REPOST — From this blog on September 26, 2017
ACLU Dangerously Meandering Off Course
The ACLU has brought its mighty financial sources against a person who apparently insulted someone. The ACLU long a champion of protecting the constitutional rights of all has lost their way and in doing so fosters disrespect for our judicial system. They have elected to sue an “event organizer” because she insulted a guest by asking the person to move to the back of the room to another table.
So what’s the legal claim? The person asked to move “identifies” female although apparently a male and wanted everyone to know it. Let me see if I have this right. If just before the event earlier in the day a man with a beard, a beer belly, and a pierced nose decides to wear a dress and spike heels waddles up to the front and makes a scene by his appearance, an event organizer cannot politely ask her (her for that evening) to please move to the back of the room?
According to the Pensacola News Journal article (Sep. 25, 2017) the ACLU claims this is to be a really important case, another Brown v. Board of Education as a landmark case preventing discrimination against “transgenders.” So, the ACLU picks on an individual with inferior resources to establish their new cause celeb. In the meantime the public fumes over the allocation of the judicial resources that will be needed to litigate this ridiculous lawsuit which should have been handled (if at all) with an apology. And the erosion of public confidence in the judicial system has another straw added to the camel’s back. That’s the real victim here not the person who claims to be offended.
And now, from today’s Pensacola News Journal…
PNJ, June 19, 2018, reported by Kevin Robinson
Judge Rules Against Pensacola Woman in Transgender Discrimination Suit
A judge has ruled against a Pensacola woman who claims she was discriminated against because she is transgender.
The suit was based around allegations that Nevaeh Love, a woman who was assigned male at birth, was singled out and asked to move from her seat at an adults-only fundraising event. Event organizers testified that Love’s presence at the front of the venue made the performers uncomfortable, and she was asked to sit further back.
In a case presented directly to Judge Edward P. Nickinson in April, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida argued that denying Love her seat of choice because she is transgender was a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
In a final order filed last week, a judge wrote that in most circumstances — say, if Love had been denied a seat at a restaurant, a room at a hotel or an opportunity at her place of employment — her case could have merit.
But adding sex to the equation changes things, according to the judge.
The fundraising event featured a troupe of male exotic dancers and was advertised as open to “ladies only.” The dancers purportedly “expressed objections to performing their show, which involved some degree of disrobing and mingling with the patrons, if a person they considered to be male was to be in the audience,” the order said.
“In some circumstances … the physical attributes, male or female, of a person’s body simply can make a difference,” the judge wrote. “No person should be required to perform body-contact sexual or sexually suggestive acts with another except by consent. The court believes that a judgment in favor of Ms. Love, in this case, would violate that basic premise.”
Nickinson’s order continued, “Here, the dancers clearly did not consider Ms. Love to be a ‘woman’ for purposes of their performance, and the court sees no reason why, for that limited purpose, Ms. Love should be able to force those dancers to think otherwise.”
The ACLU had looked to Love’s case to establish an important precedent for Florida’s transgender community. Florida’s Civil Rights Act was written to protect citizens from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap or marital status, but the language of the act does not specifically list gender as a consideration.
Nickinson did address that issue in his ruling, noting, “In concluding that Ms. Love should not prevail on her claim, in this case, the Court does not take issue with any of the multitude of cases finding that statutory prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sex extend to transgender persons.”
The judge ended his order by noting the defendant, Katoshia Young, had attempted to find a “middle ground” that would have been satisfactory to both parties, but that Love had requested a refund and left the venue before any such resolution could be reached.
Neither party was awarded anything in the decision, but the court retained jurisdiction to award costs or fees if appropriate.