Great news for Teo and Ghandi.

Nekochan wrote:The Civil Rights Act doesn't affect private membership organizations. It applies to businesses that are open to the public (restaurants, hotels, etc) but not to private groups.

You're making an odd distinction between "private groups" and "businesses".
They way you're applying this, all a business has to do is say it's a "private group for only whites" and then it's not a "business" anymore. lol

ButtMan wrote:

Nekochan wrote:The Civil Rights Act doesn't affect private membership organizations. It applies to businesses that are open to the public (restaurants, hotels, etc) but not to private groups.

You're making an odd distinction between "private groups" and "businesses".
They way you're applying this, all a business has to do is say it's a "private group for only whites" and then it's not a "business" anymore. lol

No Bob, I'm not. It's all in the Civil Rights Act. There are specific laws and many court cases about this.

Nekochan wrote:

ButtMan wrote:

Nekochan wrote:The Civil Rights Act doesn't affect private membership organizations. It applies to businesses that are open to the public (restaurants, hotels, etc) but not to private groups.

You're making an odd distinction between "private groups" and "businesses".
They way you're applying this, all a business has to do is say it's a "private group for only whites" and then it's not a "business" anymore. lol

No Bob, I'm not. It's all in the Civil Rights Act. There are specific laws and many court cases about this.

this link will help us understand where that issue stands.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060103918.html

It wasn't until 1975 that Lee Elder was allowed to play at Augusta National at the Masters Golf Tournament. That private club allowed black caddies and such, but not black golfers.

From http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/lee-elder-opened-fairways-black-golfers-augusta

For months the hate mail had said he would never make it to this day in April 1975. Watch your step when you get to Augusta, other letter writers warned him. There will be blood.

To be safe, he had rented two houses in town and kept moving between them, the former golf-course hustler playing the odds. He made sure he had people around him when he ate his meals. He was as inconspicuous as a man whose face was all over the evening news could be.

Speaking of ghandi and the separate drinking fountains and stuff.
Back in the olden days when white people did not want to drink from the same water fountains as black people, weren't many of the same white people having their meals prepared by black people? And if so, why would they be afraid to drink from the same fountain when they were getting tons of black cooties on them from those meals? lol

I don't think Augusta National, site of the Masters, STILL allows women into their club.

Yomama wrote:It wasn't until 1975 that Lee Elder was allowed to play at Augusta National at the Masters Golf Tournament. That private club allowed black caddies and such, but not black golfers.

From http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/lee-elder-opened-fairways-black-golfers-augusta

For months the hate mail had said he would never make it to this day in April 1975. Watch your step when you get to Augusta, other letter writers warned him. There will be blood.

To be safe, he had rented two houses in town and kept moving between them, the former golf-course hustler playing the odds. He made sure he had people around him when he ate his meals. He was as inconspicuous as a man whose face was all over the evening news could be.

How bout Eric's example (Augusta National), neko? Do libertarians say that "private club" should have the right to exclude black people?

Thanks Bob. That's a good article.

If you're going to force a private country club to allow female membership are you going to go after women's groups and force them to allow men as members?

ButtMan wrote:Speaking of ghandi and the separate drinking fountains and stuff.
Back in the olden days when white people did not want to drink from the same water fountains as black people, weren't many of the same white people having their meals prepared by black people? And if so, why would they be afraid to drink from the same fountain when they were getting tons of black cooties on them from those meals? lol

Maybe they didn't want to be seen in public (by their fellow racists) drinking (sharing spit) from the same fountain as a black.

Yomama wrote:I don't think Augusta National, site of the Masters, STILL allows women into their club.

Or women, neko? Should Augusta be able to exclude women?

Nekochan wrote:Thanks Bob. That's a good article.

If you're going to force a private country club to allow female membership are you going to go after women's groups and force them to allow men as members?

I dunno. I'm just exploring all this to see where it goes. Like most things (abortion being another example), it's not a simple issue even though fox news and msnbc would tell you it is.

A private organization is just that... private. They should be able to make their own despicable rules for membership.

If they're successful, I guess all us self-righteous folks will just have to "not like it", bad press and all.

ButtMan wrote:

Yomama wrote:It wasn't until 1975 that Lee Elder was allowed to play at Augusta National at the Masters Golf Tournament. That private club allowed black caddies and such, but not black golfers.

From http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/lee-elder-opened-fairways-black-golfers-augusta

For months the hate mail had said he would never make it to this day in April 1975. Watch your step when you get to Augusta, other letter writers warned him. There will be blood.

To be safe, he had rented two houses in town and kept moving between them, the former golf-course hustler playing the odds. He made sure he had people around him when he ate his meals. He was as inconspicuous as a man whose face was all over the evening news could be.

How bout Eric's example (Augusta National), neko? Do libertarians say that "private club" should have the right to exclude black people?

I am not a libertarian but I think most libertarians would say that a private club should be able to exclude women, blacks, whites, old people, young people, etc. My question--do you think ALL private organizations should be treated the same? Should a women's club be forced to accept men? Should a black club be forced to accept whites? Should a church (black white, Hispanic, etc) be forced to accept anyone as a member?

Yomama wrote:A private organization is just that... private. They should be able to make their own despicable rules for membership.

If they're successful, I guess all us self-righteous folks will just have to "not like it", bad press and all.

YES, I agree. No matter how despicable.

But my real question is: do those who want to force male clubs and white clubs to allow women members, black members etc.....want to treat women's clubs and black clubs the same?

What about "the he mans women haters club" from the little rascals?

Nekochan wrote: Should a women's club be forced to accept men? Should a black club be forced to accept whites? Should a church (black white, Hispanic, etc) be forced to accept anyone as a member?

Why would someone WANT to join an organization that doesn't want them?

You'd have to have some big cojones!

Nekochan wrote:

But my real question is: do those who want to force male clubs and white clubs to allow women members, black members etc.....want to treat women's clubs and black clubs the same?

I admit I have a problem with forcing women to let men into "women's clubs".

ghandi wrote:What about "the he mans women haters club" from the little rascals?

Didn't they allow Yootou, I mean Buckwheat to join?


Ghandi, I said earlier that you were flippant. Although that's true, we need your input. Keep up the "ahem" good work.

ghandi wrote:What about "the he mans women haters club" from the little rascals?

A "he-man's woman haters club" sounds like a queer bodybuilders club. I always thought Spanky and Alfalfa looked a little light in the loafers.

ButtMan wrote: A "he-man's woman haters club" sounds like a queer bodybuilders club. I always thought Spanky and Alfalfa looked a little light in the loafers.

I loved that show. I especially liked the episode when the cannibal got lose and chased the kids around shouting "Yum, Yum, eat 'em up. Eat 'em up!"

Yomama wrote:

Nekochan wrote: Should a women's club be forced to accept men? Should a black club be forced to accept whites? Should a church (black white, Hispanic, etc) be forced to accept anyone as a member?

Why would someone WANT to join an organization that doesn't want them?

You'd have to have some big cojones!

Excellent question.
If business talk and business planning is taking place in these private country clubs (and you know it is!) that affects jobs and contracts in the private sector, then I can see why a black business owner or woman business owner would be concerned about being excluded from the 'good ole boy' network. I think it's a legitimate concern. However, I think a private group's right to meet without government interference should be protected. If the government can tell you who you have to allow into your private group--is this what we want for America? But are we also going to force a black business person's club to accept white members? Are we going to force a women's business club to accept men?

ButtMan wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

But my real question is: do those who want to force male clubs and white clubs to allow women members, black members etc.....want to treat women's clubs and black clubs the same?

I admit I have a problem with forcing women to let men into "women's clubs".

Well, that is the bottom line, isn't it? Every person and every private club should be treated the same, under the law. Don't you think?

Should privately funded organizations be able to legally discriminate against people because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc? Absolutely! Bear in mind, that I am referring to a private organization and not an employer.

I understand it was not about "women rights". It was about discrimination against a certain type of people, in this case women. What does it say about group of people who exclude women from their activity's? What message does that send to Blacks, Mexicans or anyone else who does not "fit? What do I say to a group of young men who see that their Mothers and friends are refused service due to their gender? Right or wrong it made a hell of a impression on my son.............and me.........

I would feel embarrassed to expose my "shortcomings" while standing at a urinal next to a woman at a urinal. And, I'm not sure I would be comfortable enough to even get a stream going.