Should a PRIVATE gay softball league organization attempting to ban "straight", or "not gay enough" members, and the PRIVATE Cub Scouts organization attempting to ban a lesbian Scout leader be legally allowed to do so?

by J.W. Howler Posted 2012/04/30 20:48:34

Related Topics: Sexual, Id, Bi, Health, Gay, Lesbian

75 votes
Read all 84 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	YES	56 votes	75%
	PROBABLY	2 votes	3%
	PROBABLY NOT	3 votes	4%
	NO	14 votes	19%

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lesbian-cub-leader-fired-scouts-...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gay-softball-org-allegedly-ba...

+16

Add a comment above

kmay 2012/04/30 20:54:58 (edited)

YES

+12
As long as straight only private leagues / clubs are allowed. Are they?

Key word 'private'.
>> See Replies

More polls by J.W. Howler

wysiwis 2012/05/02 21:55:51

YES

+1
Hence the term PRIVATE. We have a "Black Congressional Congress", they don't allow anyone from other "races" in! I don't see why a private club can't be discriminatory too!

reply
Charles E 2012/05/02 19:15:06

YES

+1
They are private organizations and, as long as no one is hurt (feelings don't count), should have sole and absolute control over membership requirements.

reply
ScottyG - Faqueue 2012/05/02 19:12:57

YES

+2
Private means just that.

reply
Reggie☮ 2012/05/02 02:42:22

YES

+2
As long as the organization does not get public funding. The key word is private and private groups can set their own rules.

reply
brutusin~ Proud Apetheist 2012/05/02 00:14:47

YES

+2
It's a private organization. They can let in whoever they want or not let them in as well.

reply
ruthannhausman 2012/05/01 23:30:34

PROBABLY

+1
Off the top of my head, with emphasis on the word "private," I don't see why not. I realize segregation of any type is frowned on anymore, but sometimes people who have major traits of commonality prefer to hang around with "their own kind," and I don't think they should be forced to mingle with people they don't wish to socialize with. But, again, "private" is the important distinction here.

reply
*K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg' 2012/05/01 21:54:47

YES

+2
The meaning of the word private doesn't have very much wiggle room.

reply
Darlin' 2012/05/01 16:06:51

NO

Don't understand the need to catagorize ppl all the time in the U.S. Who cares what colour your skin is, what your sexual orientation is or your religious beliefs... we are all ppl... let's just play ball!

reply
Brandon 2012/05/01 16:05:10

YES

However, this is not going to help their cause. This actually kinda pisses me off. I support equal rights. Why in the hell would they want to do something that undermines that idea?

reply
Jose Hernandez 2012/05/01 14:04:30

PROBABLY NOT

+1
Discrimination on straight people.

reply
Hawkeye 2012/05/01 12:11:33

YES

+3
WHEN does the right of the individual STOP being the right of the individual?? When the group of individuals reaches a thousand?? A million??

WHY is it OKAY to offend a million people to assuage the offense of ONE??

WHEN did the Constitution that guranteed rights for ALL Americans turn into a Constitution that protects the FEW from the duly enumerated rights of the many??

( For instance.. WHEN did Freedom OF Religion get replaced by Freedom FROM religion??)

The Constitution prohibits ANY restrictions of the right to assemble..

reply
No nonsense NanC...don't BS... 2012/05/01 12:11:29

YES

+2
When did private not mean private?

reply
Seonag 2012/05/01 12:10:06

YES

+3
Key word is "PRIVATE." If I want to form a private group of only women standing between 5'7" and 5'10" tall and ban everyone else, I should be allowed to. I might decide to limit it further to those who are 'natural' blonds.

reply
Darlin' to Seonag 2012/05/01 16:08:06

wow

reply
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/05/01 11:01:07

YES

+1
Absolutely!

reply
redhorse29 2012/05/01 06:30:07

NO

+1
It is discrimination. If there were as softball league anywhere under US jurisdiction the gays would protest, sue and win the right to force access to the team. No. They should have to allow anyone to play.

reply
dallasjoe 2012/05/01 05:56:13

YES

But only if they recieve no Government support like Tax breaks or right of Monolopy Like the national Golf Club of Agusta

reply
lonewolf 2012/05/01 05:40:32

NO

this makes no sense! what are they gonna do have sex on the field? why does it matter?

reply
Mr. Smith 2012/05/01 05:29:21

YES

+2
Private being the key word. You can allow or deny whoever you want in your private club. Plus, why in the hell would you want to be part of a club that doesn't want you as a member......I've never understood that logic!

reply
J.W. Ho... to Mr. Smith 2012/05/01 13:22:33

+1
"why in the hell would you want to be part of a club that doesn't want you as a member"

Oh, how many times I have wondered that, myself.

reply
DebraJMSmith 2012/05/01 05:20:12

YES

+4
...just as teams who do not want to allow homos, should not have to allow homos.

reply
Chris -... to DebraJM... 2012/05/01 11:02:03

+3
I like the way you talk!

reply
DebraJM... to Chris -... 2012/05/01 20:11:25

+3
Thank you.

:o)

reply
Brian Tristan MacQuillan 2012/05/01 05:02:53

YES

+2
The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality on matters like this.
It is perfectly legal.

reply
Iamfree 2012/05/01 04:08:09

YES

+2
Yep, private means private. We should all have freedom of association.

reply
Louisa - Enemy of the State 2012/05/01 03:58:08

YES

+2
But it works both ways. If you want a straight league, then you should have that right.

I've found that most people are happiest when they are around people who are somewhat like themselves. It wouldn't be any fun to be with a bunch of clones, but if I joined a private club I would probably go for a women's group, middle aged.

reply
seadog6608PWCM 2012/05/01 03:31:36
DougE 2012/05/01 03:15:08

NO

+1
we know the pro-homosexual agenda wants it both ways. No punn intended.

reply
Doc 2012/05/01 02:20:02

YES

+3
If the organization is private, they have the constitutional right to run it however they desire, short of breaking the law.

reply
EDWARD G 2012/05/01 02:01:29

YES

+4
Private clubs can set membership requirements. Why would I want to join a gay softball league if I'm not gay?

reply
David P 2012/05/01 01:58:37

YES

+4
Freedom of Association. who would want in a group where you were not wanted?

reply
American Reformed 2012/05/01 01:56:18

YES

+4
Yes they should, this issue at least as far as the Boy Scouts is concerned was already decided by the SCOTUS. If they bring suit they will lose. As for the gay softball league; according to the SCOTUS the right to free association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech. Both are and should be legal.

reply
cynsity 2012/05/01 01:38:01

YES

+4
PRIVATE means do what the hell you want.... you can ban or allow who ever for what ever reason... just remember the mose select you get teh fewer members you have and membership is what pays teh bills.

reply
Tomus Megalomania 2012/05/01 00:53:18

NO

+1
People should not be able to deny others jobs due to their sexual orientation.

reply
America... to Tomus M... 2012/05/01 01:45:06

+4
Who was denied a job?

Blessings Upon You

reply
J.W. Ho... to Tomus M... 2012/05/01 13:29:30

Rave by mistake.

"Jobs"?...As in "employment"?

I don't believe this poll question is about "jobs".

reply
Tomus M... to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/01 17:54:09

+1
I thought scout leaders were paid. Am I wrong?

If we are just talking about membership in some club, then I don't think they should have to be admitted.

reply
J.W. Ho... to Tomus M... 2012/05/01 18:00:28

+1
No the Scout leaders are volunteers, and get paid only for out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

reply
Gracie - Proud Conservative 2012/05/01 00:42:09

YES

+5
Private should be private and as such should be allowed to include or exclude anyone. It must go both ways.

reply
@TheMissesHelp <-Follow/Twe... 2012/05/01 00:39:34

NO

+3
Christian schools aren't allowed to ban muslims. Boy Scouts aren't allowed to ban girls.

reply