ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley, August 17 – San Diego, September 21 – Phone meeting [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  June 22, July 27  [details]

National

The YMCA bans persons required to register as sex offenders, but how has that worked out for them?

[floridaactioncommittee.org – 5/22/19]

The Fulton County YMCA, in Johnstown, New York was just hit with a $10,000,000.00 lawsuit. A 19 year old former employee was charged with raping an underage girl in the locker room

In Wichita, Kansas a 31 year old former employee allegedly sexually assaulted three teenage girls this month. The same Y had another instance of sexual assault last year.

The YMCA recently enacted a policy barring all persons required to register as sexual offenders from their facilities and revoking the membership of many long-time members after discovering a sexual offense in their history. They do sex offender screenings of all members, guests and employees.

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. Jason

    YMCA Mission: To put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all.

    My family and I have gone to the YMCA in our area for years, and I’ve contributed as much as I could. But this is stupid, how can you share the same religious values as I do, but not live up to them. I made a mistake in the past, a regret I live with each day, but also one that I paid for. So let them turn away people, it won’t be long when they will no longer exist. History shows that YMCA branches close and bankrupt every other month.

    • Harry

      YMCA are only in it for the money just like most churches. The YCMA in my city as programs begging Christian youth groups into the YMCA, however, these youth groups are not allow to pray in the YMCA. This same YCMA has force all local fitness centers out of business with their lower fees and better facilities, now they have raise membership fees. Their god is mammon.

    • David

      No offense, Jason, you ask “how can [they] share the same religious values as I do, but not live up to them”? Jason, allow me to introduce you to any number of “God-prattling” politicians who wouldn’t know a tenet of Christian faith if it bit them with an asp or turned them into a pillar of salt!

      • Jason

        No offense taken…. agree with you 100%, internet high five.

  2. Facts should matter

    Just like that “lawyer” the other day recommending employers be apprehensive from hiring those on the registry, blanket bans making headlines like this demonstratively illustrate that the registry is undeniably punitive in scope and nature. So I salute the YMCA for helping our cause and making our case for us by contributing to this climate of fear, ignorance and hate.

    You don’t mitigate liability by banning in proxy of a label.

    • SR

      Agreed. I see stuff like this a positive longer term to help dismantle the registry.

      There’s no difference between YMCA being legally allowed to ban us and Safeway groceries, should they choose to do so. And with facial recognition technology being a thing and implemented in more places, it’ll be that much easier for businesses to do so. At that point, I can’t see the courts being okay with the registry being used in such a way, to effectively ban us all from everything, and stating its in the public’s interest that we can’t even buy food.

  3. Chris f

    Yet another example of how any business with the ability to screen guests, employees, or members will do so and ban all on an easily accessible and free shame list to avoid liability. A convicted murderer or drug dealer won’t suffer the same disenfranchisement from society because that would at least require the cost of a background check, so other than employment background checks, their past remains in the past.

    So how many of those encroachments on liberty that the justices declared in Smith v Doe 2003 wouldnt happen to someone just for being put on a list are happening? I do believe it has reached all of them now.

    In Connecticut DPS v Doe 2003, due process prior to be put on a list wasnt triggered because deprivations on liberty were no part of the statutory scheme and the list did not indicate someone was considered dangerous. Really? So how is it that companies are being held liable for hiring or allowing a person on the list in if that list is NO indication they are dangerous?

    2003 Scotus must have had the least common sense and forward thinking in our history to think being put on a shame list wouldn’t impact every liberty conceivable instead of the non impact they insisted was the case.

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      About the only latitude I give SCOTUS in its 2003 RC decisions is that they occurred shortly after 9/11. During those early years, we Americans were finding bogeymen around every corner and in every shadow. There was surrender of privacy that was too far, there was no government intrusion that was too much.

      None of that eases the burdens those horrible decisions allow. It does give me a glimmer of hope that post-Snowden perhaps there’s a little more skepticism regarding “public safety.” It’s a small, faint glimmer, FWIW.

      I do like your point about the Smith items having come to fruition. Hopefully more courts start to align with PA SC and 6th CCoA and start pushing back. Hopefully more courts start to pay attention to the Packingham Parenthetical. If a footnote (do a search for “Footnote four”) can give birth to something as horrible as Rational Basis Review (screwing the citizen for 80+ years and counting), why can’t a parenthetical carry weight for our cause?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.