Why this issue is being misframed…and why the law does not say what some are claiming

By Amy Van Riper

A claim that keeps surfacing in this conversation is this:

“That group is protected. DAR can’t deny membership without losing nonprofit status or violating the law.”

That sounds convincing. It also collapses the moment you separate three things the law treats very differently:

• employment
• public accommodations
• private membership

This post is about membership. Not employment. Not museums. Not events. Not whether anyone can walk into Constitution Hall.

Membership.

Those are not legally interchangeable.

1. Protected status absolutely exists…in the right context

DAR employs people. In employment, federal and state law is very clear.

Under modern civil rights law, including Supreme Court precedent, a person may not be denied a job, fired, or treated differently in employment because they are transgender.

If DAR were hiring a receptionist, a curator, a janitor, or an executive, a transgender woman would be legally protected in that hiring process.

That is employment law. And it applies.

Likewise, DAR operates public spaces and public-facing programs. Museums. Events. Performances. Educational programs. Public tours.

No one is arguing that transgender women should be barred from entering DAR buildings, attending public events, or accessing public programs. Public accommodations law governs those spaces.

This discussion is not about that.

This discussion is about who qualifies for membership in a hereditary women’s society.

Those are different legal universes.

2. Membership in DAR is not a public accommodation

A public accommodation is a business or facility that offers goods, services, or access to the general public.

Hotels. Restaurants. Stores. Theaters. Venues. Museums.

DAR certainly operates some things that are public accommodations.

But DAR membership itself is not one of them.

You cannot walk in, fill out a form, pay a fee, and become a Daughter.

You must:

• prove direct lineal descent from a qualifying patriot
• document that lineage to DAR’s standards
• be sponsored
• be vetted
• be approved

That is not a public offering. That is selective association.

Courts look at factors like selectivity, purpose, governance, and openness when deciding whether something is a public accommodation. A hereditary society whose core identity is based on documented lineage, internal governance, and selective admission does not remotely resemble a hotel or a lunch counter.

DAR’s facilities may be public accommodations.
DAR’s events may be public accommodations.
DAR’s membership is not.

Those things are legally separable. And they routinely are separated.

Public access law governs who can enter your museum.

It does not automatically dictate who must be admitted into your private society.

3. Legal recognition does not automatically override private membership standards

Some people raise birth certificates at this point. Many states allow a person to amend the sex marker on their birth certificate through a legal process.

That matters for a long list of civil purposes.

It does not magically convert every private organization’s internal definitions into government mandates.

The law routinely allows private associations to define their own qualifications so long as they are not operating as commercial public accommodations or government actors.

DAR is neither.

The existence of legal gender recognition in a state does not, by itself, force every private membership organization to rewrite its bylaws, redefine its terms, or abandon its founding categories.

If that were true, sex-specific private organizations would not exist at all.

They do.

4. Why “DAR would lose nonprofit status” is not a serious legal argument

Tax-exempt status is governed by the Internal Revenue Code. It is primarily about:

• organizational purpose
• private inurement
• political campaign activity
• compliance with basic public policy

The IRS does not regulate the internal membership definitions of every private association. If it did, countless single-sex, heritage-based, and fraternal organizations would not exist.

The idea that the DAR would automatically lose nonprofit status for defining eligibility around biological sex is not rooted in statute. It is rooted in fear.

It is also contradicted by reality. Sex-specific nonprofits operate across the country. Heritage-based nonprofits operate across the country. Selective nonprofits operate across the country.

Tax exemption is not revoked because an organization maintains a definitional boundary. It is revoked when organizations become political machines, private piggy banks, or criminal enterprises.

DAR is none of those.

5. What this actually comes down to

This issue is not about whether transgender women are human beings deserving of dignity. They are.

It is not about whether they can work for DAR. They can.

It is not about whether they can attend public DAR events. They can.

It is about whether biological sex is a legitimate membership category in a hereditary women’s society.

That is a governance question. A definitional question. A bylaws question.

It is not automatically an employment issue.
It is not automatically a public accommodations issue.
It is not automatically a nonprofit-status issue.

Calling it those things does not make it those things.

6. Why clarity matters

When people blur these categories, it shuts down rational discussion.

It replaces “what should our standards be?” with “we’re not allowed to talk about this.”

It swaps governance for panic.

And panic is a very convenient tool when someone doesn’t want a real debate.

DAR’s own policies make clear distinctions between public activity, employment, and internal governance. The Circularization and Communication Policy itself centers on protecting reputation and controlling internal messaging. It does not transform membership into a federally regulated public service. (Circularization and Communication Policy, June 2025)

Membership is not employment.

Membership is not museum access.

Membership is not public seating.

Membership is belonging.

And belonging in a hereditary society has always rested on definitions.

The question on the table is whether DAR is allowed to define what “Daughter” means.

Legally, the answer is yes.

The only remaining question is whether DAR still has the courage to do so.