|
|
Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles10/12/2005
mbers who are not otherwise wanted interferes in the most serious way with that purpose.
Ultimately, in cases such as this, "the associational interest in freedom of expression has been set on one side of the scale, and the tate's interest on the other." Boy Scouts of America, 530 US at 658-59. The inclusion of unwanted members in the Eagles--a social club--is a most severe intrusion on the Eagles' rights to freedom of expressive association. Yet the state interest involved--allowing women to participate in social rites with men--does not justify that intrusion. For that reason, the First Amendment prohibits the state from forcing the Eagles to accept female members through the application of the act.
In summary, the majority's interpretation of the Public Accommodations Act in this case is at odds with the express intention of the sponsor of the 1973 amendments upon which the majority relies. Apparently, then-Representative Vera Katz recognized that there would be constitutional difficulties if the legislature attempted to regulate what she described as the "right of men to congregate, if they want to, without women." She was right. History demonstrates that Article I, section 26, when evaluated under the Priest criteria, was intended to protect the right of fraternal groups to socialize with members of their own gender. That same right is protected by the First Amendment. This court does not have the authority to change the federal and state constitutions, but that is the effect of the majority's decision.
I dissent for all of the above reasons.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Show All Case Laws Oregon PEO
|