I have to quibble with the way that the post below frames the issue between Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA and the YMCA of the Triangle. The account below suggests that to join the larger organization, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro group would be required to stop welcoming LBGT persons as staff and members.
First off, I'm skeptical that the YMCA of the Triangle has a policy of discrimination against anybody. But I'm even more skeptical that they have "welcoming police" who would forcably prevent the Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA from welcoming anyone they choose.
What's seems to be at issue is that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro group wishes the Triangle group to modifiy it's anti-discrimination statement. And I certainly think it would be a fine thing if that were to happen. But this transfers the emphasis to the question of whether the smaller group can persuade the larger group to sign on to the same LGBT anti-discrimination oath that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro group has previously adopted. And phrasing it that way is not nearly as dramatic as it is to suggest that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro group would be forced to discrimate if this move were not made.
Perhaps I'm missing the point and this issue really has something to do with staff and employee benefits for partners of LGBT persons. If so, it would be a good idea to make this clear.
First off, I'm skeptical that the YMCA of the Triangle has a policy of discrimination against anybody. But I'm even more skeptical that they have "welcoming police" who would forcably prevent the Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA from welcoming anyone they choose.
What's seems to be at issue is that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro group wishes the Triangle group to modifiy it's anti-discrimination statement. And I certainly think it would be a fine thing if that were to happen. But this transfers the emphasis to the question of whether the smaller group can persuade the larger group to sign on to the same LGBT anti-discrimination oath that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro group has previously adopted. And phrasing it that way is not nearly as dramatic as it is to suggest that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro group would be forced to discrimate if this move were not made.
Perhaps I'm missing the point and this issue really has something to do with staff and employee benefits for partners of LGBT persons. If so, it would be a good idea to make this clear.