364
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
364 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2106 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Worth noting that this was not a great leap - the judge didn't rule anything particularly interesting about trans rights, he simply said that freedom of association means you can't go to court to force a private organization to exclude someone.
Exactly. I disagree strongly with the sorority's decision, but can/should we compel individuals to hang out with people they don't want to hang out with?
If the group receives public money, it's a whole different situation
I'm assuming that the majority of members are fine with this, otherwise they'd simply change their bylaws to exclude trans women (and probably get away with doing so for the same legal reason). These 6 members were probably the losers of some internal battle who went to court to try to get their way anyway and failed.
Ah. This makes a whole lot more sense.
I saw this story this morning and could not for the life of me figure out what had happened.
None of it made sense until I saw your comment.
I don't think that'd work. Which is why most of the laws we're seeing from shithole states target medical care or other things instead of outright banning them.
Bostock v. Clayton County decided sexual orientation and gender identity fall within the Title VII of the Civil Rights act as under the protected class of "sex". This should decisively prevent anyone from outright discriminating against LGBT+ people, but we know how inventive conservatives get with oppressing others.
This explanation certainly makes me feel the least concerned for the new sister, so I hope so!
The sorority admitted the trans woman. This suit was filed by members of the sorority in an attempt to force the sorority to exclude her as a member. Are you sure you strongly disagree with the sorority's decision to admit a trans woman?
Ah I didn't RTFA
to not exclude the trans woman?
of course not, but if the people who don't want to "hang out" with others only don't want to because of wilfully ignorant hate (in other words - for no good reason, and of course this isn't about not wanting to hang out this is about excluding and attempting to erase an entire group of people), it shouldn't be the person who they hate for no good reason who is excluded, but them.
Agree on principle, but you simply can't make private organizations associate with someone they don't want to.
Sure, I bet some of the members were fine with her joining, but they joined an organization with a decision making hierarchy, and have to abide by that leadership's vote/decision. If they don't like the decision they should leave, and join a more open group. (or work to remove the leadership and bring about the changes they want).
In this case it sounds like the rules didn't bar her from joining so I don't get the case at all.
Trans women are women, don't come at me like I'm a bigot.
You're missing a key fact here: the sorority admitted her. This suit was by individual members trying to force the sorority to reverse their decision. This decision didn't establish new rights for trans people or affirm their existing rights, it affirmed the right of an organization to establish membership criteria that can't be overridden even by members of that organization.
How this would go wrt gender/sex being federally protected classes is an interesting question, but hasn't been examined by this case. All this did was establish that these 6 hateful shitheads can't force the rest of the group to be hateful shitheads. Or, more accurately, it failed to establish that they can.
You didn't read my comment till the end
In all of these situations, replace trans woman with, say, black woman. Now how does it sound?
Pretty shitty! What, are you trying to use a gotcha?
You can't make private groups accept someone. It sucks, and results in some very distasteful scenarios.
Employment or public groups? Very different.
Idk, sounds pretty okay to me
That was my point exactly. Can’t discriminate against protected classes.
So you made the same point they did and added nothing.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the Ku Klux Klan doesn't allow black women. They have the right to do that.
Well, the ones who don't want to hang out with others are free to leave.
Desegregation seems to have worked out better than segregation did for the affected minorities. Why wouldn't it be the same here?