Jump to content

Menu

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


TeenagerMom
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

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?

It’s not, and neither is the library or the homeschool example.  If this woman had a private booking for the facility she can make her decisions on whom she invites. She doesn’t need to provide a reason for every person she does NOT invite.  You can’t argue the “why” of invitation to her private event. It’s her prerogative of free association.  You don’t even get to ask why Susie and not Jane! When the venue is reserved for a private event it’s no one else’s business why she invited one person and not another.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Targhee said:

It’s not, and neither is the library or the homeschool example.  If this woman had a private booking for the facility she can make her decisions on whom she invites. She doesn’t need to provide a reason for every person she does NOT invite.  You can’t argue the “why” of invitation to her private event. It’s her prerogative of free association.  You don’t even get to ask why Susie and not Jane! When the venue is reserved for a private event it’s no one else’s business why she invited one person and not another.  

 

So, you think that all of these public facilities that have antidiscrimination language baked into their rental contracts are doing so just out of their private right to contract and not in furtherance of some government ordinance/law that prohibits discrimination? Color me skeptical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

So, you think that all of these public facilities that have antidiscrimination language baked into their rental contracts are doing so just out of their private right to contract and not in furtherance of some government ordinance/law that prohibits discrimination? Color me skeptical. 

They cannot discriminate to whom they rent facilities.  They also cannot dictate to whom invitations to a private event are or are not given.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Targhee said:

They cannot discriminate to whom they rent facilities.  They also cannot dictate to whom invitations to a private event are or are not given.  

 

You are incorrect. I linked above to an example of the common antidiscrimination language that is the public facility rental contracts I have seen here in California. The example to which I linked was in Texas, which I assumed had less stringent laws than California. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some areas private parties CAN rent a public place for private events, and in that case it wouldn't matter if the group doesn't accept protected classes or not, because no one would know about the private event unless they are already a member of that group. In other areas private groups may not (as a matter of contract) discriminate, however the contract probably only indemnifies the facility against discrimination lawsuits, it can't enforce morality. Laws can never enforce morality.  I don't understand why a few people have insisted on taking this thread into a tangent about whether that is right or wrong.  If bakeries can discriminate in some areas on the basis of whether they are making custom art or not, yet in other cities and states that's illegal discrimination there is no doubt the rules covering private parties at public venues are similarly diverse. This is one of the problems AND advantages of local rule - you may have to move to find people who think like you, but they do exist somewhere.

Having said that there is NO WAY this that the OP posted about is a private event, even if the annoying not-Christlike woman wants it to be.  We know this because OP said her group prepaid but other groups did not.  If it was a private event the non-Christlike would have already paid to privately secure the place.  This woman probably approached the area to ask them to host a home school event but she did not want to pay for a private event.  My guess is she's a horrible bigot who doesn't want her children laying eyes on anyone who is openly gay. That might give her children reason to question her clearly hypocritical worldview. Personally I don't understand that because even churches that are not accepting of violating that one particular rule are usually open to people, even if only to convert them. Then again I'm not sure how anyone can read through the New Testament and not think the thorn in Paul's flesh is being gay.  Perhaps this woman never read the New Testament.

If I were OP I'd ignore the crazy woman, or at the very most inform her our group already paid and we would be attending, hoping she'd decide to back out and stay home. At least that would be my approach in the South, if that happened anywhere else in the USA I might get confrontational about it because the culture everywhere else is SO different.  Then again even in my tiny Southern hometown I probably wouldn't have any trouble finding a polite Southern and Biblical way to "Bless your heart!" until she was shamed into behaving with more grace or tact OR had enough sense to at least keep her mouth shut. It would also be perfectly fine to avoid her and have the facility staff inform her that this other group will be attending.

OP might want to give her group a heads up that a less tolerant group might also be in attendance. I'm sure they're already well versed in how to deal with members of the First Self-Righteous Church when they live in the South, but it probably still helps to expect there might be a comment or five. If I were expecting a relaxing field trip with my kids and instead got confronted in mean and personal ways I might find the shock of it more upsetting than the confrontation.   Yes, I did just make a reference to the Mississippi Squirrel Revival.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered if there was any false advertising legal issue in the way the facility invited her group, gave them a particular price, even communicated with her about payment at that rate... and then, if they were to suddenly say, sorry, closed event. But I know zero about that area of law.

I honestly don't think SeaConquest is correct about the law about renting and non-discrimination. I think it's like the rental agreement of a limited public forum, whatever that would be called. The groups being rented to have a lot of leeway to do what they want as long as they abide by the rules of the building. In some places that might include non-discrimination rules, but I'll bet it's not all, even in public buildings. When the buildings are being operated as schools or parks or whatever, I think that's different.

For the record, we also have county owned parks with carousels around here. A bunch of them spread out. And little children's trains. And there was one like this where I grew up too. Most of them are historic or restored, but one of them near us is brand new because they wanted to make one that was wheelchair accessible, which is nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

So, you think that all of these public facilities that have antidiscrimination language baked into their rental contracts are doing so just out of their private right to contract and not in furtherance of some government ordinance/law that prohibits discrimination? Color me skeptical. 

More likely it's a matter of state law or municipal ordinance. Which has to be done carefully otherwise they risk viewpoint discrimination suits for refusing rentals to groups they think will discriminate. I suspect Katy hit the nail on the head re: indemnity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dh is a municipal attorney. I described the situation asking for his opinion, and he said, “It’s complicated!” There you go, a true attorney-like response.

He did go on to say local gov’t entities receiving federal money must be very careful to uphold Title IV. What that looks like in real life is complicated, especially when religion is involved.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I would immediately tell your contacts that you heard the event may not have been described to you correctly and may not be open to all homeschool groups.  That way people can manage their expectations.

Working with the facility is the correct way to go.  I would not communicate any more about this matter with the person you mention in the OP.

As for why you might be excluded, perhaps they want to be free to make this into an overtly religious activity and feel that people in your group would not appreciate that kind of activity.  Maybe it is a recruiting event that won't pay off if a bunch of attendees are likely to be opposed to the mission.  If someone has put funds into this mission, then I think it is up to them to decide what/who the funds pay for.  However, you and others deserve an apology for the poor communication.  And obviously a refund.  If the facility made the mistake, maybe they could offer you something of similar value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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.

 

I agree that if the facility is hosting the event, anyone should be able to attend. And if the religious homeschool group is hosting, they're being jerks. But, I just looked at the rules for our public rec center to see what it says about renting and it doesn't say anything about renters not being able to choose who comes to their events. 

http://www.montpelierrec.org/DocumentCenter/View/3964/Rec-Center--Pavillion-Rental-Form

1709080341_ScreenShot2018-05-01at9_38_19AM.thumb.png.ca651a1158c43dfea8bf15ef3884d1fc.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rules and laws relating to whether you can discriminate in a private event on public property will vary from location to location.

I work with all kinds of clients across the nation.  One of my clients is a County-run economic development organization.  In all of its contracts, you have to agree to meet many requirements including diversity rules that are way above and beyond US law.  Who I hire in another state to work on stuff totally unconnected to this client could be a contract violation.  So, I could imagine that there are some facilities that have contracts requiring renters to adhere to certain requirements that are not standard in the US.  I could also see it being a big PR problem if a community facility was associated with an organization that has a bad reputation re diversity.  For example, the KKK might be an excellent guest (I wouldn't know), but wouldn't you want to have a clause somewhere that allowed you to say "thanks but no thanks" about having them rent your facility for a rally?

Now what if I was having a christening party or other obviously religious event?  It's not that I hate people who aren't Christians, but I wouldn't invite the whole world.  I mean my best friends (who are of various religions) are invited, but I know they will be respectful and keep their disagreements to themselves - otherwise I would not invite them to this kind of event.  I would not invite my friend's cousin who is outspoken about how stupid religion is.  Not that she would want to come.

Would you require n LGBT gathering - or let's say a same sex wedding reception - to open its doors to anti-gay rights groups?  Seems it would be hard to generate any positivity if there was a constant requirement of giving the other side equal time at every gathering.

Anyhoo - I could see the rules going both ways, but they need to be clear up front.  If I'm not allowed to discriminate in my private event at a public place, tell me before I invest time and money into it.  I'll move it elsewhere or save my money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ravin said:

More likely it's a matter of state law or municipal ordinance. Which has to be done carefully otherwise they risk viewpoint discrimination suits for refusing rentals to groups they think will discriminate. I suspect Katy hit the nail on the head re: indemnity.

 

This is all I have been saying. I am not sure why I seem to have given the impression that no discrimination is allowed anywhere. Unfortunately, that is sadly not the case. You well know that the legal rights of LGBTQ vary widely across the US. I asked the OP for her state because I wanted to look up her state's laws specifically, as I am most familiar with CA law, which is quite broad in its antidiscrimination requirements. Also, I agree with you that the language is also in a contract for indemnity and insurance purposes. 

Livetoread, I am also a [retired] attorney. And some of the people in this thread are also attorneys. It *is* complicated, which is why we are going back and forth about it. There are many ways to look at the issue, and the answer will likely vary depending on the laws/caselaw of the OP's city/state

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll point out that the group is not directly saying, no gay persons.  They are saying - you need to be a member of a church group that agrees with this statement of faith, probably a pretty typical sort of fundamentalist non-denominational statement.

I really wouldn't care if it was illegal where I lived, there is no way I'd make a complaint because I'd never want to restrict the ability of any sort of group to use a park space on an non-open day as a group event.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

This is all I have been saying. I am not sure why I seem to have given the impression that no discrimination is allowed anywhere. Unfortunately, that is sadly not the case. You well know that the legal rights of LGBTQ vary widely across the US. I asked the OP for her state because I wanted to look up her state's laws specifically, as I am most familiar with CA law, which is quite broad in its antidiscrimination requirements. Also, I agree with you that the language is also in a contract for indemnity and insurance purposes. 

Livetoread, I am also a [retired] attorney. And some of the people in this thread are also attorneys. It *is* complicated, which is why we are going back and forth about it. There are many ways to look at the issue, and the answer will likely vary depending on the laws/caselaw of the OP's city/state. ?

 

Let's just say I live in a state that actually passed a bill prohibiting muncipalities from adopting anti-discrimination ordinances that create protected classes not held within the state law.   A local law was struck down because it included LGBTQ individuals.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I think the rules and laws relating to whether you can discriminate in a private event on public property will vary from location to location.

I

that's the key.  a private event means they can invite whomever they want.  (re: only homeschool groups that support their statement of faith)    technically, they're not 'discriminating' by overtly banning - they're not inviting groups that include anyone that  "isn't their kinda people".   

given that the facility is doing all the legwork - I doubt this is a completely private event (around here - that requires payment.  even a park pavillion has a fee), so it most likely is open to *all* homeschoolers.

26 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I'll point out that the group is not directly saying, no gay persons.  They are saying - you need to be a member of a church group that agrees with this statement of faith, probably a pretty typical sort of fundamentalist non-denominational statement.

I really wouldn't care if it was illegal where I lived, there is no way I'd make a complaint because I'd never want to restrict the ability of any sort of group to use a park space on an non-open day as a group event.   

 

this.  (and that covers a considerably larger group of people across the board than just one protected group.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TeenagerMom said:

 

Let's just say I live in a state that actually passed a bill prohibiting muncipalities from adopting anti-discrimination ordinances that create protected classes not held within the state law.   A local law was struck down because it included LGBTQ individuals.

 

Sigh. I am so sorry, TeenagerMom. I appreciate you working for inclusivity in such a divisive environment. I am only a heathen Jew, but inclusivity seems much more like WWJD.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I can't wrap my head around is why exclusivity matters in a public event that appears to be centered around secular fun.  I mean, I can see wanting to restrict attendance or at least control the speakers at a theological symposium where you want everyone to be on the same page theologically.  I can see wanting to restrict attendance to OE believers at an event centered specifically around OE teachings.  Both of those examples would be for the purpose of having an orderly event without drama for those wanting an event centered around their beliefs.  I can also see wanting to open up some events specifically so that there can be cross dialogue or debate so I can see how the intended function of an event matters.  But an event at a fun center?  or the community center?  or pool?  Most people tend to talk to their friends in a larger crowd, they aren't going to jump on a raft at the pool with strangers after all.  So what does it matter if some of the people in the crowd believe differently? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

What I can't wrap my head around is why exclusivity matters in a public event that appears to be centered around secular fun.  I mean, I can see wanting to restrict attendance or at least control the speakers at a theological symposium where you want everyone to be on the same page theologically.  I can see wanting to restrict attendance to OE believers at an event centered specifically around OE teachings.  Both of those examples would be for the purpose of having an orderly event without drama for those wanting an event centered around their beliefs.  I can also see wanting to open up some events specifically so that there can be cross dialogue or debate so I can see how the intended function of an event matters.  But an event at a fun center?  or the community center?  or pool?  Most people tend to talk to their friends in a larger crowd, they aren't going to jump on a raft at the pool with strangers after all.  So what does it matter if some of the people in the crowd believe differently? 

 

One possibility is they are looking for a sort of fellowship event, and the original mom contacted the facility thinking about it in that way.  We don't really know what passed between her and the facility, they may have not communicated their intent to her very well by the sound of it.  In a certain sense it wouldn't matter to the activity if others are present, except that if it's very many others it's no longer really a bonding event for their group.  

But some of those groups beyond that want to encourage friendships and such only with people with very similar outlooks.  Especially for kids.  

It sounds like the mom only invited some of the groups that she belongs to herself, so it seems like she had some sense of why some would be included and others not, other than her own particular membership.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Sigh. I am so sorry, TeenagerMom. I appreciate you working for inclusivity in such a divisive environment. I am only a heathen Jew, but inclusivity seems much more like WWJD.

Inclusivity certainly is what Jesus would do. But he also did not compel anyone to follow him.  I hate hypocrisy in any situation but it especially aggravating when done by individuals who claim to believe the same or similar things as myself. At the same time, I value the freedom of individuals to choose their private behavior.  I feel the point on which we differ is not that discrimination is wrong, but that the private booking does not deny access to the public facility (which is normally closed, therefore not accessible to the public) to anyone based on being a member of a protected group, but at the discretion of the host of the private party to invite whom she’d like.  There is no guarantee of access to a private party in any law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mom2scouts said:

My first thought is that it may actually be an inclusive event for all homeschoolers, but this woman is trying to make it exclusive so she only has to associate with her kind (whatever that is). Maybe she's the one who called the facility and asked them to have an event for homeschoolers and the facility decided to do it with the idea that they would open it to all homeschoolers. I  wouldn't engage with the woman from the other group at all and clarify whether the event is a private event or whether the facility decided to make it a public event for all homeschoolers. If it's open to all, go and enjoy. If there was an error, just send an email to your members telling them there was a mistake and your group won't be able to attend.

This is what I am wondering.  I think the OP owes it to the people that contacted her first to get their side of the story.  I'm not sure I would trust this lady to be telling the truth in this matter.   If there was an actual problem with the event then the people who contacted you first should have given your a courtesy call and offered you another option.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

One possibility is they are looking for a sort of fellowship event, and the original mom contacted the facility thinking about it in that way.  We don't really know what passed between her and the facility, they may have not communicated their intent to her very well by the sound of it.  In a certain sense it wouldn't matter to the activity if others are present, except that if it's very many others it's no longer really a bonding event for their group.  

But some of those groups beyond that want to encourage friendships and such only with people with very similar outlooks.  Especially for kids.  

It sounds like the mom only invited some of the groups that she belongs to herself, so it seems like she had some sense of why some would be included and others not, other than her own particular membership.

she claims to have initiated this acitivity. she may  not have communicated her preference that she wanted a "private, closed, event" ..those generally require the "renters" pay for the exclusive use of the facility. 

the facility has been doing the legwork, including apparently printing up flyers, - which strongly indicates the facility is sponsoring the event.   in that, this is only closed in the sense it's for homeschool groups - but open for all homeschool groups.  

I'm also hanging around to hear what the facility reports back to the OP.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gardenmom5 said:

she claims to have initiated this acitivity. she may  not have communicated her preference that she wanted a "private, closed, event" ..those generally require the "renters" pay for the exclusive use of the facility. 

the facility has been doing the legwork, including apparently printing up flyers, - which strongly indicates the facility is sponsoring the event.   in that, this is only closed in the sense it's for homeschool groups - but open for all homeschool groups.  

I'm also hanging around to hear what the facility reports back to the OP.

 

I don't know that it is obvious that you could open the facility for homeschoolers, but not some sub-set of homeschoolers.  Say a bunch of WTM people contacted the facility to see about opening on their normal closed day - if we could promise enough people, why not?  By the same logic, why make it a homeschool event and not just open to anyone who wants to come on that day? Which is to say, why not just be open?

Obviously there was some miscommunication between her and the facility, and we don't know anything about what passed between them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

What I can't wrap my head around is why exclusivity matters in a public event that appears to be centered around secular fun.  I mean, I can see wanting to restrict attendance or at least control the speakers at a theological symposium where you want everyone to be on the same page theologically.  I can see wanting to restrict attendance to OE believers at an event centered specifically around OE teachings.  Both of those examples would be for the purpose of having an orderly event without drama for those wanting an event centered around their beliefs.  I can also see wanting to open up some events specifically so that there can be cross dialogue or debate so I can see how the intended function of an event matters.  But an event at a fun center?  or the community center?  or pool?  Most people tend to talk to their friends in a larger crowd, they aren't going to jump on a raft at the pool with strangers after all.  So what does it matter if some of the people in the crowd believe differently? 

 

Hence my theory that this woman doesn't want her children to even see an openly gay person.  I think it's about isolating her children or she wouldn't have brought up the families with a gay member to the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Hence my theory that this woman doesn't want her children to even see an openly gay person.  I think it's about isolating her children or she wouldn't have brought up the families with a gay member to the OP.

 

Having dealt with this type of uber exclusive, statement of faith type homeschool group in the deep south myself when we lived in the deep south, another thing that comes to mind is the dress code mentioned by 'it's my party' girl. The homeschool group I dealt with used to organize homeschool pool days with a dress code. They would never, ever take their children to the pool on public swim days because of the swimwear other people wore, so on their homeschool swim days, there was a dress code. Boys had to were long board short type swim trunks and a non-white, loose fitting top. Girls had to wear swim dresses that reached at least to the knees and was not form fitting. And fathers were not welcome on homeschool swim day 'for the other children's safety'... needless to say we did not attend their swim day, which they claimed was open to all homeschoolers not just their members, and opted to just go to the pool on public swim days in our normal swim attire.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what is happening is so unfortunate.  Serveral places around here host "homeschool days", it is open to anyone really but it marketed to all area homeschooling groups.  Groups of X amount usually get a discount if there is a fee.  Some homeschool groups book field trips for their specific group.  The organization does not open that up to others though.  It is up to the homeschool group to open it to other groups.  If we do have a field trip scheduled and the organization is still open to the public, then of course anyone can still use that venue they just don't get to participate in whatever our field trip entails.  Different organizations/facilities(both private & public) will rent their facilities as private functions.  I do think the organizations should honor the private function and not invite others to participate.  Hopefully you will get this all settled and any miscommunication will be corrected.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sweet2ndchance said:

 

Having dealt with this type of uber exclusive, statement of faith type homeschool group in the deep south myself when we lived in the deep south, another thing that comes to mind is the dress code mentioned by 'it's my party' girl. The homeschool group I dealt with used to organize homeschool pool days with a dress code. They would never, ever take their children to the pool on public swim days because of the swimwear other people wore, so on their homeschool swim days, there was a dress code. Boys had to were long board short type swim trunks and a non-white, loose fitting top. Girls had to wear swim dresses that reached at least to the knees and was not form fitting. And fathers were not welcome on homeschool swim day 'for the other children's safety'... needless to say we did not attend their swim day, which they claimed was open to all homeschoolers not just their members, and opted to just go to the pool on public swim days in our normal swim attire.

WHAT,?!!? I mean it's their pool party and their choices, but what message are you sending girls? And men? And future-men-boys? That is creepy you don't trust the men of your own congregation.

I don't agree with only venturing out under controlled circumstances, or hold those same standards of dress. But I would like to be afforded the same privacy of association at my own functions therefore I will stand for their right (not the choices or beliefs) of association at a private event.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sweet2ndchance said:

 

Having dealt with this type of uber exclusive, statement of faith type homeschool group in the deep south myself when we lived in the deep south, another thing that comes to mind is the dress code mentioned by 'it's my party' girl. The homeschool group I dealt with used to organize homeschool pool days with a dress code. They would never, ever take their children to the pool on public swim days because of the swimwear other people wore, so on their homeschool swim days, there was a dress code. Boys had to were long board short type swim trunks and a non-white, loose fitting top. Girls had to wear swim dresses that reached at least to the knees and was not form fitting. And fathers were not welcome on homeschool swim day 'for the other children's safety'... needless to say we did not attend their swim day, which they claimed was open to all homeschoolers not just their members, and opted to just go to the pool on public swim days in our normal swim attire.

 

I don't know.  I don't get worried about women only swims.  Why would I be bothered about modest-attire swims?  It's kind of the same thing IMO.

TBH, I find it a bit weird that largely the same group of people on the boards who get upset about those who want to limit immigration of Muslim families - essentially for ideas around values - are unhappy about religious groups that have modesty requirements around clothing, or want separate male/female swims.  In my city, with a good sized Muslim population now, that is the group that largely populates single sex swims.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, sweet2ndchance said:

 

Having dealt with this type of uber exclusive, statement of faith type homeschool group in the deep south myself when we lived in the deep south, another thing that comes to mind is the dress code mentioned by 'it's my party' girl. The homeschool group I dealt with used to organize homeschool pool days with a dress code. They would never, ever take their children to the pool on public swim days because of the swimwear other people wore, so on their homeschool swim days, there was a dress code. Boys had to were long board short type swim trunks and a non-white, loose fitting top. Girls had to wear swim dresses that reached at least to the knees and was not form fitting. And fathers were not welcome on homeschool swim day 'for the other children's safety'... needless to say we did not attend their swim day, which they claimed was open to all homeschoolers not just their members, and opted to just go to the pool on public swim days in our normal swim attire.

As a resident of the Southeastern US, this was my thought as well if this is a water-type place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Targhee said:

WHAT,?!!? I mean it's their pool party and their choices, but what message are you sending girls? And men? And future-men-boys? That is creepy you don't trust the men of your own congregation.

I don't agree with only venturing out under controlled circumstances, or hold those same standards of dress. But I would like to be afforded the same privacy of association at my own functions therefore I will stand for their right (not the choices or beliefs) of association at a private event.

 

Exactly. I wasn't worried at all about the dress code. I thought it was extreme but it was their party so to speak so whatever. Being that it was a military community, there were more than a couple families where the mom was the service member and dad was the one that homeschooled the kids. These homeschool dads were not welcome at homeschool swim day and they were turned away on more than one occaision. Under the guise of protecting the little boys in the locker room. I really didn't want my boys exposed to the idea that they were somehow guilty of something just based on gender nor did I want my girls to think that all men are peeping toms or worse based on gender.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

But what is the facility ? Not enough info. Is this a library ? Who is the organiser - the facility or the leader of the Christian group ?

If it's just an event for Christian homeschoolers, by invitation, and it's in a private facility....I still don't see the problem. There's Christian homeschool conferences here - I just don't go to them. Why would I ? I'm sure they are lots of fun, but I'm not the target market.

 

 

Xian and gay are not mutually exclusive.

Xian and being part of a secular group are not mutually exclusive.

The OP is Xian as are several other members of their secular group.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

have you dealt much with those who do have statements of faith? very narrow focus and only want to be around people just like them.

this is going to be the big question.  did she pay a deposit and sign a contract to reserve it for "just" her preferred groups?  (which I seriously doubt as those deposits are usually fairly hefty)  if she didn't - she's not sponsoring it, the facility is, even if she gave them the idea.

private parties pay to rent facilities all the time.   they handle their own invitations.

massive communication problem.   you don't even know if she's the one who gave the facility the idea.   I can't imagine a facility hosting a private party without charging fees with a contract to make it exclusive.  (they still have to pay their employees - they need to make enough money to pay them.)  given her charming personality, I'm sure if she'd paid fees - she'd have boasted about how much she paid for it to be only for her group.

This is my thoughts. She probably didn't pay any fees to rent it out for an exclusive reason. The venue probably realizes they might lose money based on a small homeschool group at 1/3 the entry fee and took it upon themselves to get the word out to increase revenue. There is no way a venue manager would call people to invite them if it was a contracted rental event. 

This woman sounds vile but not fully grasping her reasoning I will try not to let my emotions override. I just cannot imagine anyone claiming to love Jesus and then living in opposition of his love for people. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you will be going, and I hope everyone has a great time! It sounds like this is really between the facility and the other homeschool group.

There may have been some misunderstanding or maybe folks made some assumptions, but those are nothing to do with your group. 

I hope it is well attended and a very good day.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was exactly what I suspected had happened. So glad you all are going! Have a wonderful time and hopefully the experience will soften that woman's heart and this will be a learning experience for her and an opportunity to grow. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad your group will be able to go. If the facility didn't communicate their opening it up to a wider group to the bigot who pretends to be a Christian, then as much as I dislike her bigotry she likely did think she had the go ahead to issue her "rules". Maybe her group will decide the activity is worth having to mix with Others. Maybe not. Either way, I hope everyone who goes has fun.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

I'm glad your group will be able to go. If the facility didn't communicate their opening it up to a wider group to the bigot who pretends to be a Christian, then as much as I dislike her bigotry she likely did think she had the go ahead to issue her "rules". Maybe her group will decide the activity is worth having to mix with Others. Maybe not. Either way, I hope everyone who goes has fun.

Hmmm.  I have to wonder how the other group's leader (OGL) knew that the OP's group was planning to go?  Perhaps it came up and one of the people who belong to both groups mentioned that the OP's group was planning to go.  The OGL could have avoided all of the drama and embarrassment by calling the facility to clarify the situation rather than the OP.  But I suppose she thought she'd arranged a private party.  And yet, anyone who has ever booked a field trip with a facility that requires a minimum number of participants knows that 1) you have to negotiate with the facility about how to deal with the minimum (usually by paying as if you had that many people, and distributing the extra cost over everyone who comes), and 2) (as an aside) you really need to require that participants pay you up-front, because otherwise people will flake out and you'll be stuck paying for the non-attendees as well as the extra money needed to meet the minimum out of your own pocket.  I suppose if the facility said they'd deal with the minimum by inviting more homeschoolers, the OGL didn't realize that meant that the facility might invite homeschoolers she didn't want to socialize with.  Perhaps, for her, "homeschoolers" so often means "homeschoolers like the ones in my group" that it didn't occur to her that the facility might want to throw the net wider to reach more homeschoolers and thus maximize participation (and profits) for the day.  I hope the OGL fully understands what happened and why, and does not frame this as some kind of government persecution of Christians or undue pushiness on the part of the OP.  The OP was invited to a public event at a government facility, and was understandably confused and upset when she and her group were told by another participant (the OGL) that they were uninvited based on the religious beliefs and family relationships of some of her group members. OP, I'm glad you could work this out.  It would be nice if the other group attended and got to know some of your group, and found how much you have in common.  Alas, that isn't likely, which is a shame for their kids, who will eventually realize how much of the world they've missed out on due to their parents' fears.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Newer Update:  We have 85 people signed to attend and the facility is cutting us a deal to feed them all pizza.  Other Group Leader has cancelled the contract for her group to attend and made them refund her season passes for the facility.  They aren't very sad to lose her business.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TeenagerMom said:

Even Newer Update:  We have 85 people signed to attend and the facility is cutting us a deal to feed them all pizza.  Other Group Leader has cancelled the contract for her group to attend and made them refund her season passes for the facility.  They aren't very sad to lose her business.

 

Just out of curiosity, how big is the other group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TeenagerMom said:

Even Newer Update:  We have 85 people signed to attend and the facility is cutting us a deal to feed them all pizza.  Other Group Leader has cancelled the contract for her group to attend and made them refund her season passes for the facility.  They aren't very sad to lose her business.

hasta la vista.  baby.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Just out of curiosity, how big is the other group?

 

Last I heard, their Facebook group has over 100 people in it, but some of those could be spouses.  It's big but apparently she couldn't get enough participation to pay for it completely.  Some of her members are coming anyway.  The facility is allowing them to come independent of the group leader.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TeenagerMom said:

 

Last I heard, their Facebook group has over 100 people in it, but some of those could be spouses.  It's big but apparently she couldn't get enough participation to pay for it completely.  Some of her members are coming anyway.  The facility is allowing them to come independent of the group leader.

 

Thanks. I was curious about that. I figured there would be people who would not find her position a hill to die on and wondered if they would/could still attend.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TeenagerMom said:

 Other Group Leader has cancelled the contract for her group to attend and made them refund her season passes for the facility.  They aren't very sad to lose her business.

I'm glad that losing Other Group's business won't hurt their bottom line but talk about sour grapes. Unfortunately it's those kids who will miss out on fun. 

3 hours ago, TeenagerMom said:

 

Last I heard, their Facebook group has over 100 people in it, but some of those could be spouses.  It's big but apparently she couldn't get enough participation to pay for it completely.  Some of her members are coming anyway.  The facility is allowing them to come independent of the group leader.

Well apparently she doesn't speak for the group. That's good to know. It might explain her attitude, especially if she's a control freak. She's losing control of the group. Members are (gasp!) thinking for themselves.

  • Like 5
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...