and then discriminate themselves.
</div></div>

So by parallel reasoning, you think Miss Black America ought to allow white women to compete, since sometimes a few African-American women now get into the Miss America contest?

What sounds fair at first blush may not stand up to scrutiny.

When gays complain about discrimination over orientation in housing and employment, you think they shouldn't discriminate in what amounts to a private organization's club setting? These are not the same whatsoever, and do not fall under the same analysis.

No one's life is much changed by being allowed or not allowed to be in a softball league. People who can be thrown out of housing, fired from employment for their orientation have massive dislocations in their lives.

These are parallel only upon a shallow and vapid quick take.

Moreover, you've buried the lede in this case, which is that the judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed to trial, despite the ruled legality of LIMITING (not wholly restricting) the various teams' heterosexual players.

Actually, this is fairly hilarious, in that the issue is that these gay guys supposedly aren't gay enough, and may even be bi-sexual, despite having same-sex sex. </div></div>

Yep ... you are either totally incapable of, or completely unwilling to, get it.

Let me make it as simple as I can:

- If a group wishes to have a Black beauty pageant, they should be allowed.

- If gays want to have a softball league, they should be allowed.

At the same time:

- If a white group wishes to have a beauty pageant, they should be allowed.

- If someone decides to start an all straight league, they should be allowed.

The COTUS guarantees that the state shall not discriminate. People, as individuals ... 100% of us ... do discriminate to some degree.

It is completely hypocritical of the far left, and sadly expected, to balkanize America by championing things like a Miss Black America Pageant while screaming racism about a private club that allows whites only.

I would never join a club that precluded members of certain races, but I have no authority to force my values upon them.

I can understand, although I disagree with, people wanting to force anti bogus discrimination rules on others.

What I can't understand is the far left attempting to force anti discrimination rules upon one section of society while promoting it for another section.

This insanity is what destroyed Yugoslavia and split Iraq asunder by favoring Shia discrimination against Sunnis and Jews.

LWW
06-05-2011, 03:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's my position, and then there is the law, which I sometimes agree with, sometimes don't agree with.

The law now allows this kind of discrimination, as the judge ruled in this case (correctly, as I understand the law).

I favor changing these laws in areas of housing and employment. For private clubs and such, there is only public pressure that can be brought to bear, which the private organizations can find persuasive or not.

For instance, Augusta National Countryclub is under such public pressure, and continues to resist it. </div></div>

Simple question ... do you support Affirmative Action?

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 11:52 AM
As I understand it, yes I do. As it is caricatured, no I do not.

Remember, this remnant of our country's original sin, slavery, were under legally prescribed educational disadvantage for many generations until the year I was born when Brown v. Board of Education reversed the Plessy v. Ferguson separate but 'equal' standard.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 12:06 PM
So, since the law of the land now mandates that everyone have the same access to education, there is no longer any need for Affirmative Action. The people who were wronged in the past are not the ones benefiting from it...it is people who have had the same opportunities as anyone else. So how is that "fair"?

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 02:32 PM
How young people learn and are motivated to learn comes first from their parents and their older generation.

The younger A-A generation these days was not held back by deliberate segregation of schools, but their parents and grandparents were.

You cannot reverse the effects of several hundred years of legal discrimination in one generation or two, nor can it be said that in the absence of legal discrimination in the quality of education, that full equality of education now prevails.

Well you could say it, but it isn't true.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 03:30 PM
In that case, why are those who did not hold them back being punished? I'm sorry if these kids' parents didn't encourage them to get that free education that is sitting out there for the taking, but does that mean that those kids are entitled to special consideration when they are out in the real world competing for jobs.

I can tell you for a fact, if I'm hiring someone, I'm looking for the best qualified candidate, not the one that the giverment tells me I have to hire.

Steve

LWW
06-05-2011, 03:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I understand it, yes I do. As it is caricatured, no I do not.</div></div>

Then I would expect you to tomorrow AM resign your position so that a lesser qualified person can have your job.

Anything less will be an act of hypocrisy.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 10:59 AM
Right, Humpty Dumpty, because that's what Affirmative Action requires, that people who have jobs must resign.

Got it. (Please send me a postcard from the planet you live on. Must be interesting there!)

LWW
06-06-2011, 04:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right, Humpty Dumpty, because that's what Affirmative Action requires, that people who have jobs must resign.

Got it. (Please send me a postcard from the planet you live on. Must be interesting there!) </div></div>

Why didn't you answer the question?

AA demands that the people more qualified for the job be denied in favor of the less qualified.

If you demand that someone else should forego employment that they are qualified for so that your sense of justice can be assuaged, but you refuse to surrender your employment in favor of a lesser qualified person ...then your actions are completely hypocritical.

You can spin it however you want, but you are simply another leftist who wishes to enforce rules on society that you yourself refuse to abide by.