A gay men's softball organization is going head-to-head with three former bi-sexual players who claim that the group unfairly disqualified them for not being "gay enough."
This week, a federal judge ruled that the organization does, indeed, have the constitutional right to limit the number of heterosexual players on each team (currently, the group allows for two straight players on each team). That said, the judge also ruled that the three players in question may bring their discrimination claims to trial. The Seattle Times has more:
The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance oversees gay softball leagues in dozens of U.S. cities and runs an annual tournament called the Gay Softball World Series. Three men claim in a lawsuit filed last year that their team's second-place finish in the 2008 tournament in Washington state was nullified because they are bisexual, not gay, and thus their team exceeded the limit of two non-gay players.
[U.S. District Judge John] Coughenour did say that questions remain about the way the softball association applied its rule, including whether the questions asked about the men's sexuality at a protest hearing were unnecessarily intrusive. Therefore, the case can proceed toward a trial set for Aug. 1, he said.
The men say that they were unfairly questioned about their sexuality in front of an audience and that the group listening to their responses held a vote to determine whether or not they were actually gay. The Daily Mail continues:
The men's lawsuit alleges that they were individually questioned about their sexuality - in a room containing as many as 25 people. Panel members then voted on whether they men were gay or not.
Seattle attorney Michael Reiss, for NAGAA, said the organisation would 'vigorously dispute' the men's version of events.
Suzanne Thomas, for the the men and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said: 'No one should have to go through what they experienced.'
Here's a report from CBS News that explains this scenario further:
Here's the question at hand: Did the NAGAAA have the right to take these alleged actions? What do you think? This case is sure to be a fascinating one to watch.