They Say They Have the "Right to Limit Participation"

They didn't refuse her because of religious discrimination. Else she wouldn't have been able to teach the course for them she did earlier on growing vegetables. They see tarot reading as controversial in their area and they're trying to raise money. I agree that that wasn't the most tactful way to phrase it but it seems there was a surfeit of offers of services for them to choose from, and they chose what they thought would bring in the most money for them amongst those offers, presumably based on the things most wanted by the local residents - which is within their rights.

The event is about raising money for charity and promoting environmental awareness, not about promoting tarot reading.

I'm not AT ALL certain that reading tarot is classified as a religion, even in America (I don't live there). I read tarot, but my religious affiliation is Judaism. I know atheists who read tarot. And heck, maybe the accupuncturists and dancers read tarot - just not at that event.

Did the planning committee say no to the tutors or the financial planners because they were Buddhist or Zoroastrian or Hindu and 'those people' aren't allowed to participate in public fundraising events? Is a disclosure of personal religious affiliation or practise mandatory on the application form? If not, then I don't think you have a case.

I'm not trying to sound anti-tarot reading. But I think you have to choose your battles wisely, and this one doesn't even look like a battle.

There are many types of discrimination other than religious. The purpose of the program is to promote "waste free" gift giving so they were focusing on businesses that provide services. The article said that they wanted to focus on things that would be on wishlists. That's why financial planning and tutoring was excluded. They excluded Tarot because there was a perception that "some" people might not like it, and alluded to the event being looked on negatively had Tarot been included. Sounds like a bunch of personal beliefs driving the decision making.

This isn't a private party or organization, its a GOVERNMENT office that is doing the deciding.

The point is not what the decision WAS, but HOW it was arrived at. It's a slippery slope... giving others the power to decide what is appropriate or not with no set guidelines that are fair to all. It allows personal agendas to come through, which should not be allowed when referencing a government body that is funded with taxpayer money.

Tarot isn't controversial until someone makes it that way. If it is good enough to be taught at MIT during winter breaks, and good enough to have reading fairs sponsored by Boeing (yes, the people who make airplanes) twice a year, and I don't know how many countless other reading fairs there are in that area, there is a demand for it. This isn't happening in the heart of the Bible belt, it is happening in a metaphysical "hot spot."

Raya and Griz, I think religious bias (who else has a problem with Tarot?) has been used in the argument. I think that religious bias by someone in that office is driving the decision making. They shouldn't be allowed to do it.

I'm really surprised that Tarot readers aren't more upset by this... or upset at all. I guess we can all sit back and wait for the people making these decisions to move on to other branches of the government where they can decide what is good or not for the public based on their own agendas. Maybe banning Tarot readers from even having reading businesses or doing readings is next... after all "some" people don't believe in it or like it. Oh, wait... that's been happening for centuries.

Valeria, the woman has a business licence. Reading tarot is legal where she lives. They also turned down tutors, financial planners, and we don't know who else. I agree - the letter as to 'why' was badly written. But again, choose your battles.

If this is that important to you, perhaps the ATA would like to organise some reading parties/waste free events for environmental awareness as well? We need all the help we can get in that area, and there's no reason that your organisation cannot contribute. This was simply a decision that a tarot reader wouldn't be an appropriate 'waste free experience' at ONE event in King County. It doesn't mean you can't sponsor other events yourself, for the environment, sustainable and permanent housing for the homeless, child health, food for the hungry, or other good causes.

I think if people saw the ATA doing that, public perception of tarot reading might just take a turn for the better.

Are there not already Tarot Fares criscrossing the country spreading awareness.

Gavriela said:

Valeria, the woman has a business licence. Reading tarot is legal where she lives. They also turned down tutors, financial planners, and we don't know who else. I agree - the letter as to 'why' was badly written. But again, choose your battles.

If this is that important to you, perhaps the ATA would like to organise some reading parties/waste free events for environmental awareness as well? We need all the help we can get in that area, and there's no reason that your organisation cannot contribute. This was simply a decision that a tarot reader wouldn't be an appropriate 'waste free experience' at ONE event in King County. It doesn't mean you can't sponsor other events yourself, for the environment, sustainable and permanent housing for the homeless, child health, food for the hungry, or other good causes.

I think if people saw the ATA doing that, public perception of tarot reading might just take a turn for the better.

Click to expand...

First, I want to clarify that all the responses I have posted here outside of the initial Press Release post are my PERSONAL opinion and I am not speaking for the ATA. I am speaking for myself and my own strong feelings about the case.

Second, I think you have made an excellent suggestion, Gavriela! In fact, this very topic has been brought up for discussion by members within the co-op I read for in the area, and I believe we will do this very thing. There is a thread in Professional in which Mac22 talks about doing that very thing with the co-op he belongs to. I will also make the suggestion to the ATA board at the next meeting.

I think it would be great for every reader to do something in the community as community service. I donate $1000s to Girl Scouts (they know it's coming from a Tarot reader, too), Junior Achievement (they know it's coming from a Tarot reader), Hospice, Women Helping Women charities and a local community/health center - adopting 2 to 3 families for Christmas (the fact I'm a Tarot reader hasn't come up). I prefer to limit how much people know about me not because I'm afraid they'll find out, but because I don't want the orgs and people to think they are "beholding" to me or owe me thanks - I don't give because I want a pat on the back or attention. I give because I am a member of the human race and it is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, I don't think that your suggestion is going to change this situation - because in order for her to be allowed to read, there is going to have to be a challenge to allow it, and right now, no one thinks that it is a worthwhile cause. It's this sort of mentality that discriminated against the reader at the Miss Toronto Tourism pageant -- only it's worse in this case because it was done by a branch of government rather than a private beauty contest group. Plus, this person has already been performing public services and is still declined by the KCSWD... because the KCSWD can... easily and with no repercussions.

They also can turn down financial planners and tutors without repercussion.

I applaud you for your charitable work in your private life, but I don't think you're quite getting my drift.

If the ATA, as the ATA, sponsors several 'waste free gift giving' events for environmental awareness, or sustainable housing, or anti-hunger, or whatever, and donates their take (say a ballpark figure of a thousand dollars per event, and there are five or six events in different metropolitan areas) then people (including the King County government folks) are going to notice that hey - these ATA types are doing something for the community and that's pretty cool (even if I don't like tarot personally), and hey - lots of people want this for a gift, or else nobody would have shown up.

Which might start turning the tide on public perception.

Gavriela said:

They also can turn down financial planners and tutors without repercussion.

Click to expand...

Financial planners and tutors aren't "wishlist" items (at least not on any of mine ). These aren't "fun" gifts. Tarot readings can be. No one hires a financial planner or tutor for a birthday party (that I know of). Comparing these is like comparing apples and spinach.

I applaud you for your charitable work in your private life, but I don't think you're quite getting my drift.

If the ATA, as the ATA, sponsors several 'waste free gift giving' events for environmental awareness, or sustainable housing, or anti-hunger, or whatever, and donates their take (say a ballpark figure of a thousand dollars per event, and there are five or six events in different metropolitan areas) then people (including the King County government folks) are going to notice that hey - these ATA types are doing something for the community and that's pretty cool (even if I don't like tarot personally), and hey - lots of people want this for a gift, or else nobody would have shown up.

Which might start turning the tide on public perception.[/QUOTE]

I do get your drift. I will definitely bring this idea up to the Board. But the point I am trying to make is that it shouldn't be just the ATA. It should be all readers everywhere, whether they are part of an association, co-op or not.

That said, public perception of something is no excuse for discrimination against it by a government office. If they had set guidelines for what was acceptable and what wasn't based on real business offerings (not "no controversial ones" controversial is too subjective), it would be different. But they didn't. They left it OPEN to ANYONE, and then pass judgement based on their own personal agendas and likes or dislikes. That isn't acceptable for a government office that I am paying to maintain with my taxes.

Let me start by saying I find this discussion extremely interesting and would like to contribute a couple more thoughts.

The fact that the tarot reader was turned down because of its "controversial" nature suggests that the organizers might not have been against it themselves but were worried about external disapproval. If that's the case, it might not be considered discrimination (legally speaking), because it's not a reflection of their personal feelings. Instead they could argue (legally) that they were trying to protect their reputation in a sense. I don't know much about law. I don't know if that argument would hold water in court, but it was just an idea I had.

But let's look at this from another point of view. The county did allow acupuncture, which, while not religious or spiritual in nature, is "nonmainstream." So it's possible they might be more open to "nonmainstream" services than we're giving them credit for, but again, they might just be worried about how it would look for a government organization to provide religious services*, especially "occult" ones. The government argument goes both ways: they can't discriminate against religion, but they can't be seen "encouraging" any one religion either.

Nonetheless, if they could be shown, as others have suggested, that many people are interested in tarot, and more importantly i t doesn't attract as much controversy as they fear, they might be more willing to try it.

Put yourself in their shoes. They have a ton of services already, more than enough, and someone offers one that might create trouble for them, eg "King County is supporting witchcraft!! Blah, blah, blah..." It might turn out to be more trouble than it's worth, and the whole event is already a lot of trouble, I can imagine. So, the organizers figure, better safe than sorry.

I mean, let's face it. Religion and government in America is a very touchy issue. I don't blame them for being wary. There's supposed to be a separation of religion and state, but there are so many darn conservative Christian voters, that politicians are constantly crossing the line between government and religion to get elected cough: PalinBush :ahem:,) leaving the other religions uncertain as to where they stand.

But that's an issue for another day...

My point is, instead of battling them by complaining and dragging this into the media spotlight (which will piss them off and at best only make them accept Tarot readers grudgingly), maybe it would be better to take the high road and reason with them, address their fears. I think Gavriela made some great suggestions. After all, you win more flies with honey than vinegar.

*And, before anyone starts in on how Christian religious services would probably allowed, let me just point out that 1) it's a Christian holiday, and 2) (and most importantly) angry Christian fundamentalists make a lot more noise than angry Tarot card readers. So while you could complain about the double standard of allowing Christian services, you wouldn't be half as troublesome as a Christian fundie complaining about tarot.

valeria said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think it is key. Tarot and some aspects of it ARE illegal, how does that differentiate from Porn? If someone wanted to give a gift, why wouldn't someone choose porn for a gift as well.

I personally do not have a problem with the idea of using whatever means possible as a fundraiser, but some people do.

One cannot suggest that an organization that picks and chooses who they wish to allow to participate in their fundraisers is right in choosing not to allow pornographers but wrong in not allowing tarot readers. It's a hypocritical stance, I cannot support and it severely weakens her argument.

I will be participating in a fundraiser in October in Toronto. Not as a Tarot Reader, but rather in my mundane profession. The Fundraiser itself is in essence a pornography session. They are using sex to sell fundraising for several different organizations. What's wrong with that? Nothing. But some fundraising organizations have declined to allow themselves to participate. Their choice; their loss.

Valeria said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do not believe that the constitution allows for the protections against discrimination on the basis of profession and I don't know if I'd feel comfortable with such a protection either.. If we were talking about a visible minority, then there might be a case. But we're not, this is about her profession, ergo it's not the same thing. What if she was an abortionist, would that make a difference if they turned her down because of that?

What if she owned a pro-cannabis magazine such as Cannabis Culture? What then?

What if it was a biker organization, such as the Hell's Angel's or Satan's Choice... Where do we draw the line in allowing organizations to choose who they will exclude?

I think it's bad enough in this world that we have to disagree with people's stupid decisions, and I think refusing funds from anyone is a little daft... OK, a lot daft, but I think the second we say, yes, it's ok to pick and choose, so long as I'm not the one that is excluded is when it's a line in the sand I won't cross.

Saying, it's ok to exclude certain groups, but not mine is more than just a lot hypocritical, in my mind and serves very loudly to highlight just why it's ok in this case for the fundraising group to choose not to accept us Tarot Readers. I don't like it, I think it's a stupid decision, but if I feel strongly about the cause, I will find other ways to support it.

I can't express strongly enough, that it is HER hypocrisy I have a problem with, in this case, not the fact that she's right, she should be allowed to fundraise; and another group would let her, just not this one.

You raised the "minority" issue... Should the Jewish Appeal attach its name to the KKK? I know extreme, but you get the idea. What about the Christian Right attaching its name to the NAACP? Young Republicans supporting access to medical marijuana?

The right to refuse support is not what happened here, they refused to accept that a tarot reader's name should seem to be attached to their cause BECAUSE of their perception of the public's perception of Tarot Readers. It is entirely their appearance that the organization wishes to be allowed to control and protect. And, right or wrong, I think (convince me otherwise, I'm open) that they deserve to have that right.

I too am sick to death of hearing that readers get a bad wrap, but there are idiots in this world, now and forever more and there isn't anything we can do about it, except perhaps work towards getting people to understand that there is nothing wrong with us. And I don't think ostracizing pornagraphers (or anyone else for that matter) while defending ourselves is the way to do it.

demon goddess said:

I think it is key. Tarot and some aspects of it ARE illegal, how does that differentiate from Porn? If someone wanted to give a gift, why wouldn't someone choose porn for a gift as well.

Click to expand...

What aspects of Tarot are illegal???? Specifically, what aspects are those that would allow a comparison with the aspects of porn that are illegal? We are not talking about how Tarot is illegal in Missouri or other areas. I'm talking about THIS area. An area where Tarot is legal.

Again, I repeat what the problem here is. It is NOT that a Tarot reader was excluded. It is HOW the reader was excluded which is the issue.

demon goddess said:

I do not believe that the constitution allows for the protections against discrimination on the basis of profession and I don't know if I'd feel comfortable with such a protection either.. If we were talking about a visible minority, then there might be a case. But we're not, this is about her profession, ergo it's not the same thing. What if she was an abortionist, would that make a difference if they turned her down because of that?

What if she owned a pro-cannabis magazine such as Cannabis Culture? What then?

What if it was a biker organization, such as the Hell's Angel's or Satan's Choice... Where do we draw the line in allowing organizations to choose who they will exclude?
I think it's bad enough in this world that we have to disagree with people's stupid decisions, and I think refusing funds from anyone is a little daft... OK, a lot daft, but I think the second we say, yes, it's ok to pick and choose, so long as I'm not the one that is excluded is when it's a line in the sand I won't cross.

Saying, it's ok to exclude certain groups, but not mine is more than just a lot hypocritical, in my mind and serves very loudly to highlight just why it's ok in this case for the fundraising group to choose not to accept us Tarot Readers. I don't like it, I think it's a stupid decision, but if I feel strongly about the cause, I will find other ways to support it.

I can't express strongly enough, that it is HER hypocrisy I have a problem with, in this case, not the fact that she's right, she should be allowed to fundraise; and another group would let her, just not this one.

You raised the "minority" issue... Should the Jewish Appeal attach its name to the KKK? I know extreme, but you get the idea. What about the Christian Right attaching its name to the NAACP? Young Republicans supporting access to medical marijuana?

The right to refuse support is not what happened here, they refused to accept that a tarot reader's name should seem to be attached to their cause BECAUSE of their perception of the public's perception of Tarot Readers. It is entirely their appearance that the organization wishes to be allowed to control and protect. And, right or wrong, I think (convince me otherwise, I'm open) that they deserve to have that right.

I too am sick to death of hearing that readers get a bad wrap, but there are idiots in this world, now and forever more and there isn't anything we can do about it, except perhaps work towards getting people to understand that there is nothing wrong with us. And I don't think ostracizing pornagraphers (or anyone else for that matter) while defending ourselves is the way to do it.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO! I cannot believe that out of this situation, you have written this whole diatribe about how pornography has been dissed in a statement by a Tarot reader. No one that I know of is suggesting any such thing.

I too am sick to death of hearing that readers get a bad wrap, but there are idiots in this world, now and forever more and there isn't anything we can do about it, except perhaps work towards getting people to understand that there is nothing wrong with us.

Click to expand...

Exactly why the Press Release was issued. And please note that there was no ostracizing of ANY group in it, not even pornographers.