posted                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:

---

It would not be okay in a public school (IMO.) In a private school, they can certainly choose who to serve-- only boys, only girls, only Orthodox Jews, only Scientologists, whatever.

They just can't then expect public funding.

---

Actually there are gender separated public schools. The difference is that they justify the practice by arguing that girls and boys learn better in a single sex environment, and there is significant evidence to back up the claim. I think there must be an opt out clause if students (or parents) want to have a co-ed environment.

---

quote:

---

The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So, if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the school's professed principles were inconsistent with admitting them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. The general rule to be drawn is that the First Amendment protects the right to express a viewpoint, including expression of a preference for racial discrimination, but people may not practice such ideas even within private associations.

---

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

If that is true, I wonder if gender or religious-based schools can legally discriminate when picking their potential students or not i.e. if a male applied for a female-only public school, could they legally turn him away?

---

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

The constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, creed or color, it does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender.

---

quote:

---

Some individual states do have constitutional prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender others have laws prohibiting or proscribing it, but in general women in the US have no legal recourse against descrimination.

---

quote:

---

In 1971, for the first time in our Nation's history, this Court ruled in favor of a woman who complained that her State had denied her the equal protection of its laws. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 73 (holding unconstitutional Idaho Code prescription that, among " `several persons claiming and equally entitled to administer [a decedent's estate], males must be preferred to females' "). Since Reed, the Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with the equal protection principle when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature--equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities. See, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 462-463 (1981) (affirming invalidity of Louisiana law that made husband "head and master" of property jointly owned with his wife, giving him unilateral right to dispose of such property without his wife's consent); Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975) (invalidating Utah requirement that parents support boys until age 21, girls only until age 18).

Without equating gender classifications, for all purposes, to classifications based on race or national origin, [n.6] the Court, in post-Reed decisions, has carefully inspected official action that closes a door or denies opportunity to women (or to men). See J. E. B., 511 U. S., at 152 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (case law evolving since 1971 "reveal[s] a strong presumption that gender classifications are invalid"). To summarize the Court's current directions for cases of official classification based on gender: Focusing on the differential treatment or denial of opportunity for which relief is sought, the reviewing court must determine whether the proffered justification is "exceedingly persuasive." The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State. See Mississippi Univ. for Women, 458 U. S., at 724. The State must show "at least that the [challenged] classification serves `important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are `substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.' " Ibid. (quoting Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142, 150 (1980)). The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females. See Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 643, 648 (1975); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 223-224 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).

---

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

No, darlin', it's fine.

I am venting a nearly lifelong frustration, that's all. A really sad part of it is that surveys at the time found that many people opposed to the "Equal Rights Amendment" did not actually know what it said. It actually entailed very little:

quote:

---

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

---

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Lovely to know that the law is being interpreted that way, Dagonee. I do hope that doesn't change.

---

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

No he isn't deserving of ridicule. He is probably deserving of some sort of punishment, but ridicule is not the sort of thing that will balance those moral scales.

---

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged |