Posted on 11/20/2011 12:22:45 PM PST by QT3.14
As I noted in June, a district court held that, under Boy Scouts v. Dale, a gay athletic group had a First Amendment right to limit the number of straight players on a team, since that was necessary for it to convey its expressive message. The court has now issued a new opinion (Apilado v. North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (W.D. Wash. Nov. 10, 2011)) reasserting its conclusion, but developing the analysis further:
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
“The Commissioner of NAGAAA submitted a declaration explaining that the desire for exclusivity was born of the fact that many members of the LGBT community come from backgrounds where team sports have been environments of ridicule and humiliation. NAGAAA’s efforts to promote an athletic, competitive, sportsmanlike gay identity, with a unique set of values, in response to a particular need, are protected by the First Amendment. Forced inclusion of straight athletes would distract from and diminish those efforts.”
Soooo....does this mean that NO, there can be no white only or straight only groups if there is no PERCEIVED environment of ridicule, etc.?
Geez. Why would anyone “straight” WANT to play on a “gay” team?
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
>>>gay identity, with a unique set of values,<<<
I would really like to see this list of values, what makes it unique, and a discussion of how those values are different from, let’s say, heterosexual values.
That’s a rhetorical question, since I know that casually throwing out comments about “unique” gay “values” is just a thin veneer of b***sh*t painted over an empty building.
No, this reasoning only applies to politically correct approved aggrieved groups.
So you can’t have a straight ony or white only group. But you are allowed to have groups for gays, any minority group, and women.
As long as the group involved has aggrieved status in the world of political correctness, then the legal criteria allow this self-expression legal concept. If a group, such as whites in general, or white men, sought legal status under such a legal concept, then the legal principles and criteria for judging the situation will change so that there is no benefit given to politically incorrect groups.
Sooner or later, the victim argument was bound to come full circle. That's the idiocy of this kind of extremism; it eventually gets farther and farther afield until it wraps around and bites itself in the tail.
You are correct...which is why I like to avoid the very word “value(s)” anymore. I much prefer VIRTUE(S)...which is, by far, much less subjective/relative.
;-)
So if a straight man wants to join and claims to “like guys”, they have a right to deny him entry? How can you prove someone isn’t gay?
all these phony years of them stating that just wanted to be "equal"....well, now they don't want to be equal, they want to have special rights and priviledges....
The whole notion is ridiculous, isn’t it? Liberals have a penchant for taking what is simple and making it much more complicated and confusing. They love heaping law upon law upon law....and we all suffer the “unintended” results. And many lawyers (a large number of which are Democrat) rake in the $$$.
God help us if Obama is reelected and they attempt to reform the tax code. (rolling eyes)
Bingo!
How can you prove someone isn’t gay?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You have to go by what the gay-o-meter says.
EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE is allowed to be unique, stand alone, regulate who can join, EXCEPT
Straight, White Males.
The ‘courts’ say that I have to let you join my group no matter what BUT I am not allowed to join your group AND they basically use as an excuse that ‘WE’ don’t understand you and/or your ways — HOWEVER that does not exempt you from being placed in my group.....
We are some kind of screwed up BUT still the best system in the world - - for now at least.
So it’s okay for other groups to exclude homosexuals then.
They cannot have it both ways no matter how badly they want it.
No it means that the victim has now become the bully and the new victim has no protections.
Welcome to the result of political correctness.
Yes, in many cases this is also true. However, another factor would be that of the increasing numbers of confusing and, at times, contradictory laws...and I stand by my comment.
There are several other negative results of liberal thinking and activism in addition to what we both stated.
Hmm. He refuses to play both pitcher and catcher? (Please forgive me.)
I remember reading about a 'gay' league's problems earlier this year but didn't believe it needed posting on FR. There was a dustup when a league reached the championship game, because one of the two teams had some bisexual men as well as its limit of straight men.
The consensus of gay men in the league was that bisexual men should count as straight men and that one team was bending the rules by fielding bisexuals on its roster.
Designer uniforms?
Ya gotta believe that they have "straight" female followers. And for the straight guy, that means no competition from the other players.......
Other than that, you're right......
so the judge comcluded the first amendment association rights are only triggered when special class victims are seeking to use it.
IOW the first does not apply to all people just to those SPECIAL victims as defined by the courts via junk science and outright assumptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.