--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > **SNIP** > > > > > > The campus is private property and campus officials can request a > > > person to leave their property whenever they deem that someone is > > > trespassing. No shoes, no shirt, no service. They can withdraw > > their > > > invitation at any time. Not a civil rights violation; just a > > > trespassing issue. > > > > > > If the person had paid money for certain privileges or services and > > > then they were denied those privileges or services without credit > > > (either in whole or prorated) then the person might sue for breach > > of > > > contract, but it seems that the course was free. > > > > > > What about the fact that the university receives federal funding? > > Does that not put them within the scope of federal laws? > > > **END** > > No, it's still a contract issue. An agreement between the university > (or some other TMO entity) and the course participant; a contract of > some sort. And maybe a provisional one that spells out that course > acceptance or participation is contingent upon some TMO > security/purity/worthiness clearance and that the TMO can call it off > whenever they feel like it. Can't imagine that the TMO doesn't have > competent legal counsel for things like emergency spiritual crisis > course contracts. I'd imagine it's pretty much boilerplate stuff that > absolves and holds blameless the university for anything. > > Enforceability is another matter, but based on the pure fuzziness of > what is promised and/or anticipated in the whole premise of these > courses I believe that most courts would be very reluctant to get > involved. Plus the money involved really isn't that great of an > amount so what lawyer is going to litigate it if there's no payoff. > > The federal funding matter brings the university within the scope of > federal law as it relates to certain federal educational requirements. > But I can't see how a course like this would relate to federal > funding. Plus, what would be the "protected group" that these people > belong to that makes it a civil rights violation? (Like race or > religion or gender status.) These people get to practice whatever it > is that they do (whether religion or sadhana or however they > characterize it) but the university (or the TMO) is just telling them > that they can't do it whatever it is, there, on that course.
First of all, thanks for the great insights. On the above point, I don't think it's a matter of the TMO telling them that they can't do the non-TM activities on the course but, rather, because of a religious activity performed by this individual during NON-Dome practise he is being told he can't attend the Dome. It was this discrimination based solely upon this individual's personal religious practises that I earlier suggested was a violation of federal equality laws (this individual adheres to, practises and is regular in both TM and TM Sidhis and only does those practises as per the instructions while in the Dome). > Catholics don't let Muslims lead prayer services during their mass. > > As Peter said before, it's the TMO's bat and ball. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
