They Say They Have the "Right to Limit Participation"

On September 3, 2008, the Seattle Weekly printed a story regarding a county agency discriminating against a Tarot card reader who wished to offer her services for a charity event:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-09-03/news/psychic-s-donation-not-accepted/

Here is the King County Solid Waste Division web page announcing the event that Ms. Chauran applied to support:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environme...es/2008/september/0905Waste-Free-Holiday.aspx

Discrimination in any form should not be tolerated - absolutely not by a county office or organization. The American Tarot Association (ATA) has issued a response in the form of a letter to King County Executive Ron Sims, along with the following Press Release regarding the discriminatory actions of the King County Solid Waste Division. The ATA called for an apology to Ms. Chauran as well as allowing her to read at the Waste Free Holiday program if she chooses to.

I've attached the Press Release we've sent -- it's not on the ATA website yet (but it will be in the September issue of Tarot Reflections).

The above words along with the Press Release were also sent to the Seattle Times and the Post-Intelligencer as well as being posted as a comment to the story and sent as a Letter to the Editor at the Seattle Weekly.

Please feel free to add your voices by posting comments to the story (at the address above) as well as sending email to:

exec.sims@metrokc.gov
King County Executive Ron Sims (highest level within county government, I believe)

These people were copied on the letter and response sent to Ron Sims:
megan.sety@kingcounty.gov
KCSWD employee that turned Ms. Chauran down

logan.harris@kingcounty.gov
Public Affairs manager for KCSWD

Contacting the newspapers...
citydesk@seattlepi.com
News desk at Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Sending comments to the reporter and editor of the Seattle Weekly and the Seattle Times news desk (as a news tip) is more difficult as they don't have email addresses, you have to go to their websites and fill out a form.

Seattle Weekly: go to address of story and click reporter's name (Jesse Froehling) to send to him, and "Write to Editor" icon at top of article to open form to send to Editor (the same form).

Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/services/contactus.html?tab=newstip

I think maybe the TV stations are next...

valeria

I looked over the list of past business participants. They haven't had counseling services in the past (which Tarot might be considered); nor anything explicitly religious (which some people consider Tarot).

On the other hand, they have had acupuncture, and that has a metaphysical orientation (as does Tarot) and no evidence of efficacy by the standards of Western science.

Thanks for the information, Pagan X! I certainly hope that county officials don't think that because it hasn't been allowed in the past that is some sort of defense for not allowing it now. All the past list shows is that they've been consistent in their past discrimination (and they got away with it) or it hasn't come up (although I am inclined to believe that it has).

I read the article with some misgivings, especially after the Miss Toronto debacle, but here's my two cents.

I was in support of the Tarot reader right up until she said: "I'm not a pornographer".

That in and of itself is a judgement call that the County is allowed to make, but rejecting a tarot reader isn't?

Sorry... controversial is controversial. You can't use discrimination against pornography as the protection for not being discriminated against as a tarot reader; both are controversial, ergo, the argument fails to hold water.

Maybe next time she should simply send a cheque. I bet they'd have cashed it.

When I read that part I thought, "What's wrong with porn?"

I don't understand why they won't let her donate her time and skills. I'd at least put it out there and see if anyone wants it.

It's not like they're going to force people to pick her.

What if I'm horribly offended by a acupuncture? Am I going to throw a fit about how it's not "real" medicine? One would guess that people would choose something they actually wanted, no?

Demon Goddess said:

I read the article with some misgivings, especially after the Miss Toronto debacle, but here's my two cents.

I was in support of the Tarot reader right up until she said: "I'm not a pornographer".

That in and of itself is a judgement call that the County is allowed to make, but rejecting a tarot reader isn't?

Sorry... controversial is controversial. You can't use discrimination against pornography as the protection for not being discriminated against as a tarot reader; both are controversial, ergo, the argument fails to hold water.

Maybe next time she should simply send a cheque. I bet they'd have cashed it.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but your argument is flawed in using the porno comment. Porno, or some aspects of it ARE illegal so its a moot point comparing it with Tarot reading -- I can't possibly believe that is any sort of comparison, even if the reader used it.

She qualified her ability to fulfill the criteria for gift giving by talking about reading at parties (showers and birthdays) so there isn't even a valid comparison with tutors or finacial planners either... Have a look in the Pro forum... Lots of examples of tarot readings being booked for parties and used for fundraising and given as gifts. I wouldn't book a financial planner for a gift or party either. But I would book a reader. That is where the door is opened - when they state they are looking for wishlist items or things people would want as gifts. I think you could find a lot of people who would like to receive a reading as a gift. Oh, and they also say that they were looking for non-physical things... like services -- they state this in their reference to "give an experience instead of stuff." which is the point of a "waste-free" program.


Some people might not like some minorities participating in certain events either, making it controversial, but that doesn't give the host organization the opportunity to exclude them under the statement of "we have the right to limit participation.". They would not have that right then, just as the KCSWD doesn't have that right in this case.

All menus to restaurants should be banned because some people dont like pork, steak,mutton,wines ,beers,or horrors of horrors ICE CREAM.!!!

All movie tickets banned ,walt disney shooed away, Love stories, thrillers , war or adventure films. They may incite some to dream ,risk their lives ,enact paybacks etc.

Yoga should defenitly be banned , it's origins are alien to SOME other beliefs

Soldiers or servicemen banned, SOME object veheminatly to shootings , bombings, and wars. They are also likely to inspire SOME others to participate or even join.

Seems the SOME, are those in the commitee with cultural religious predjudices.

Probably not the popular response but I believe it's up to whoever was running the event to decide if they wanted tarot readers, pulpit bangers, a pie contest, acupuncture, a seal trainer, a book seller, entrail reading, a choir, a kissing booth, heavens gate, hari krishnas, snake charmers, buddhist monks, aura photography, maypole dancing, handing out the body of christ up by the ticket booth or whatever at their event.

And using controversial as an excuse (while not the most smart thing to put in writing) is f-i-n-e with me. Perfectly understable too. It *is* controversial. I read tarot and have for many many years. I don't do it around my beloved battle axe of a christian italian grandmother because she'd freak out and kill me with a spoon or something.

Best to avoid controvery while raising money for a good cause. Ya?

Acceptance is best done through patience, education and empathy. Not forcefeeding beliefs down anyone's throat imo. If they say no.. let it go. Fight another day in an appropriate place.

The article also said that the county has refused tutors and financial planners, because they didn't fit the set categories the county decided on some time ago. That could be a valid argument for refusing a tarot card reader as well. Just an idea.

But if I were them, my letter would have just said, "Thank you, but we're full. Maybe next year." And not, "You're too controversial."

Whoever wrote that letter was not using their brain.

Also, isn't county waste management a public service, ie funded by the government? While a private organization could refuse her for whatever reason they wanted, the government most certainly could not refuse her on any religious basis.

Thoughts?

Raya said:

Also, isn't county waste management a public service, ie funded by the government? While a private organization could refuse her for whatever reason they wanted, the government most certainly could not refuse her on any religious basis.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Excellent point! Did you think of using that in your argument, valeria? I like that one!