OK, so if anything I should be working on my Super Bowl centerpiece story for next week’s Voice right now, but I felt compelled to provide an update on the situation involving the Baylor Tom Landry Fitness Center given the comment thread below.
Today I spoke with Beverly Davis, a very sweet woman who’s in charge of the city of Dallas’ Fair Housing Office, which investigates complaints under the sexual orientation nondiscrimination ordinance.
Davis explained that her office did not, as alleged, advise Steven Johnson to withdraw his complaint against the Fitness Center last year because the Fitness Center is considered exempt from the ordinance as a “private club.”
Davis, whom I trust, said the city never got a chance to determine whether the ordinance applies to the Fitness Center, because Johnson withdrew the complaint voluntarily and on his own before the investigation began. (I have my suspicions as to why Johnson chose to withdraw the complaint, but I won’t get into that here.)
So, no determination has been made about whether the ordinance applies to the Fitness Center. And again, there is no specific mention in the ordinance of an exemption for “private clubs.” Furthermore, the exemption for religious organizations should not apply because despite any affiliations the Fitness Center is not engaged in religious activities.
Alan Rodriguez, another gay man who was discriminated against by the Fitness Center, says he plans to file a complaint on Monday.
Which, I think, is a good thing.
After all, what’s the point of having the ordinance if you’re not going to attempt to use it? Filing a complaint will force the city to investigate, and it will undoubtedly force Baylor to get its attorneys involved. And at some point, they may start to wonder whether all this is really worth it to defend some backward-ass policy that probably loses money for the Fitness Center.
The city may offer mediation to Baylor and a chance to change the policy. If Baylor refuses, the City Attorney’s Office will decide whether there is cause to prosecute. If they choose not to prosecute, it becomes a City Council issue. These cases shouldn’t be decided by the City Attorney’s Office; they should be decided by judges and juries. Again, in the nine years since the ordinance was passed, there have been more than 40 complaints filed, and not one has ever been prosecuted by the city.
Granted, even if the city were to prosecute a case successfully, it’s only a maximum $500 fine per violation. But that’s not the point.
9 Comments
John, thanks for the follow-up. It definitely provides a bit of clarification. Since it’s not all said and done obviously, I wanted to check a few more points. Your comment about “despite any affiliations the Fitness Center is not engaged in religious activities” raises an interesting point, but I can’t tell if that’s wishful thinking on your (and my) part, or if it has actual basis in case-law. Under “exception” the ordinance very broadly states “a religious organization.” I suspect they’re covered, unfortunately.
The key to understanding the basis Landry may hold for discrimination is three-fold. First, there is no need in the ordinance to define a private accommodation separately as it naturally falls outside anything defined as public. On that note, the phrase “if they are open to the general public” is significant. Should Landry fall under “public” then it is complying by allowing GLB members. (I haven’t heard anything about T.) Second, with regard to “discrimination,” a case might be made that same-gender partners aren’t allowed to join on equal financial footing as opposite gender married spouses. However, “solely on the basis” comes into play. It’s ludicrous to us, but their argument would be that GLB folks still have the same rights to marry opposite sex partners as straight patrons do. So long as the idiotic amendment to the Texas Constitution stands, we’re screwed there. It’s absolutely wrong, yet not only legal – it’s enshrined into the state’s defining document (short of being overturned by a federal court. Fingers crossed.) Third, the religious exemption may very well carry the day for these numb-nuts even if the other two issues above were settled law in our favor. And John, I’m not an attorney either. My thoughts are based only on a personal careful reading of the law, as unbiased as I’m able. Given that many people are reading your articles and given clearly that a legal opinion is important for consumers to know what their rights truly are, and aren’t, it’s definitely time to reach out to an attorney familiar with these issues for some careful clarification. May I suggest Ken Upton of the Dallas based office of Lambda Legal. David.
From the Dallas ordinance — https://dallascityhall.com/fair_housing/fair_housing_compliance.html
Thanks David, I happen to know Ken Upton quite well and have talked to him numerous times about these very same issues. Again, though, the bottom line is if that if the City Attorney’s Office doesn’t want to prosecute, they’ll find a reason not to. Their most likely excuse, based on my discussions and research, will be the marital status issue. They’ll say that it’s discrimination based on marital status, not sexual orientation. In other words, the Fitness Center doesn’t offer family memberships to unmarried straight couples, either. As I’ve said previously, I’ve been reporting on this ordinance for several years, so I’ve looked at these issues pretty closely. My basic point is, regardless of the legal intricacies and hypotheticals, people shouldn’t hesitate to file complaints and the community needs to make sure the ordinance is being enforced according to its intent.
@David: With regard to the religious organization issue, my understanding is the facility has to be used for a religious purpose. Otherwise, it doesn’t apply.
While I’d like to think your assertion is correct I fear it is not and once again strongly suggest you get quotable legal advice based upon precedent and case law instead of providing as a reporter what looks like your own legal advice. Casual off-record conversations with attorneys we know don’t count. The reading public counts upon you and The Dallas Voice to be very circumspect with such things. We all need to hear the thorough facts first, the ones we want to hear and also those we don’t, and only then will editorial opinions have substance.
@David: I”m going to go ahead and end this back and forth because it’s obvious you’ll never be satisfied. As I’ve said, I’ve spoken repeatedly with attorneys about this exact same issue. It’s not the first time it’s come up. Which part of that don’t you understand? Even if I were to quote an attorney in this article, you would tell me to talk to a different one. But actually that’s the whole point: These issues are open to legal interpretation. It’s up to the City Attorney’s Office to decide whether to prosecute, and it’s up to a court of law to decide guilt or innocence. Thanks.
@John: If you choose to no longer participate in a dialogue – that’s your call. But none of us get to play both judge and jury. Your articles yesterday on the Landry Health Center are filed under “news,” not “viewpoints” or even “blogroll.” Thus, your readership naturally assumes that declarative statements are based in fact, not opinion. We count on that. A reporter holding out such declarations is considered to have some authoritative – verifiable, in print – reason upon which such claims are based. Most of the lay reading public considers this the baseline for reporting because they’ve come to rely upon reporters such as you to have already vetted out the personal opinions from the unbiased fact. You’re pronouncements in the DV are dangerously close to providing legal advice. Yet, as you’ve just mentioned, you can’t be bothered to quote an attorney on record, why? For fear that there may be more than one legal opinion? Then get them! Publish them! Equip your readership with REAL LEGAL EXPERTISE! You and I, heck, all of us, can express dismay over the lack of city prosecutions, but that’s no substitute for someone in immediate need of understanding the actual law. Anyone in those shoes will need to avoid knee-jerk reactions. And that’s something you’ve actually got some control over – should you or the DV choose to provide that information. All of us have opinions, plenty of them. But the informed, educated opinions are the ones that serve our community best. BTW, you’ve mentioned several times the 40 complaints over the years received by the Dallas Fair Housing Office. It is an integral part of their mandate to actually provide mediation to settle disputes when possible to avoid protracted and expensive litigation. Yes, your notes have mentioned mediation in passing, but quickly move to a premise that all cases should go before a trial judge or jury. Again, an opinion. Since you’ve already gotten info on those 40 cases from your FOI request, please share with readership some stats on how many cases were successfully settled, withdrawn or dismissed for lack of standing rather than prosecuted. A TRUE diagnostic comparison of cases filed for reasons OTHER than sexual orientation would give a real picture of whether our community is getting short shrift. That’s reporting I and your larger readership will respect & rely upon. And it’s the kind of reporting that changes lives because community activists can run with the data. You’ve got it in you. Go for it!
@David;
1. This is the news portion of the Dallas Voice’s blog, Instant Tea. The Blogroll is something completely different. If you were to click on one of the links in the Blogroll, you would see that it consists of headlines from other, external blogs.
2. I’ve done the research. I have talked to the attorneys. This analysis is the result. And that’s clearly what it is: analysis. It is by no means a news story. If you’re interested in reading news stories, I’d suggest you click on News in the orange navigation bar at the top of the page. This is a blog.
3. I’ve been a professional print journalist for nearly 15 years, having worked at major daily newspapers, covered state legislatures, supervised entire staffs of reporters, etc. I’m pretty sure I know what I’m doing.
Many of the gay and lesbian employes are downright afraid of loss of jobs and other reprisals because with a little research, you will find Boone Powell Sr. and Jr. took the position they would never knowingly hire a gay person and the successors to the office have followed the party line. They were so bold as to allow themselves to be quoted in the Dallas News. A very repressive place to work much less try to claim rightful benefits and ask for equal treatment even offered to unmarried heterosexual couples. Do a little Google work and you might be surprised (or not really)