Of course there is outrage amongst some, but this raises a few questions for me. Especially since the YMCA is a private business and was started as the Young Men's Christian Association.
My biggest question is; who is attempting to impose their will on others? The YMCA, as a private business, has the right to set its prices and policies. Those policies are not secret. As a private business it is certainly within its rights to consider the best interests of its existing membership and owners. It is the gay couple (and the gay-supporting community) that insists the YMCA should extend family pricing to "life partners."
The gay couple (and supporters) said other gyms and workout facilities allow family pricing to "life partners." I say, go there. It is a business decision the YMCA has made and if it is to their detriment, so be it.
In the end, I find it interesting that we think "fair and equal treatment" is our own definition. In reality, very little in life is fair and in America we go to extremes to attempt fairness; often times leaning unfair in the opposite direction of the original mis-treatment, just to prove how "fair" we are.
The truly great move aggressively without worrying about whether or not they are treated fairly. Their motivation is excellence, not who has wronged them along the way. We should all aspire to such heights.
While I am not a homophobe, I do think private clubs and/or businesses absolutely have the right to refuse certain requests. You're right, it started out as the "Young Men's Christian Association" (or Women's, if any YWCA's still exist.)Hey,the Boy Scouts did the same thing years ago by refusing to let gays be scout masters. Don't know if that was wise or not, but being a woman I'm not into Boy scouting anyway. If you don't like it, don't join them. There's always 4-H (I did that in an exclusively female club).
ReplyDeleteYou're also right about life being unfair. It always has been but those of us who choose to keep on moving upward without a bunch of belly-aching will continue to do so and let the rest go, while the gripers keep on getting all the attention and, let's face it, press.
Neither I nor my husband think two people of the same sex should have what is defined as a traditional marraige, because that means a union between a man and a woman in our eyes. If they have to do it, I think it should be called a commitment ceremony and perhaps they should have some of the benefits of traditionally married people, like sharing health insurance or being left property in an estate settlement they built together. But I'm not so sure that'll ever happen, and certainly not in every state. So they need to live with their decisions and not complain about it. They want us to "deal with it", but by the same token, they aren't that special to the rest of us. And the beat goes on! (Michelle)