Jump to content

Menu

New update: Trying to wrap my head around this (Non-faith based vs Faith based events)


TeenagerMom
 Share

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, TechWife said:

The first two are US Supreme Court Decisions and the second two are state court decisions.

Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993)

This case has nothing to do with this issue. The issue here has to do with whether the school district's actions were viewpoint neutral in renting to the religious organization. The religious movies shown were open to the public.

Good News Cub v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

Again, this case is not on point. No one is disputing that a religious organization can hold an event at a public facility. The issue is whether the organization can turn around, in using the public facility, and discriminate against *protected classes* in the operation of said public facility.

Wallace v. Washoe County School District, 818 F. Supp. 1346 (D. Nevada 1992)

Same issue. Not on point.

Shumway v. Albany County School District, 826 F. Supp. 1320 (D. Wyo. 1993)

Same issue. Not on point, and the event was open to the public.

None of these cases are on point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

You are incorrect. A private event is private. You do not have to ask anyone to attend. If a public organization, say, a parks and recreation department, allows the Smith family to rent a picnic pavilion for a family reunion, they must also all First Christian Church to rent a picnic pavilion for their church picnic. The city has no say in who is or is not invited to the events. If the city were to host a picnic at a pavilion, it would not be allowed to discriminate because it is the city. However, private organizations can invite whoever they want to their party, and they don't have to allow party crashers.

 

You continue to miss the issue. First Christian Church is perfectly entitled to rent the public facility. However, First Christian Church is not allowed to use the public facility in a way that discriminates against *protected class* members. So, if First Christian Church says that only church members are allowed to come to the event, that is fine. If First Christian Church says that only white people may come to our church and attend our event, that is not fine. It is a public facility. If you want to discriminate against *protected classes* of taxpayers, you have to do so in a private facility, not a public one.

OP, I know that you don't want to rock the boat, but again, I would urge you to let your membership have a voice in how they are being represented in these issues. I would be livid if an inclusive homeschool group, of which I am a member, refused to enforce the rights of LGBTQ and non-Christian members because they were just trying to "get along" with a bunch of bigots.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The language in the rental agreements I have seen specifically says ‘renters may not discriminate based on’ and of course lists the protected classes.  

Eta: of course it’s certainly possible that language might actually be unenforceable given how many Girl Scout meetings are held in schools....

 

Yes, this is correct. I posted the exact language that I have seen above. And this was from a library in Texas. Google around and anyone can see that these anti-discrimination clauses are standard language when you rent a public facility. You cannot use taxpayer-funded, government facilities to discriminate against protected classes of people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the explanation that the Christian group urged them to have this day and are now annoyed that they invited everyone. If that turns out to be the case, I think you should go ahead and attend. They're not holding it and you have just as much right to attend as any other homeschooler.

If the county facility finally calls you back and clarifies this and this does turn out to be the case, I'd explain the situation - the other group is angry that people of other religious beliefs will be attending and lay out your belief that to uninvite your group would be discrimination at this point. And I'd just give it to them plainly that you still intend to go - again, if they are actually the sponsors. I wouldn't contact the woman from the other group at all, but I might suggest to the person running this event that she might want to do so and explain whatever their policy is - because as a government-owned facility I can't imagine they don't have a non-discrimination policy.

If they call you back and tell you that it is a private event that the other group booked, then I'd really lay into them over how they invited your group as well as how they presented the event as being for all homeschoolers. Honestly, I think they should hold it for you at the same cost that you were going to pay on another day. I mean, they falsely advertised it if it was a private contract.

I understand in an abstract way the idea of only wanting to socialize with your own kind, but the apartheid mentality of a certain type of Christian homeschoolers is really not something I have much sympathy for.

  • Like 18
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if it turns out that this was a privately booked event, then the whole thing makes zero sense. If I privately booked a family reunion for the Smith family, signed a contract for it, and set up the payment, then why in the world would the venue then send notices to random other people named Smith inviting them to the event I booked? Because if it's a privately booked event, then that's basically what happened here.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

You continue to miss the issue. First Christian Church is perfectly entitled to rent the public facility. However, First Christian Church is not allowed to use the public facility in a way that discriminates against *protected class* members. So, if First Christian Church says that only church members are allowed to come to the event, that is fine. If First Christian Church says that only white people may come to our church and attend our event, that is not fine. It is a public facility. If you want to discriminate against *protected classes* of taxpayers, you have to do so in a private facility, not a public one.

 

First, you are forgetting that the members of First Christian Church are a protected class themselves. Second, what would be the difference between First Christian having a members only event and a faith based homeschool group having a members only event?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

First, you are forgetting that the members of First Christian Church are a protected class themselves. Second, what would be the difference between First Christian having a members only event and a faith based homeschool group having a members only event?

I don't forget that at all. As I said, First Christian is a protected class, and not renting to them simply because of their religion would be viewpoint discrimination.

I was assuming that First Christian Church allowed everyone to join their church. Isn't that what Christians do -- try to save everyone from hellfire damnation? Or, do they turn away sinners from First Christian Church? I was assuming not.

The faith-based homeschool group in this case has expressly said that it does not want members of protected classes to attend their event, held in a public facility. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeaConquest said:

I don't forget that at all. As I said, First Christian is a protected class, and not renting to them simply because of their religion would be viewpoint discrimination.

I was assuming that First Christian Church allowed everyone to join their church. Isn't that what Christians do -- try to save everyone from hellfire damnation? Or, do they turn away sinners from First Christian Church? I was assuming not.

The faith-based homeschool group in this case has expressly said that it does not want members of protected classes to attend their event, held in a public facility. 

 

No, all Christian churches do not allow everyone to join their churches. Churches have varying policies on church memberships. It is not uncommon for church members to be required to agree to a statement of faith that may or may not be viewed as discriminatory towards other protected classes. Many churches require that you adhere to the particular beliefs of their faith tradition. Many (most?) Christian churches require someone be a professing Christian in order to join.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

No, all Christian churches do not allow everyone to join their churches. Churches have varying policies on church memberships. It is not uncommon for church members to be required to agree to a statement of faith that may or may not be viewed as discriminatory towards other protected classes. Many churches require that you adhere to the particular beliefs of their faith tradition. Many (most?) Christian churches require someone be a professing Christian in order to join.

 

Again, I don't care if the library rents to the Aryan Nation for a meeting (assuming that they are not inciting violence at the meeting), but they still have to allow Blacks and Jews to attend, per every anti-discrimination clause I have ever seen in a public facility rental agreement.

Similarly, Christians need to allow protected classes of sinners to attend (the protected class being defined by state and local laws in the case of state and local facilities, and federal laws in federal facilities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Really? What's doing no one good is allowing a bunch of religious bigots to bar taxpayers from using county facilities that said taxpayers help to fund. It is disgusting and I would fight it.

 If you rented a facility for your child's birthday would you want to choose who attended? If say PETA rented a facility could they discriminate against allowing a man in a leather coat and a turkey leg in his hand from entering their event? If you were using the public library for an adult art class are you unable to discriminate by age? And visa versa if you were playing in a soccer rec league on a public park field could you discriminate from older kids playing on younger kids teams?

I do not hold this woman's view about non-Christians, homosexuals, or any other group of people as less/other/unwelcomed.  Not in the least. But IF the facility was rented by her (and the facility messed up in inviting other groups), and IF it was otherwise not open to the public on that day, it seems she should be able to invite whom she likes. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Again, I don't care if the library rents to the Aryan Nation for a meeting (assuming that they are not inciting violence at the meeting), but they still have to allow Blacks and Jews to attend, per every anti-discrimination clause I have ever seen in a public facility rental agreement.

Similarly, Christians need to allow protected classes of sinners to attend (the protected class being defined by state and local laws in the case of state and local facilities, and federal laws in federal facilities).

 

Thankfully, it is not up to others to determine what any individual church needs to do as far as what they "allow" and don't "allow."

Churches are allowed to have closed meetings and they are also allowed to have specific elements of their church life off limits to non-believers, even if those non-believers are in another protected class. The very practice of some faith traditions requires this. The difference is that they are "discriminating" not because the individual members of the other protected class are members of that class, but because the beliefs of the individual members of that protected class conflict with the beliefs and practices of the individual church and it's members, who also make up a protected class.

Diversity without allowing for differences is not diversity.

I feel like I am just repeating myself, so I'm going to try to refrain from doing so any longer, as I don't usually find it beneficial to anyone. I'll be glad to answer specific questions if anyone has one.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Targhee said:

 If you rented a facility for your child's birthday would you want to choose who attended? If say PETA rented a facility could they discriminate against allowing a man in a leather coat and a turkey leg in his hand from entering their event?

Irrelevant. Carnivores are not a protected class under the law.

If you were using the public library for an adult art class are you unable to discriminate by age? And visa versa if you were playing in a soccer rec league on a public park field could you discriminate from older kids playing on younger kids teams?

This is exactly why we have Title IX -- to ensure equal federal funding in sports teams. Different states have different laws at the state level. Here is California: https://legalaidatwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fair_Play_Act_Compliance_Toolkit.pdf

I do not hold this woman's view about non-Christians, homosexuals, or any other group of people as less/other/unwelcomed.  Not in the least. But IF the facility was rented by her (and the facility messed up in inviting other groups), and IF it was otherwise not open to the public on that day, it seems she should be able to invite whom she likes. 

Again, if it was a private facility, fine. But, most (I would assume, if not all) states' public accommodations laws would shut this type of discrimination down. It is standard language in public rental contracts. That's why I asked the state involved.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

Thankfully, it is not up to others to determine what any individual church needs to do as far as what they "allow" and don't "allow."

Churches are allowed to have closed meetings and they are also allowed to have specific elements of their church life off limits to non-believers, even if those non-believers are in another protected class. The very practice of some faith traditions requires this. The difference is that they are "discriminating" not because the individual members of the other protected class are members of that class, but because the beliefs of the individual members of that protected class conflict with the beliefs and practices of the individual church and it's members, who also make up a protected class.

Diversity without allowing for differences is not diversity.

I feel like I am just repeating myself, so I'm going to try to refrain from doing so any longer, as I don't usually find it beneficial to anyone. I'll be glad to answer specific questions if anyone has one.

 

No one wants to shut down your faith tradition. I could care less what you/they believe. That's why we have churches. Go use them to spread your message. But, in this case, we are talking about using taxpayer/sinner-funded government facilities to further discrimination against people that are expressly protected under the law, and it is illegal, to my knowledge. I've asked you to show me caselaw or legislation proving otherwise. You haven't, and the OP doesn't want to disclose the specific state so that I can look up the laws there. I can tell you that that kind of behavior would never fly in my state and it sickens me that others think it is just fine to use public facilities to promote intolerance against the people who funded them.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

So you're telling me if you rented the covered pavilion in the park for your kid's birthday party and it was attended by 3 groups of complete strangers you could ask the white-male-cis-gendered guys to leave but you couldn't ask the disabled group or the black group? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Targhee said:

So you're telling me if you rented the covered pavilion in the park for your kid's birthday party and it was attended by 3 groups of complete strangers you could ask the white-male-cis-gendered guys to leave but you couldn't ask the disabled group or the black group? 

 

In California, I cannot use a public facility in a way that discriminates against a protected class. This seems pretty straightforward to me. Asking people to leave a birthday party to which they were not invited is not the same as asking people to leave because they are gay or an atheist, which is exactly what the OP described. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

I don't agree with you that a private organization can use a public space and then say no black people or disabled people allowed. I don't think a government organization is allowed to enter into a contract that would discriminate against protected classes. And religion is certainly a protected class, and, depending on the state, sexual orientation as well.  

 

Legally, I think they can. You're allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds you want. The point is that you cannot be taxed as a business or non-profit while doing so. However, if she's doing it as an individual, she has the right. This would get into murky territory if the business owner rented ONLY to people who excluded others. It doesn't sound like that's the case.

Quote

 It is because religious groups are a protected class, as you say, that this is allowed.

Religious groups are not a protected class. However, individuals are allowed to do what they want with their money.

OP--I'd call the director and ask whether the discount applies only to said group, or to all HSing families. If they say it was a homeschooling event, ask the director if they realize this discount is excluding everyone except one religious sect and in particular, excluding LGBTQ folks as well as atheists.

My guess is that the director deferred lazily to the person you spoke to "sure we'll have a homeschool thing, oh you'll organize it? Awesome!", not realizing she'd take a ridiculous amount of license in using their power to further a personal agenda of control. The director will either extend the invitation to all groups through them, or cancel the whole thing.

The other possibility is that this group has rented the arena, and the director thought they were renting it for everyone but they weren't. That's harder because unless the rental is for some ridiculously prolonged period, they can do that. You'll just have to organize your own.

I'm really sorry this is happening to you. It's amazing how bad we can feel just knowing that such hateful, exclusive people exist!

I am trying to practice meditative ignoring of these people. Just like I know that maybe I'm related to some atoms in another galaxy through quantum entanglement, but I can't see them, I'll act as though my spatial and social entanglements with these these people is merely incidental. I'm going to choose maintain social and metaphyiscal distance from these people and their nastiness. I am choosing quantum social disentanglement. My personal issues stem mainly from deep seated anger about other people's crappy driving but you see what I mean. Disengage. You deserve better than to get sucked into their eddies of hate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

No one wants to shut down your faith tradition. I could care less what you/they believe. That's why we have churches. Go use them to spread your message. But, in this case, we are talking about using taxpayer/sinner-funded government facilities to further discrimination against people that are expressly protected under the law, and it is illegal, to my knowledge. I've asked you to show me caselaw or legislation proving otherwise. You haven't, and the OP doesn't want to disclose the specific state so that I can look up the laws there. I can tell you that that kind of behavior would never fly in my state and it sickens me that others think it is just fine to use public facilities to promote intolerance against the people who funded them.  

 

Sorry, are we talking about a public or private facility?

If this is a public facility I guarantee if OP calls they will shut down the event.

Private, eh, I think they are allowed to rent to hate groups. Otherwise how could Nazis have birthday parties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either the facility massively screwed up by taking it upon themselves to invite other homeschool groups to a private event or this lady is bananas and has hijacked their event. Either way, they need to deal with it. If it’s the first one, that’s really on them, not the private group. If it’s the second, they need to take back over from the denim jumper brigade. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

 

Sorry, are we talking about a public or private facility?

If this is a public facility I guarantee if OP calls they will shut down the event.

Private, eh, I think they are allowed to rent to hate groups. Otherwise how could Nazis have birthday parties?

 

Yes, a public facility. That's the issue that people seem to be missing. The religious group wants to bar another group of people from attending a homeschool event at a public facility for the *express reason* that the other homeschool group includes gays and non-Christians (read: protected classes!) It's like people have never heard of public accommodation laws, that are designed to prevent exactly this kind of bigotry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

This is a faith group.  One that has particular beliefs about same-sex relationships.  In very much the same ay the women only swims - often attended by Muslim or orthodox Jewish women here - are not accepting male swimmers on the basis of their religious belief.

You can't really get diversity by squashing diversity.  It comes from allowing all kinds of people and beliefs and groups, which will mean sometimes it is one group, sometimes another.  The type of diversity that tries to decide what kind of diversity gets precedence is just another hierarchy.  

If the facility is forced by complaints to not allow this kind of group, it will have repercussions that people may not like.

 

This is an unfair characterization though isn't it. You can't say "if we come, others we don't like can't come, so if you say everybody can come, then we can't come". THat is some kind of three-year-old logic. The so-called-Christians can go, they just can't kick out others.

This would be like the neglected 10 1/2th amendment to the Bill of Rights, "The right of the people to abridge the rights of the other people who don't have the right to abridge the parties of the first part, particularly not if the parties of the first part invoke Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but also if the parties of the second part should also invoke the name of Jesus or any which one, whoever may be invoked to prove the propriety of the party, to abridge or not abridge the rights of any man, shall not be abridged!"

FWIW, women only swim are akin to child-only and senior-only swim IMO--provided men also get a swim time. You don't have full use of the pool all the time.

That said, I do agree that private facilities have leeway to rent to private parties (not non-profit or businesses) which discriminate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

I don't agree with you that a private organization can use a public space and then say no black people or disabled people allowed. I don't think a government organization is allowed to enter into a contract that would discriminate against protected classes. And religion is certainly a protected class, and, depending on the state, sexual orientation as well.  

Actually, where the discrimination burden fall is who they are willing to allow to rent facilities, not what groups who rent do. So if they let the conservative Christian faith based group rent, they have to give the same rate for the Radical Satanist Unschoolers to do the same, on a first come-first served basis. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

So I was trying to figure out where the disconnect is, because I have seen the anti descrimination language on facilities rental contracts. 

The key i think is “discrimination BASED on the protected class.”  When a group, say Whiteland High School , class of 1996 rents out a pavilion at, say White River State Park, for their reunion, they can exclude people who were not part of that graduating class EVEN if the people they are excluding are of a protected class, because the exclusion isn’t on the BASIS of the class protection.  People are excluded on the basis of having paid a ticket or not.  But if tickets are open to members of the protected classes, then there isn’t discrimina based on the protected class. 

 

 

in your example - people are being excluded because they didn't go to the high school.   it would be highly unlikely if there wasn't someone in that graduating class who didn't belong to a protected class - whether they came to the even or not.

2 hours ago, TeenagerMom said:

I want to thank you all for your input.  I really do genuinely appreciate it.  My non-homeschool friends don't really understand the dynamics and I can't really talk to my homeschool friends about it since I am trying to avoid causing a crapstorm of drama for our group.  We get looked down upon so much and excluded (waterpark days, book sales, skating days, etc that the Christian groups coordinate to do, which are for sure private rentals) that I don't want to cause more divisiveness than there already is.  I have worked SO hard to make every other group feel like they are welcome to join us for our events and refer new members their way when they are seeking a faith based group, etc. 

On another note: I think I now know why attendance has been poor at another facility's homeschool day.  I am the one who sends all the information out to the groups for them.  So far only 1 faith based group has attended besides us.

I'm a member of a religious group that get's similar treatment from people like "it's my party girl".

dh and I were in a historically significant area for our faith, and staying at a B&B.  the owner had moved there from somewhere else - so she didn't have the attitudes of the locals. the locals would often complain when members of our faith would come to town to play tourist.  owner thought they were idiots because "this is your CHRISTMAS" . . . meaning, tourist = $$$ = income.

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

The rental facility is the one that can't discriminate on the basis of a protected class. They can't decide to rent to a group of atheists, but not a group of Mormons, or a group of black people but not a Latino group.

correct.  the difference between the venue facility - and the organization providing the event.

it's my party girl needs to go have a good cry for trying intimidate others from coming.

 

OP - If you have no legal obligation to refer anyone to her group, I wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ravin said:

Actually, where the discrimination burden fall is who they are willing to allow to rent facilities, not what groups who rent do. So if they let the conservative Christian faith based group rent, they have to give the same rate for the Radical Satanist Unschoolers to do the same, on a first come-first served basis. 

 

Yes, that is not in dispute. The issue is whether the Radical Satanists can use a public facility to discriminate against protected class members, barring those members from using the facility. In my experience, public rental contracts generally have antidiscrimination clauses that comport with state and federal public accommodation laws (e.g. you can use our public facility, but not in a way that violates these laws). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Religious groups are a protected class.

https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html

 

"Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law."

I'm sorry, that's my mistake--I was referring to people facing discrimination.

Not people who are actively kicking out children from a public fun park.

You are protected from discrimination.

Not to discriminate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Again, I don't care if the library rents to the Aryan Nation for a meeting (assuming that they are not inciting violence at the meeting), but they still have to allow Blacks and Jews to attend, per every anti-discrimination clause I have ever seen in a public facility rental agreement.

Similarly, Christians need to allow protected classes of sinners to attend (the protected class being defined by state and local laws in the case of state and local facilities, and federal laws in federal facilities).

 

Religious groups can use any membership requirements they want.  That's part of their religious liberty.  They can have rules about who can marry.  They can have rules about whether men and women can be in bathing suits in the same pool together.  

If a facility at times holds events for these groups - members of the community like the rest of us - they will by the very nature of the group not allow those people who are excluded from the group.

It's a bizarre result to say a community organization can hold an even for a religious group that would like to use their space, but only if they actually abandon some element of their belief. How is that not discriminating on the basis of religion?  In the same way as saying, no pool time can exclude men since they are a protected class, means women whose faith makes that impossible are excluded.

If there are groups that have special requirements, it doesn't destroy the public nature of the facility to set aside times for those people to use the facility.  It enhances it by helping everyone have their needs met.  In some cases competing needs might create complications that are tricky to resolve, but that is hardly true in this case - the other homeschool groups can easily have a similar even whenever they like.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Yes, a public facility. That's the issue that people seem to be missing. The religious group wants to bar another group of people from attending a homeschool event at a public facility for the *express reason* that the other homeschool group includes gays and non-Christians (read: protected classes!) It's like people have never heard of public accommodation laws, that are designed to prevent exactly this kind of bigotry.

 

Well, you can absolutely have a hate parade. You can rent public places all day long and do nothing but hate on children because they are gay. Every day. That could be your whole life's goal. And once the Nazi's have the main square, nobody else can have the square at the same time. You'd have to rent the adjacent park or something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Religious groups can use any membership requirements they want.  That's part of their religious liberty.  They can have rules about who can marry.  They can have rules about whether men and women can be in bathing suits in the same pool together.  

If a facility at times holds events for these groups - members of the community like the rest of us - they will by the very nature of the group not allow those people who are excluded from the group.

It's a bizarre result to say a community organization can hold an even for a religious group that would like to use their space, but only if they actually abandon some element of their belief. How is that not discriminating on the basis of religion?  In the same way as saying, no pool time can exclude men since they are a protected class, means women whose faith makes that impossible are excluded.

If there are groups that have special requirements, it doesn't destroy the public nature of the facility to set aside times for those people to use the facility.  It enhances it by helping everyone have their needs met.  In some cases competing needs might create complications that are tricky to resolve, but that is hardly true in this case - the other homeschool groups can easily have a similar even whenever they like.  

they can even have a private event at a municipal facility with only likely minded party-girls **PROVIDED** they cough up the money to rent it.   which I doubt they did, and doubt they would even have the money to be able to rent the whole facility in the first place.

so - the muni is likely the one sponsoring and hosting this event.  in which case - it's open to all homeschoolers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

 

This is an unfair characterization though isn't it. You can't say "if we come, others we don't like can't come, so if you say everybody can come, then we can't come". THat is some kind of three-year-old logic. The so-called-Christians can go, they just can't kick out others.

This would be like the neglected 10 1/2th amendment to the Bill of Rights, "The right of the people to abridge the rights of the other people who don't have the right to abridge the parties of the first part, particularly not if the parties of the first part invoke Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but also if the parties of the second part should also invoke the name of Jesus or any which one, whoever may be invoked to prove the propriety of the party, to abridge or not abridge the rights of any man, shall not be abridged!"

FWIW, women only swim are akin to child-only and senior-only swim IMO--provided men also get a swim time. You don't have full use of the pool all the time.

That said, I do agree that private facilities have leeway to rent to private parties (not non-profit or businesses) which discriminate.

 

 

 

For whatever reason this group feels they would like to have an event for people whose religious beliefs fall into a certain band - within a statement of faith.  I really don't see a difference between an event for homeschoolers, or Christian homeschoolers, or Church of /X homeschoolers.  Some facilities are happy to run events in off times for specific groups to meet their specific needs, so long as they can get enough people to pay for the time.  As long as anyone can do this and there are public times, I think that is a good way to make sure the facility s being used to its fullest extent, and the various groups in the community are served by the public facilities.

I agree that a public facility doesn't have to give everyone full use all the time.  That's the main point here to me.  

It may not make sense for some facilities to do that, in terms of their mission or circumstances, which is fine.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

 

Oh, here too. When I think 'fun park' I think ferris wheels and rides and stufff ? This makes more sense. 

 

There is a nearby city that has a park with paddle boats, a carousel, kiddie boats and a train. It's been around for years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

In California, I cannot use a public facility in a way that discriminates against a protected class. This seems pretty straightforward to me. Asking people to leave a birthday party to which they were not invited is not the same as asking people to leave because they are gay or an atheist, which is exactly what the OP described. 

But they weren’t invited (by the other woman who thinks it’s a private party).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

For whatever reason this group feels they would like to have an event for people whose religious beliefs fall into a certain band - within a statement of faith.  I really don't see a difference between an event for homeschoolers, or Christian homeschoolers, or Church of /X homeschoolers.  Some facilities are happy to run events in off times for specific groups to meet their specific needs, so long as they can get enough people to pay for the time.  As long as anyone can do this and there are public times, I think that is a good way to make sure the facility s being used to its fullest extent, and the various groups in the community are served by the public facilities.

I agree that a public facility doesn't have to give everyone full use all the time.  That's the main point here to me.  

It may not make sense for some facilities to do that, in terms of their mission or circumstances, which is fine.  

 

I was really responding to the specific point which I thought was in response to the right of people to use public goods to discriminate. This makes more sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

No.  You can ask either to leave, but based on the fact that they are not a part of the group, not on the race of the people.  

But given that not all public facilities have the “renters may not discriminate” language, I am not sure if it’s actually law, or something places put in their contracts on their own. 

So could she ask them not to come based on the fact they aren’t members of her group of Christians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a pharmacology final at 730, so I should be studying, but here is an interesting 9th Circuit case I found:

In Truth v. Kent School District, the Court of Appeals held that the First
Amendment rights of a religious club were not violated when the school district refused
to approve the club as a recognized student club due to its general membership provision.
The general membership provision required members to comply in good faith
with Christian character, Christian speech, Christian behavior and Christian conduct as
generally described in the Bible. In order to be a voting member or officer, students were
required to sign a statement of faith. The statement of faith required the person to affirm
that he or she believes the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative rule of
God. A member must also pledge that he or she believes “that Salvation is an undeserved
gift from God,” and that only by “acceptance of Jesus Christ as my personal savior,
through his death on the cross for my sins, is my faith made real.”251
The Court of Appeals held that the school district, based on its policy against
discrimination based on religion, may refuse to approve the request for recognition by the
club. The Court of Appeals held that the general membership requirements discriminated
against non-Christians. 524 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2008).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StellaM said:

 

Goodness. Do they charge for entry ? My idea of local government doesn't include a carousel, lol

 

They don't charge for park entry, but you buy tickets ($1 each) to ride the attractions. There is much more at the park than these attractions - typical swings & playground equipment, picnic pavilions, art center, large open areas, a concession stand, a swimming pool (entry fee). It's entirely possible to go to the park and spend hours there without spending a dime.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

they can even have a private event at a municipal facility with only likely minded party-girls **PROVIDED** they cough up the money to rent it.   which I doubt they did, and doubt they would even have the money to be able to rent the whole facility in the first place.

so - the muni is likely the one sponsoring and hosting this event.  in which case - it's open to all homeschoolers.

 

Maybe this is a radical capitalism issue.

Groups here can book community facilities without necessarily paying money, or individuals in the group that booked might pay the facility directly.  You don't somehow get power over the facility just because you pay.  The point of allowing bookings at all is so that groups of any kind have places to meet etc.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

I have a pharmacology final at 730, so I should be studying, but here is an interesting 9th Circuit case I found:

In Truth v. Kent School District, the Court of Appeals held that the First
Amendment rights of a religious club were not violated when the school district refused
to approve the club as a recognized student club due to its general membership provision.
The general membership provision required members to comply in good faith
with Christian character, Christian speech, Christian behavior and Christian conduct as
generally described in the Bible. In order to be a voting member or officer, students were
required to sign a statement of faith. The statement of faith required the person to affirm
that he or she believes the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative rule of
God. A member must also pledge that he or she believes “that Salvation is an undeserved
gift from God,” and that only by “acceptance of Jesus Christ as my personal savior,
through his death on the cross for my sins, is my faith made real.”251
The Court of Appeals held that the school district, based on its policy against
discrimination based on religion, may refuse to approve the request for recognition by the
club. The Court of Appeals held that the general membership requirements discriminated
against non-Christians. 524 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2008).

And I would agree with the court because it is about a SCHOOL club that serves the school population. In this homeschool event it is not serving the general public - it’s a way for the facility to make money on days it is otherwise closed and not opened to the public.  It is more akin to someone having a wedding reception in the high school gym on a free weekend than akin to an after school offering.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StellaM said:

So... let me get this straight....you can rent a room at the public library for your private event, if they hire out rooms for private events in order to make more $$, but you must allow all comers to your event because anti-discrimination law ? 

I thought anti discrimination laws were in place to prevent employment and housing discrimination, not to prevent private groups from choosing whom they associate with during those events ?

 

It sounds pretty odd, doesn't it, I would not be surprised if its not quite true.

But, I don't think the philosophy around intellectual freedom in the US is very similar to the UK/Australia/Canada.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Targhee said:

And I would agree with the court because it is about a SCHOOL club that serves the school population. In this homeschool event it is not serving the general public - it’s a way for the facility to make money on days it is otherwise closed and not opened to the public.  It is more akin to someone having a wedding reception in the high school gym on a free weekend than akin to an after school offering.

 

Sure, it is distinguishable. I found it interesting that a regular Bible club on campus was fine. but the minute they are started discriminating against protected class members (non-Christians) in terms of who could join the club, located on public school grounds, that's when it crossed the line. That's the issue for me -- the express discrimination against protected class members from attending an event on public grounds. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

"Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law."

I'm sorry, that's my mistake--I was referring to people facing discrimination.

Not people who are actively kicking out children from a public fun park.

You are protected from discrimination.

Not to discriminate.

If the entire park is rented outside hours open to the general public, then that space for the rental period is private and the renters are not subject to anti-discrimination laws unless they are selling tickets for general admission or something. A members-only club can have members-only meetings even if they discriminate in who can be a member, with certain exceptions that have been carved out for large, non-religious groups (scouts come to mind). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Yes, I get all that. My point is that most facilities have anti-discrimination clauses in their rental agreements. Your local library allows your private group to meet there, but only if you don't discriminate against *protected classes* of people in the process. Those federal protected classes are expanded by some state laws. 

 

That "anti-discrimination clauses in rental agreements" thing is not as universal as you seem to think.

For instance, here is the application and rules for renting a room in an adult recreation center in my city:

http://www.tempe.gov/home/showdocument?id=54065

This is for a rental of a space within the facility, not the entire facility. The rules include not being allowed to interfere with other people using the facility. Nothing about renters having to follow antidiscrimination law for their private activities.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ravin said:

If the entire park is rented outside hours open to the general public, then that space for the rental period is private and the renters are not subject to anti-discrimination laws unless they are selling tickets for general admission or something. A members-only club can have members-only meetings even if they discriminate in who can be a member, with certain exceptions that have been carved out for large, non-religious groups (scouts come to mind). 

 

Yes, I agree, and I've said that in my posts. I was referring specifically to the point TechWife made about white people being a protected class. Or maybe she was talking about Christians.

The point is that protected class status doesn't cover the right to discriminate. That right is protected under the right of association, to private individuals.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Maybe this is a radical capitalism issue.

Groups here can book community facilities without necessarily paying money, or individuals in the group that booked might pay the facility directly.  You don't somehow get power over the facility just because you pay.  The point of allowing bookings at all is so that groups of any kind have places to meet etc.  

 

depends upon the venue. - a room at the library - generally don't have to pay.  a private party room at the local pool or kids museum - usually there's a fee. the entire facility?  if they're providing employees to run things - someone has to pay them.

I've been to events where the rentals were paid to have it private.  (both privately and publicly owned facilities. - eg. two private events at the seattle aquarium.)

public venues make money doing private events during off hours.  they have adds on their websites, brochures about "have your next event here".   I was there when the science center closed early for a private event.  those venues charge the host organization to have it there - they can make extra money. the host organization can invite who they want, and charge them or not.   but generally it's organizations  (re:corporations) with deep pockets who rent them out - because it's expensive. very expensive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

 

Yes, I agree, and I've said that in my posts. I was referring specifically to the point TechWife made about white people being a protected class. Or maybe she was talking about Christians.

The point is that protected class status doesn't cover the right to discriminate. That right is protected under the right of association, to private individuals.

Definitely Christians. I don't consider white people to be a protected class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

depends upon the venue. - a room at the library - generally don't have to pay.  a private party room at the local pool or kids museum - usually there's a fee. the entire facility?  if they're providing employees to run things - someone has to pay them.

I've been to events where the rentals were paid to have it private.  (both privately and publicly owned facilities. - eg. two private events at the seattle aquarium.)

public venues make money doing private events during off hours.  they have adds on their websites, brochures about "have your next event here".   I was there when the science center closed early for a private event.  those venues charge the host organization to have it there - they can make extra money. the host organization can invite who they want, and charge them or not.   but generally it's organizations  (re:corporations) with deep pockets who rent them out - because it's expensive. very expensive.

 

 

I was just referring to the idea that some seemed to have that a private event meant paying.  But community facilities can sometimes be meant for use by private groups. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeaConquest said:

I have a pharmacology final at 730, so I should be studying, but here is an interesting 9th Circuit case I found:

In Truth v. Kent School District, the Court of Appeals held that the First
Amendment rights of a religious club were not violated when the school district refused
to approve the club as a recognized student club due to its general membership provision.
The general membership provision required members to comply in good faith
with Christian character, Christian speech, Christian behavior and Christian conduct as
generally described in the Bible. In order to be a voting member or officer, students were
required to sign a statement of faith. The statement of faith required the person to affirm
that he or she believes the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative rule of
God. A member must also pledge that he or she believes “that Salvation is an undeserved
gift from God,” and that only by “acceptance of Jesus Christ as my personal savior,
through his death on the cross for my sins, is my faith made real.”251
The Court of Appeals held that the school district, based on its policy against
discrimination based on religion, may refuse to approve the request for recognition by the
club. The Court of Appeals held that the general membership requirements discriminated
against non-Christians. 524 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2008).

 

This is about recognizing student clubs at a school, not about renting space to the public.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ravin said:

 

This is about recognizing student clubs at a school, not about renting space to the public.

 

Yes, I read the case, and already said that it was distinguishable. I also discussed (above) why I found it interesting/relevant to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ravin said:

 

That "anti-discrimination clauses in rental agreements" thing is not as universal as you seem to think.

For instance, here is the application and rules for renting a room in an adult recreation center in my city:

http://www.tempe.gov/home/showdocument?id=54065

This is for a rental of a space within the facility, not the entire facility. The rules include not being allowed to interfere with other people using the facility. Nothing about renters having to follow antidiscrimination law for their private activities.

 

I am curious why you think that public accommodations laws do not apply to a library or rec center in this context? It is not as though they are suddenly transformed into private clubs or religious organizations after hours. I am curious where this special legal carve-out, in the protections afforded under public accommodation laws, exists?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeaConquest said:

 

I am curious why you think that public accommodations laws do not apply to a library or rec center in this context? It is not as though they are suddenly transformed into private clubs or religious organizations after hours. I am curious where this special legal carve-out, in the protections afforded under public accommodation laws, exists?  

That’s just it, it’s not a special legal carve out.  It is a private function.  Just because I want to go to a State Dinner doesn’t mean I can, not does it mean excluding me is discriminatory towards me as a woman, or as a member of my particular religion, or as any other thing.  And believe me my (and your) tax money is funding the whole kit ‘n kaboodle. I simply was not invited.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Targhee said:

That’s just it, it’s not a special legal carve out.  It is a private function.  Just because I want to go to a State Dinner doesn’t mean I can, not does it mean excluding me is discriminatory towards me as a woman, or as a member of my particular religion, or as any other thing.  And believe me my (and your) tax money is funding the whole kit ‘n kaboodle. I simply was not invited.  

 

Right, but you weren't not invited specifically because of your protected class. How is the state dinner using a public facility in a way that violates public accommodation/antidiscrimination law?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...