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.
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.
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.
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.