From "Lesbian Couple Appeals Minnesota Club Ruling" by by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff, posted 11/12/07
A lesbian couple will appeal a ruling by a lower court that said a Rochester Minnesota gym did not discriminate against the women when it denied them a family membership.
Amy and Sarah Monson went to court when the the Rochester Athletic Club refused to sell them a family membership because they are not legally married.
The Monsons are in a committed relationship and are raising a child.
The club argued that the couple's sexuality was not an issue, saying the gym's rules state only that to be eligible for a family membership applicants "must be legally married under Minnesota law. “
The women are represented by OutFront Minnesota, the state's largest gay rights group which argued that since same-sex marriage is illegal in the state the club's rule was discriminatory and violated Minnesota's human rights law.
Judge Kevin Lund dismissed the case in a narrowly based ruling.
Lund said that the decision should not be seen as either a victory for opponents of gay rights or as a defeat for LGBT civil rights. Lund's ruling said that his decision only reflects that the Human Rights Act does not specifically grant protections for people who are same-sex domestic partners.
But he was critical of the club's definition of what can qualify for a family membership.
"This morally and legally defensible yet unrealistically narrow definition of family fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons' relationship," the judge said in his written ruling.
"Other, arguably more enlightened organizations, such as the Rochester Area Family Y, have chosen not to reduce the definition of family in such an anachronistic fashion," he wrote.
A few frightening observations from Priscilla Jael:
- A small business cannot afford to get sued like this — this case should have been thrown out before trial, but here it’s been to trial, decided, and now appealed — tens (hundreds) of thousands of dollars in cost to the business man, zero cost for a homosexual to drive him out of business.
- Look at what the judge said. Who is he to redefine family? Who does he think he is to tell these business owners that they are narrow minded? He’s there to protect their constitutional rights, which include their freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. But instead he pompously states that while their position is morally and legally defensible, it’s not enlightened. (Can you foresee the day when the defendant will lose this case and be ordered to undergo enlightenment training?)
- The judge himself notes that another business offers the discount this pair wants — but it’s not enough for them to get the YMCA to accommodate them, it’s not enough to boycott RAC — no, they insist that EVERYONE give them exactly what they want or pay dearly. They are the bullies.
