- Jennifer Coleman
Jennifer Coleman, senior vice president of consumer affairs for the Baylor Health Care System, has yet to respond to our request for comment from Wednesday about the Tom Landry Fitness Center’s policy of blatantly discriminating against same-sex couples.
However, Coleman did respond to a letter from Alan Rodriguez, the gay East Dallas resident who’s planning to file a discrimination complaint against the Baylor-owned Fitness Center for refusing to sell a family membership to him and his partner of 10 years.
“Thank you for your e-mail and phone call,” Coleman wrote in an e-mail to Rodriguez, which he provided to Instant Tea. “The Baylor Tom Landry Fitness Center offers, and will continue to offer, a family discount to a husband and wife pursuant to the Texas law definition of marriage. The fitness center is a private membership health club that is open to all applicants who meet membership criteria that are non-discriminatory. The fitness center has and welcomes a diverse membership.”
We’ve heard several people in the LGBT community comment that if the Fitness Center wants to discriminate against same-sex couples, people should simply take their money and memberships elsewhere.
And while this is certainly true, there are a few other problems: One, the Baylor Health Care System operates a dozen medical facilities in North Texas alone, which is downright scary in light of this policy; and two, the city of Dallas has an ordinance that prohibits this type of discrimination — in the same way that state and federal law prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of things like race.
Unfortunately, the city doesn’t seem to want to enforce the ordinance. As we’ve said repeatedly, more than 40 c0mplaints have been filed since the ordinance passed in 2002, but not one has every been prosecuted by the city.
Steven Johnson, a gay man who filed a discrimination complaint against the Tom Landry Fitness Center last year, says he withdrew it after city officials advised him that the gym is exempt from the ordinance because it’s a private club.
But that’s a bunch of bullshit. The ordinance provides no exception for private clubs.
We’ve been playing phone tag with Beverly Davis of the city’s Fair Housing Office, which is charged with investigating complaints under the ordinance, to find out whether it’s true that officials advised Johnson to withdraw his complaint.
We’ll let you know when we get in touch with Davis and/or Coleman.
In case you’re wondering, Coleman can be reached by e-mail at jennifco@BaylorHealth.edu.
“But that’s a bunch of bullshit. The ordinance provides no exception for private clubs.” Actually, John, you might want to check into this a bit further, legally speaking. Our local non-discrimination ordinances typically cover “public accommodations,” housing and employment. What the Landry Fitness Center is doing sucks, but they may have a legal basis to do it. Recent DV news covered the dismissal of charges in the Club Dallas affair based upon some city registration of it as a private club. While not an issue of discrimination, per se, it does go to the issue of what a registered private facility can legally permit on its premises that a public one cannot. (For instance, Club Dallas, as a private club CAN discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, etc. We sometimes want it both ways…)
Calling the Fair Housing Office is step two here. If this is a larger on-going story (and it appears to be) then you’ll need to first go downtown and check to see how this facility is registered with the city. Get a copy of the actual registration and then you’ve got evidence of whether the Landry club is subject to “public accommodation” requirements or whether it is a private club, legally. The Baylor system is huge throughout the Metroplex covering a growing array of areas in our lives. The extent to which they can claim public or private or religious exemptions will be a significant quandary for LGBT persons over the next decade plus.
When President Obama’s new executive order went into effect last week that prevents hospitals from discriminating against same-sex couples for visitation, Parkland sent a message that they would continue to welcome partners to visit. Baylor did not return a phone call.
@David Mack Henderson: I assure you that I’ve done my research on the issue. At one point a few years ago I even reviewed all 40 of the complaints that had been filed, after a protracted battle with the city over public records. The fact of the matter is, not one complaint has been prosecuted in nine years, and this is largely because the City Attorney’s Office doesn’t appear interested in enforcing the ordinance. They’re the ones who decide whether to prosecute, and that gives them the discretion to interpret the ordinance however they see fit.
I have a substantial hard-knocks history of knowing that the devil in these things is often in the details. Our community has got to be very careful about generalizations because you can bet our detractors know how to weave through the cracks. @David, the Obama order is amazing but it came with a caveat: healthcare facilities must start providing certain (not all) kinds of equal access — OR RISK LOSING FEDERAL FUNDS. Unfortunately, it remains perfectly legal for hospitals in most jurisdictions in the US to discriminate against us if they so choose. The Damocles sword here is the federal money. If Baylor takes that risk, then we call their ass on it. But they ARE NOT being required by the order to simply provide total equal access. Even under the Obama order, they could refuse federal funds and legally continue to discriminate against members of our community, f*cked up as that is. @John, I’m not clear if you’re saying there are 40 complaints against the Landry Health Center registered with the city – or 40 complaints total throughout the city against various establishments, landlords, employers, etc. In the case of the latter, yeah, the city sure does seem to be ignoring something. (Similar situation: the Byrd Hate Crimes Act has hardly seen any prosecution in our entire state. Talk about criminal.) But again, with specific regard to the Landry Health Club, is it or is it not registered with the city as a private club? If it is, then there’s little interpretation to be had. The law does allow certain organizations to discriminate – even when many of us think it shouldn’t. With a similar city ordinance in FW, there’s a private country club here with two golf courses; women club members, even paying the same dues, are only allowed to play on one of them and the second is reserved exclusively for men. Draconian if you ask me, but perfectly legal. If Club Dallas wants to refuse admittance to a group of women who walk in hoping to celebrate their bachelorette party, I’ll bet they can. So again, specifically, are you holding in your hand the city registration of the Landry Health Center occupancy permit which states if it is a public or a private club? That’s public record too. Publish it. If they’re registered as a private club, we can call them on the carpet for their true colors, impugn their integrity and hope to effect change in their business practices. But – If it turns out they’re a “public accommodation” then we get to nail their butts by holding the City Attorney accountable too, as you’ve suggested we should in any case. Also, even if the City Attorney wouldn’t prosecute, and individual would have a cause of action to sue personally under “public accommodation.”
@David Mack Henderson: I’m not an attorney, but I don’t think it’s possible to file a civil lawsuit under a municipal ordinance. A lawsuit would have to be filed in state or federal court, but there is no state or federal statute to back up such a lawsuit. You may be right about the private club issue, and I’ll look into it. But because there is no reference to private clubs being exempt in the ordinance, it seems like it would be open to interpretation. A private club can theoretically provide a public accommodation. After all, many restaurants have up until now been considered private clubs for the purposes of alcohol regulations, but I doubt they could argue that they’re not providing a public accommodation. It would just be nice if the city were actually to pursue one of these complaints to the point where a judge could decide the question.
This is religious-based bigotry from a religious-based organization’s *private* health club. Guess what, though? They have the right to do this.
I’m gonna have to agree with DMH…as much as it sux, a private club has the right to deny access (or in this case, discounts) to whomever they like. Club Dallas is a great example of a “private” club that discriminates based on sex. There are several strip clubs where a woman has to be escorted by a male for entrance. Ladies’ Night is a form a sex discrimination in which women received discounts that men are not allowed to have. Swinger’s bars charge single men 10 times more than a single woman for the same admission/services. Could all these examples of discrimination be challenged? Of course, they could but who’s willing to challenge it? I’m conflicted.
@Tisha: Yes, but when’s the last time you heard of a a restaurant refusing to offer a discount to someone because of their race? The other examples you provide aren’t based on bigotry; they’re based on ratios and the very nature of the businesses, which is largely understood and accepted. There is no private club exemption in the city ordinance. It’s open to interpretation. What’s the point of having the ordinance if we’re never going to use it or of the city’s never going to enforce it? In nine years, more than 40 complaints, and zero prosecutions. Hell, even if the city were to prosecute a complaint successfully, it would only be a $500 fine. But the mere act of pursuing a complaint forces the city to investigate, and it forces Baylor to get its attorneys involved. The city will offer mediation and give Baylor a chance to change the policy. If Baylor refuses, it will be up to the City Attorney’s Office to decide whether to prosecute. If they choose not to, take it up with the City Council. Judges and juries should be deciding these cases, not the City Attorney’s Office.
This is such a fine line of rights !!! even in our community we have clubs that are sex oriented such as”CBC etc” So if we force another organization to change then we have be ready for other organizations within our community also get changed by a challenging faith point of view or political beliefs etc.
Some times we want the whole world to change and conform to what we call equality and once we get the whole package then its the whole gets flipped and the opposite side is on the side that we feel like we are on now. It becomes like a dog chasing its tail at that point. As wrong as it can be people have a a right to their own beliefs it becomes wrong when it does break a law and or hurts someone physically or emotionally.
We tend to throw discrimination around to quickly instead of looking at alternatives its not like we have a limit of public and social venues that force us to have to congregant with that type attitude and the same goes for them.