--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > You and I and others could offer our definitions, but what MUM means by > > > this is that Amma is coming here in about a week, and they don't want > > > anyone putting up posters, etc. Several people who had offered their > > > support and who have been seeing her for years, have now withdrawn their > > > support, although they will still see her, albeit with some degree of > > > paranoia. > > > > > > Fairfield's own version of "being in the closet." > > > > Sal > > > Just wondering....is there anything illegal about denying access to programs > based on this kind of rule? Could someone make a case about this?
There are not expectations of freedoms in private groups and since this is not a disability or race issue I can't see what basis you could have to challenge them in court. They could say tomorrow that no one will be admitted who isn't wearing the color purple or who uses past tense verbs in their speech, it is their land, their club and their rules. The question is why would adults submit to this kind of treatment voluntarily? I believe Singer and Lifton had some insights into how this gets put together. >
