Can You Believe Someone Made This Pin?

(It is very rare that I run the same content on the Fred Hotline as I do on the Greater Greensboro Open Blog, but this is special. Kevin and I received a box of Jaycee pins today and I started looking through them this evening. I found this one and I'm really a little stocked by it to be honest. I can't believe someone made this pin to begin with and then gave it out for people to wear. Anyway, my lawyer-DaveWalkerman-reads this blog and I thought he would enjoy all the legal stuff.)

Roberts v. United States Jaycees

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, April 18, 1984
Decision: Tuesday, July 3, 1984
Issues: First Amendment, Miscellaneous
Categories: freedom of association, gender

Advocates
Carl D. Hall, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellee)
Richard L. Varco, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

According to its bylaws, membership in the United States Jaycees was limited to males between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. Females and older males were limited to associate membership in which they were prevented from voting or holding local or national office. Two chapters of the Jaycees in Minnesota, contrary to the bylaws, admitted women as full members. When the national organization revoked the chapters' licenses, they filed a discrimination claim under a Minnesota anti-discrimination law. The national organization brought a lawsuit against Kathryn Roberts of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, who was responsible for the enforcement of the anti-discrimination law.

Question

Did Minnesota's attempts to enforce the anti-discrimination law violate the Jaycees' right to free association under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Jaycees chapters lacked "the distinctive characteristics that might afford constitutional protection to the decision of its members to exclude women." The Court reasoned that making women full members would not impose any serious burdens on the male members' freedom of expressive association. The Court thus held that Minnesota's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination against women justified enforcement of the state anti-discrimination law. The Court found that the Minnesota law was not aimed at the suppression of speech and did not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.

This information was taken from the following link. To learn more about this case go to:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_724/