Couple Sues Rochester Health Club over Denial of Family Membership
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 at 3:28 pm
- 16 Comments
Amy and Sarah Monson of Rochester have filed suit against the Rochester Athletic Club on grounds of discrimination for allegedly refusing to sell the couple a family membership discount because the Monsons are not married. Minnesota law forbids same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage license.
According to the complaint filed in January, the Monsons have been together for five years and are rearing a daughter. They own a business together, have joint finances, and they had a commitment ceremony in 2002. They have drafted estate plans for themselves and their daughter, and Sarah changed her last name to Monson.
After four attempts to resolve the matter with the Rochester Athletic Club, the Monsons filed suit, alleging a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The 1993 law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
According to a press release from Outfront Minnesota, which is representing the Monsons along with the law firm Halunen & Associates, the lawsuit would not affect state laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying. “This case would not affect state law forbidding same-sex couples from marrying. However, a favorable ruling would benefit same-sex families by declaring that private businesses cannot arbitrarily deny them opportunities based only on the lack of a marriage license,” said Joni Thome of Halunen & Associates.
The suit, filed in Olmstead County, can be read here [PDF].
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter16 Comments
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Totally Worth A Lawsuit Not.
Seems like imitating marriage for discounts.
Sad.
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Um… Did you miss the part in the article describing their situation or the bit about how they are not legally able to get married? Do you have any reason to believe that these individuals would not be married to one another if they had the option to do so?
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Nope. Just asking for equal treatment under the law. The health club is purposefully setting up standards that prevent this couple from accessing their services the same way others do. I doubt it would have been too much trouble for them to extend the family membership, but instead made things more difficult.
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
On the contrary “Do you have any reason to believe that these individuals would not be married to one another if they had the option to do so?”
We have little reason to believe that these individuals leave few options on the table when it comes to satisfying their own self centered pursuits.
Witness the innocent child they have encumbered with their twisted baggage in order to have a trophy to march around with.
Pathetic really.
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
And your evidence… Umm. What twisted baggage? You have no evidence that either of these two women are bad parents. Further, you are the one reducing an innocent child to a ‘trophy.’ You have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
And you quote the previous commenter, yet don’t even try to address their question.
It’s pathetic, really.
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Totally Worth A Lawsuit Not.
Seems like imitating marriage for discounts.
Sad.
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Um… Did you miss the part in the article describing their situation or the bit about how they are not legally able to get married? Do you have any reason to believe that these individuals would not be married to one another if they had the option to do so?
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Nope. Just asking for equal treatment under the law. The health club is purposefully setting up standards that prevent this couple from accessing their services the same way others do. I doubt it would have been too much trouble for them to extend the family membership, but instead made things more difficult.
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
On the contrary “Do you have any reason to believe that these individuals would not be married to one another if they had the option to do so?”
We have little reason to believe that these individuals leave few options on the table when it comes to satisfying their own self centered pursuits.
Witness the innocent child they have encumbered with their twisted baggage in order to have a trophy to march around with.
Pathetic really.
Comment posted March 27, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
And your evidence… Umm. What twisted baggage? You have no evidence that either of these two women are bad parents. Further, you are the one reducing an innocent child to a 'trophy.' You have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
And you quote the previous commenter, yet don't even try to address their question.
It's pathetic, really.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
