Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't imagine a club being forced to accept members. That would be total government intrusion.....What? Oh, that is how it is now. Wow! What the.....
I can't imagine a club being forced to accept members. That would be total government intrusion.....What? Oh, that is how it is now. Wow! What the.....
You didn't realize that public and government-supported organizations can't discriminate based on race, etc? It IS 2013 and all...
I can't imagine a club being forced to accept members. That would be total government intrusion.....What? Oh, that is how it is now. Wow! What the.....
Thta's b/c these aren't private clubs, to the extent they are operating in public buildings on public universities that receive public money. They can operate off campus and have functions off campus and then deny whoever they like
Update: The bill (S719) passed with no objections in the Senate and will now head for hearing in the state House. If passed, the proposed law would prohibit public institutions in the University of North Carolina System and the state’s community colleges from enforcing their non-discrimination policies among student group leadership, effectively allowing anti-LGBT and other types of discrimination in student groups, even if those student groups receive public funding
Quote:
Originally Posted by (someone else)
I'm stuck on how something that is constrained by federal law could be in violation of federal law. Are they being sneaky?
Unfortunately, as you know, GLBT people are not protected by any Federal (and of course not state) laws, even from firing without cause. Most people are surprised/shocked to hear that--even most gay people aren't fully aware of the laws. This is why ENDA is so important at the federal level.
OK, I read the bill version 2 and (1) in no way does it say anything about excluding gays, etc from membership in anything and (2) it allows that an organization cannot be penalized if people are only elected into leadership positions who maintain core beliefs of the organization.
to (1) I don't know how this posting derived its message and headline but it was not fact based. It is a shame and they lost creditability with me
to (2) it sounds like it is to address the type of situation that happened at Vanderbilt. I believe the story was an atheist joined a church group (i think baptist student union) and participated with them in activities, i.e. intramural, meetings, altruistic, homecoming, etc. No problem, the more the merrier. The atheist wanted to run for the position of president of the Baptist Student Union and was told he could not run for a leadership position since he did not hold the core beliefs i.e. belief in God as the organization had by doctrine. It became a mess and don't recall how many lawyers were involved, but in the end the Baptist Student Union moved off campus. This bill precludes that. and it sounds reasonable to me.
Obviously a club doesn't have to accept an "anti-social jerk". There is nothing protecting that group.
So many people believe they are special snowflakes without understanding people might not want to be around them due to their personality, not their minority status. By claiming they were denied due to their minority status, said snowflakes have legal options against the group/club that denied them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.