Skip to comments.Gay couple sue Virginia pool
Posted on 07/05/2012 1:03:37 PM PDT by scottjewell
Club grants, then revokes pool membership of gay couple and son
William Trinkle is suing Roanoke Athletic Club and its affiliate, Carilion Clinic, for breach of contract and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.
Trinkle says that he purchased a family membership in May for himself, his partner, Juan Granados, and their 2-year-old son, Oliver.
Club officials approved their application, and the family started using the facilities.
Trinkle and Granados said they were shocked when they were turned away from the pool. Club officials told them same-sex couples don't meet Virginia's legal definition of family.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No trinkeling in the pool.
There isn't any in-between.
Poor kid another one has to suffer humiliation of the queer club !
>> himself, his partner... and their 2-year-old son
THEY do not have a son.
It’s not a birth canal, it’s a duct for eliminating waste.
There still seems to be a lot of confusion on this common-sense matter.
Poor little child. No doubt he’ll be molested or grow up gay.
I wonder how this lawsuit is going to end up. Why can’t they get two individual membership and then a child’s membership. Of course that would not help their TRUE agenda.
If the Sodomites take this case to the SCOTUS, they will win.
Ahhh yes, the gratuitous O&A reference.
Yes, well all this reproductive technology - IVF, surrogacy, sperm donors - as well as gay adoption, has divorced the idea of a child being the natural product of its married mother and father.
Now, “there are all kinds of families”: Through adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation,etc.
It was a clever way to kill the nuclear family and its biological etiology. There is even a bill in the state of California to allow a child to have several “parents” (”my 2 gay dads, and my surrogate mom who used her own egg and womb and one of their sperm to make me, then she was paid to give me up, and they adopted me”.)
Once you redefine marriage (and several states have set the precedent, regardless of what Virginia says) then it follows logically that you MUST redefine “family”.
You mean Marco Homo?
See how this works? You are going to be forced to accept sodomites in close proximity to your family whether you like to or not. My guess is that the pool owners thought to themselves—if we go “gay” friendly, we can kiss many of our normal members goodbye. Why? Because as “tolerant” of sodomites as people may claim to be, the idea of one of them half-naked in the men’s room with your 12 year old son is enough to make even most liberal moms think, “maybe another pool...”
How would they know the couple was gay? Unless they were doing something in public deemed a PDA.
“How would they know the couple was gay? “
They obviously wanted a “family” membership, so signed up as “parents and child”. I think it was done purposely, in order to wage this lawsuit. “Help Repeal DOMA; start lawsuits about unfair practices against decent gay families!!!”
It appears they signed up for a “family membership”.
Of course, if they can define themselves as a “family”, there’s no barrier to ANY other “group” defining themselves as a “family”.
A Family membership requires a family.
2 perverts and a child do not a family make.
Think the pool has a good standing under the law as it still stands today. Of course if we get another 4 years of Obama, Pelosi, et al, a family will become 3 guys a women 2 dogs a goat and 3 children
” You mean Marco Homo?”
That was a LOT better than mine.
All of these must be redefined in order to make a sick lifestyle seem normal.
And they aren’t going to stop until it is “parent 1, parent 2” and DOMA repealed, and the “new era of multicultural families” ushered in.
I would like to place blame on the membership committee for allowing these inbreds in the first place. Now the fudgepackers will try to other sickos into the club as “guests” just to make a point.
“Its not a birth canal, its a duct for eliminating waste.”
Whichever it is, I bet poor little Oliver is going to have a sore one. Shouldn’t be legal for men to adopt kids without the presence of a woman in the house.
“a family will become 3 guys a women 2 dogs a goat and 3 children”
You pretty much described the Obama family.
William and Juan??
And the pool has the right to define “family” in whatever way it chooses.
What’s to stop same-sex heterosexual friends from pretending to be a ‘couple’ to get special treatment?
Trinkle and Granados said they were shocked when they were turned away from the pool. Club officials told them same-sex couples don’t meet Virginia’s legal definition of family.
Unless Trinkle or Granados carried Oliver to term — they are NOT a family!!!
Good for this pool. Why should all the normal families who are pool members have to get creeped out by perverts? I’m sure most of the normal families are concerned about keeping their children safe and disease-free. That pool starts letting freaks and perverts prance around and the normal people will flee to another swim club.
This needs to be clarified a bit more. It should be illegal for any single or any couple that is not formed of one man married to one woman to adopt children. Children need a mother AND a father.
“And the pool has the right to define family in whatever way it chooses.”
More than this, the pool is taking its definition from Virginia State law.
You can’t swim at the club this summer, now go Home O !
Hey Joe, we got an application for a “William and Juan” You don’t suppose?.
Beats me. Probably typoed “William and Joan” Approve it.
However I must disagree with you on the point of disallowing a single (unmarried) person to adopt.
While it's preferable for a married man and woman to adopt (because as you rightfully say, a child need a mother and a father), for some hard-to-hard-to-place kids, a married mom & dad couple is just not available. Married couples usually want to adopt perfect newborns. That's just the way it is.
Hard-to-place kids include older children (especially older boys), kids with disabilities, (especially ones that can't be remedied by surgery), and sibling groups.
What sometimes happens, is that a single family member will turn up (an adult sister, an uncle) who is willing to adopt. I would certainly rather have a kid adopted by an unmarried adult sister or uncle, than consigned to the purgatory of suffering known as foster-care.
(I'm not saying this to insult good foster-parents. I'm just saying kids in foster-care often get placement after placement that doesn't last long. This can happen over and over. This is emotionally catastrophic for kids.)
As I said, it's especially appropriate to have single-person-adoption if the adopting adult is a relative. But I would approve of it even if the adult is non-related, if the adult is mature and committed to providing a stable home.
I would exclude sexually-active singles no matter what their brand of sexuality. "Dates" or nonmarital house-sharers are at the top of the likely-to-abuse list.
I often think of the novelist Walker Percy, who, with his wo brothers, was adopted by their uncle, William Alexander Percy. It turned out to be a very, very good solution to a tragic situation.
Unfortunately, Carilion has already caved in to the homosexual couple, see http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/jul/05/roanoke-athletic-club-changes-membership-policy-ar-2037164/
If you want to comment, the head of the Roanoke Athletic Club is Bud Grey at firstname.lastname@example.org
It must have been their speedo’s. Gay’s and Speedo’s seem to go together.
No pictures please.
I'd accept that a single relative should be able to take the child.