Sunday, March 29, 2015

Was Planet Fitness A Set-Up?

I have to wonder about the woman who made the complaints against Planet Fitness, I keep remembering what happen back in 2008 in Maryland. There was an incident at Rio Sport and Health Club where a woman made a similar complaint like that was made about Planet Fitness.

The woman was from the Citizens For A Responsible Government and had staged the incident at a local gym and I can’t help but wonder…

Thinkprogress report that,
Cormier is represented by the Kallman Legal Group. A press release from the group claims that Cormier “has filed this lawsuit to protect Michigan women and children and to hold Planet Fitness accountable for its irresponsible policy and actions. This case further illustrates the potential harm caused by adding the proposed new categories of sexual orientation/gender identity to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.”

Cormier’s representation by Kallman Legal Group is likely not a coincidence. David and Stephen Kallman, a father and son team, already have a reputation for opposing LGBT equality in Michigan. In October of 2013, they submitted a legal memo challenging proposed LGBT nondiscrimination protections in Delta Township, claiming that the ordinance would violate others’ religious freedom. The memo compared homosexuality to extramarital sex, polygamy, pedophilia, serial killer rapists, necrophilia, bestiality, and incest and suggested that because gender identity is “internal to the person,” someone accused of discrimination would be required to be a “mind-reader” not to discriminate. Their suit against Planet Fitness for respecting how individuals self-identify their gender seems to disprove this last concern.

In addition to his legal practice, David Kallman serves on the board of the Colorado-based Salt and Light Global ministries, which believes the Bible is infallible and seeks to impose God’s law “in every social sphere in every community.” Both Kallmans also serve as legal counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center, which has published issue briefs similarly rejecting LGBT protections as a violation of religious liberty and describing such laws as an attempt to promote “civil acceptance of homosexual conduct through the force of law.”
There seems to be a lot of similarities between the two incidents. Both incidents came at a time when the legislature was hearing legislation on a gender inclusive non-discrimination bill and both incidents milked the press coverage and became the poster child for the opposition.

What do you think?

No comments: