[313] in peace2
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Discrimination Against Gays
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (danah boyd)
Sun Jul 2 13:24:07 2000
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: danah boyd <danah@media.mit.edu>
Reply-To: danah@acm.org
To: Gregory D Dennis <gdennis@MIT.EDU>
Cc: peace-list@MIT.EDU, bostonrnr@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000702034259.00aa81e0@po9.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.4.05.10007021317070.11003-100000@ml.media.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I object to saying that a church/synagogue is a public accommodation. The
BSA is not entirely private (although I think it soon will be), but I
would object to their uses of public accomodations such as _schools_, not
churches. I do not feel as though a church is open to _anyone_ and I also
believe that as much as it is not practiced, there should be a strict
separation of church and state.
Which makes me wonder about the meaning of "public accomodation"... Aren't
public accommodations considered to be publicly governmentally funded? Or
what about places such as hotels? Where is the line? Can a hotel
discriminate?
Danah
------------
d a n a h science chases money, and money chases its tail,
b o y d and the best minds of my generation can't make bail.
and i'm wondering what it would take for my country to rise
first we admit our mistakes then we open our eyes
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Gregory D Dennis wrote:
> To say "the Supreme Court is upholding discrimination against gays" is
> terribly misleading. Nothing in this decision says anything about the
> Supreme Court's attitude towards or against discrimination. What they are
> upholding in this case is the right of a private organization's, i.e. a
> "club", to select it's own members using any criteria it chooses. The
> NAACP, for instance, does not allow any white members -- and they should
> have this right, for they are a completely private organization. They
> receive no subsidies from the government and do not operate on any
> government-owned property. What was being decided in this Boy Scout case is
> whether or not the BSA is a private organization or a public accommodation,
> not whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with Discrimination against
> Gays. That having been said, I would contend that they are not a private
> club, because they (1) receive subsidies from the federal government and
> (2) often operate from places of public accommodation like churches and
> synagogues. If the BSA wants to discriminate when selecting it's own
> members, then they must stop taking government money and they should rent
> out private function halls for their meetings. But again, the supreme court
> did not make a decision as to the morality of anti-gay discrimination, they
> made a decision as to what constitutes a private organization.
>
> Greg
>
> --------------------------------
> Gregory D Dennis (617) 267-2199
> Phi Sigma Kappa gdennis@mit.edu
> 487 Commonwealth Ave
> Boston, MA 02215
>
