Can a men's chorus exclude gays? Exclude straights? How about a basketball league?

Great Debates
21

I suppose you could have a chorus open to only straight men, but if you then had that same chorus exclude straight men, that would be problematic from a membership perspective.

Seriously though, there is much discussion in the gay community about excluding straight players from gay sports leagues (mostly for tournaments). Most of these leagues were created decades ago to create a safe place for gays and lesbians to enjoy sports, teams etc. The idea of straight participants wasn’t a problem back then because “Eewww, gays.” Sport to a large extent is a very slow mover in the area of gay acceptance, but the past ten years have had a HUGE shift in cultural acceptance (yay). As far as I know, most gay sport leagues are orientation-inclusive. But as with many things in America, tournaments and competition in these gay leagues grew into a bigger and bigger spotlight. It is in the competitive tournaments that the role of straight players has become a controversy in recent years.
The reason is simple, the desire to win has caused many teams to invite straight players to play solely to make a stronger team. On the other hand, some teams have straight players for the simple reason that everyone gets along and they play together all season. What to do?

I’m not saying that straight players are better; but straight players are more numerous. If I’m putting together a team, if I limit myself to a random 10% of the population, I will have a harder time forming a strong team than if I open my team to 100% of the population. I would liken it to restrictions on geography for little league or something like that. If I understand things correctly, a Little League Team is barred from having a player from the next town over. This restriction is to prevent stacking the team by allowing the team to draw from a larger population.
So either its a gay tournament (10% restricted) or it isn’t (100% open). Most I think have a limit on straight players, but even that is controversial.

Recently there was a tournament (softball, I think?) where enforcement of the rules on straight participants was strained. As posters point out, “How the heck are you going to check?”
Well they did. Badly. Interviews, I think. The players in question claimed Bisexual… which is a whole OTHER can of worms. I think there was a lawsuit involved, which explains the lawyer’s bait and trap.

Anyway, the desire is well-motivated, in my opinion. The practicality of such a rule is obviously fraught with silliness.

22

Could be a woman’s chorus too.

Anyway, I think the tendancy of historical discrimination against homosexuals makes this a non-issue. I know there are going to be successful cases of employment discrimination against heterosexuals perhaps 10 years down the line (my parents learned of some guy that made a career of successful applications using the same CV and a non-ethnic name and unsuccessful one using his real name), but the issue right now isn’t some kind of autistic fairness doctrine that there is one bar with a rainbow flag in the Castro district so the entire basis for the Civil Rights Act is destroyed.

23

The Boy Scouts are legally free to be a bigoted originization so are Gay sports leagues under current law.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/02/37047.htm

24

Coming soon to a theater near you – after getting kicked out of the NBA for his wild on-court antics and off-court scandals, again, Jamal Jeffries dons a mesh shirt and joins the fledgling GLBTNBA. That’s right, it’s Juwanna Mann 2: Iwanna Mann.

25

Since you say that, and since it’s GD…

I think perhaps an argument could be made (not sure how good an argument), that the facilities needed or used by the group could inform the decision.

If the basketball league were mixed-gender (rather than mixed orientation) would we expect co-ed locker rooms and communal showers? Or would we expect single-gender changing and bathing facilities? If single-gender then why not single orientation? If separate facilities weren’t available for the genders would that be sufficient reason to refuse a mix of players?

‘Course, it would have to be an interesting choir for the same argument to made. :slight_smile:

26

Boys Scouts of America are.

Not many other countries prescribe to these stupid homophobic rules. Scouts are beyond religion in most other countries and are at worst secular.

27

Sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in all Canadian provinces. However, the Supreme Court has ruled, in the Yukon Pioneers case, that purely private organizations are free to set their own membership rules, so yes, I would think that choruses could exclude whomever they wanted.

28

I, too, am curious as to what inspired this thread.

29

As soon as sexuality becomes a protected class, he’s going to start a class action lawsuit against the gay choirs excluding the poor vulnerable heterosexuals. Either that or he’s just trying to prove we’re hypocrites (like some of those civil rights guys that attended black churches).

30

Assuming this isn’t a Brickroll, then yes, it’s socially permissible for the New York City Gay Men’s Chorus to have a policy that restricts membership to gay males (I don’t know whether there is such a policy), while it’s socially impermissible for an organization (choral or otherwise) to restrict membership to straight males—barring a reason inherent to the organization (e.g. a group based on a theology that homosexuality is a sin).

The rationale would be somewhat similar to why it’s okay to have a Congressional Black Caucus but not the opposite. Further, the idea of a gay men’s chorus adds a uniqueness and defining character to the organization, something of a promotional aspect.

Note that I’m drawing a subtle distinction between moral disapproval for an organization’s views overall and moral disapproval for a subset group. It’s one thing to hold certain tenets of, say, the Church of the Strictly Straight against them. The condemnation for its chorus limiting membership to straight males is directed at the Church, not the chorus.

It’s also a fairly fine distinction between what is central to the organization. Despite extraordinarily fond memories, I won’t sign the Dudeling up for Boy Scouts because of their misplaced and unnecessary ban on homosexuals. Homosexuality does not have any bearing on whether a Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean or reverent (full stop). It does not prevent a Scout from doing his duty to God and country, obeying the Scout law, helping people at all times, keeping himself physically strong, mentally awake or morally straight (full stop, potential pun notwithstanding).

Therefore, despite Scout leadership claims that heterosexuality is inherent to their belief system, I find them to violate the core spirit of Scouting and socially repugnant as an organization; likewise their limitation to openly straight males.

31

waitin’ for the gotcha to drop…

32

I don’t see an obvious social benefit to such activities excluding anyone for any reason other than skill.

33

To expand on RhythmDevil’s answer: I could see it being okay to have a straight choir if choirs ever became majority gay, but they aren’t, no matter what some people seem to think.

And I was also going to mention that gay choirs and gay sports teams already exist, and no one is up in arms about it, so it seems it is socially acceptable.

34

SO stealing this.

35

I just don’t understand why the basketball league would want to join the men’s chorus in the first place.

36

Boy Scouts v. Dale (citing Roberts v. Jaycees) provides some case law on private entity exclusions.

I have a case in my notes where the gravaman was the legality of 18-23 year old clubs only. Can’t remember it right now, but the US SC affirmed it.

37

Ohio’s Public Accomodation laws include sexual orientation. The Q would be would a private entity be bound by such, as was the question presented in Boy Scouts v. Dale, was the orginization a PA?

38

Is this a joke at the expense of gay people?

39

4 Poofs and a Piano is a British barbershop quartet (who are gay).

40

Already mentioned, but here’s a case.