I was on another Freemason forum today and saw a rant by somebody who did not want to be confused by the facts as he had already made up his mind but it got me thinking. Part of the posting threatened a lawsuit against Freemasonry for religious discrimination. I wondered if this case would have any merit? What about The National Organization for Women bringing suit for gender discrimination? We openly do both by restricting our membership based on a belief in a Supreme Being and not allowing female members. For that matter, we discriminate on age, too. How do we get away with it in this litigious society? Realize, I'm not suggesting we change these rules. I am just curious. Any Masonic legal scholars out there willing to try to explain this?
Not a legal scholar but I believe it's because we're not employing anyone and because we're a private fraternity. That just like any fraternity would have gender, age, beliefs and in college intellectual because of GPA requirements.
There are several paid positions in, at least some, Massachusetts lodges. The Tyler is paid, the Chaplain doesn't pay dues, and perhaps some others.
Freemasonry is a private "religious" organization and it is not funded by any part of the public tax stucture. This allows for certain "exceptions."
First off , I have seen your screen name on said forum before so I knew where to look . Nice little "rant" this little man had written . .
A lawyer told me many years ago that, "you can sue the city of Boston for bastardy if you have the filing fee." Just because a suit is threatened or even filed doesn't give it any merit. Would a congregation be discriminatory if it refused to hire a minister if he avowed atheism? YES, but legally so. S&F
If Freemasonry was somehow a government agency or publically funded, then, yes. Constitutional rights such as you suggest are not applicable to private organizations. Private organizations have the freedom of association to choose whomever they wish to join. Same is true with churches or country clubs or the Elks lodge. FYI...the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
You mean there are other websites out there? Oh boy, am I getting behind. I'm going to be living in a cave soon trying to light a fire with a pair of sticks.
You get better heat if you rub two dissimlar gendered scouts together, at least in my experience this is true.
Of course they didn't follow through, it was just a troll. No lawyer in his right mind would take the case unless he was paid in advance.
I don't think a lawsuit would fly and I don't think we (Freemasonry) discriminate against anyone. I mean if we do then let's sue the Red Hat Society because men can't join. The others are correct. Because we are a private fraternity we can set rules, regulations and practices however we so desire. We're considered a Fraternity not a Sorority. The root word "frater" means brother where the root word soror means sister. By labeling ourselves as a fraternity we're saying up front "men only." At the end of the day you can't fix stupid and as long as their are stupid people, there will be stupid lawsuits.
We absolutely discriminate. A lot. As it should be. (We've argued this on other threads ad nauseum!LOL)
