madison and cavies?

[whitedawn]

This is not correct. One example is that any private business with 15 or more employees can be sued for violating equal employment opportunity laws, which are part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

maybe you are confusing civil rights with constitutional rights?

of course you are right. stupid mistake, substituting the word "civil" for "constitutional."

but, neither of these really apply here anyway. this is about membership in an organization, not employment discrimination. no one could sue the madison scouts on a discrimination theory and actually win. there just isn't any legitimate ground on which to stand.

[silvertrombone]

yeah, Madison Scouts actually signs you up as a Scout.

gasoline/fire...how do we reconcile the gays in these corps, then? Staff and members.

Just a thought. Don't really want an answer. Don't really care.

And if anyone wants to say mean things to me, look up my comments in support of gays in DC...doesn't matter to me.

[silvertrombone]

This is not correct. One example is that any private business with 15 or more employees can be sued for violating equal employment opportunity laws, which are part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

maybe you are confusing civil rights with constitutional rights?

Hmm...and while we're on the subject of the Constitution, exactly where in the Constitutution is the idea of individual rights, hmm??? Or 'civil rights'? Or equality of women and blacks?

We don't really talk about such things any more due to a combination of ignorance and political correctness, but remember that the Constitutution was not a document of individual rights and equality...it was a document about economic opportunity. There was quite literally a fight to include a bill of rights in the text of the Constitution by such patriots as Patrick Henry and George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights. These were, in the end, Amendments to the Constitution, not a part of the Constitution itself.

Sadly, slavery was a part of the Constitution as it was originally adopted...recognized, and left to the States to regulate. We made progress on the topic of "all men are created equal," and banned slavery under the 14th (?) Amendment.

Interestingly, immediately after the Congress adopted the 14th Amendment and sent it on to the States for ratification, it took up the funding of Washington D.C.'s segregated public schools, Massachussetts' being the only desegregated in the nation at the time. So as bad as it is in today's perspective, desegregation was not a part of the 14th Amendment, and it certainly was not mandated by the Constitution...see above.

Now, if desegregation is not part of the Constitution, and is not part of the 14th Amendment, how does one go about mandating desegregation? By Statutory Law? An Act of Congress? Ordinary Law? This goes back to the fundamentals of our Constitution and requires a Constitutional Amendment. Did this happen? Think about it: Civil Rights Act. Go figure...our government did not do this thing that was right to do, in the correct manner. Oops.

OK, flame suit on--go ahead and blast me. But I'm right. It should be and should have been an amendment. Just sayin.

[Scerpella]

Guest performer? I guess it's all semantics then? Was she counted in the total of 135 MM? If so kind of hard to not clasify her as a member. If NOT counted in the 135 then thats a pretty tricky way to get more members on the field. Just clasify your contra line as guest performers and you get to march 12-14 over the cap!

Well youre talking about legal matters here. Semantics and verbage are critical. Im sure she counted towards the 135 since she was on the field. The point I made in case you missed it is that the Scouts could have found themselves setting a precedent which gave other women a legal toehold into membership but by calling her a guest performer they forestall that.

[josh161]

ok ok ok.... lets keep this corps related. My intent in asking this was what specifically keeps them from a lawsuit... Not whether blacks and whites should have been segregated... please stay on topic... thats not a discussion to get into here

[BigSnareline]

Yes - all good points. The real mystery is why do both all male corps wear predominately green? It has to be a conspiracy!

[mobrien]

ok ok ok.... lets keep this corps related. My intent in asking this was what specifically keeps them from a lawsuit...

It's the same rationale that keeps every other junior corps from getting sued by flute players and 50 year olds who want to march. The corps themselves decided that those two examples didn't fit their own criteria for membership, and that's pretty much the end of story.

The government respects that private organizations have the right to choose their membership using their own criteria, and give those organizations a fairly wide berth - short of compelling example of an org's restrictions and criteria being perceived as injurious to someone else, the authorities have no real interest in stepping into the fray.

Edited April 7, 2008 by mobrien

[Coathope]

ok ok ok.... lets keep this corps related. My intent in asking this was what specifically keeps them from a lawsuit... Not whether blacks and whites should have been segregated... please stay on topic... thats not a discussion to get into here

Private organizations can organize their own rules. Legally, they cannot deny someone female from auditioning. However, they do not have to accept the person if they do not fit into the organization's rules. Though I am not well versed in law, I'd say it's comparable to applying to a private college or perhaps to a conservatory. They have to audition you, but they don't have to accept you.

[whitedawn]

Because the government respects that private organizations have the right to choose their membership using their own criteria, and give those organizations a fairly wide berth - short of compelling example of an org's restrictions and criteria being perceived as injurious to someone else, the authorities have no real reason or interest in stepping into the fray.

In short, you have the right to decide who can be part of your own private club.

yep -- the only thing that might stand is a suit on a state action theory that could theoretically result in an organization's loss of non-profit tax status.

but that never happens... too expensive, and no real purpose.

[EndzoneEric]

...how do we reconcile the gays in these corps, then?

Might just be the most asinine post I've ever read here.

Put a list in Excel, and hit the ∑ key. That should give you all the reconciliation you need.