|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We're all in a network," she said. "No one is turned away; they're just referred."
Mathis, who took Blumhorst's December call, said he was not interested in any such referrals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because maybe I'm thinking of another case, but as I understand it, one of the points of this lawsuit was that there were in fact NO referrals made. The gentleman called these shelters seeking help, and not one of them referred him to the shelter that actually would house him.
Am I correct? Or am I thinking of another case?
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 27, @02:01PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The case is based on CA Government Code 11135 which forbids state funded programs from discriminating based on sex or race. The defendants are state funded DV shelters that denied the plaintiff access to their shelters only because of his sex and not because they were full or other reasons. They didn't even offer him a motel voucher. That was discriminatory regardless of whether they "referred" him to the shelter that accepts both male and female victims (which was about an hour's drive into the desert, but this biased article of course ignores that). So the "network/referral" quote twists words as one would expect from the source, in my opinion.
It is almost certain this type of civil rights case will be thrown out by the lower court judge who will prefer to ignore the law rather than make such a politically incorrect decision as forcing DV shelters to be fair. It will have to be appealed. That's expected, as has historically been the case with new civil rights matters new to the courts. It will probably be thrown out in about one month, and the appeal will most likely follow.
Local groups are looking into available grants for a shelter that takes male victims, but meanwhile these state funded shelters should not be discriminating.
There is certainly more to this case, legally, that cannot be explained here. But that's the gist.
The following and other documents are filed with the court leaving a permanent record that cannot be covered up.
Declaration of Patricia Overberg, director of the Lancaster shelter, describing how the other directors subjected her to "continuous abuse" for sheltering battered men, and how she saw men travel hundreds of miles each way because the other directors refused to help them.
http://www.ncfmla.org/pdfdocs/commissionletters/ov erberg.pdf
Letter from Professor Martin Fiebert
http://www.ncfmla.org/pdfdocs/commissionletters/fi bert.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @04:59PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It is time for the feminists to get a little of their own nasty medicine - a lawsuit.
I will be following up with contributions for this cause...
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
