My understanding is a private club can choose to exclude who ever they want for what ever reasons they want.
They can even state a policy of not admitting Blacks.
I think a court case would have to prove that they are a public pool masquerading as private club for the sole purpose of excluding Blacks.
Thus August National can exclude women, Boy Scouts can exclude gays and atheists.
Or I might be wrong.
you are wrong.
there are federal laws that prohibit discrimination related to such things as housing, voting, and employment. this area of discrimination falls under "public accommodation" which is also protected by federal under the americans with disabilities act, but not to my knowledge, in regards to race/sex/gender, or any other protected class.
HOWEVER, there is a pennsylvania law that mirrors most other state laws which protects discrimination based on race for public accommodations.
A "public accommodation" can exist at a private club, so long as the private club solicits membership from the general public and not based on any kind of eligibility requirements.
In this case, we know that this is not an elite country club, but a swim club that is open to any member who pays dues. There's not a screening process. Moreover, what they offer - a swimming pool - is actually mentioned in the PA law as being something that would be in the realm of a public accommodation.
We also know that the club originally gave the Camp (who are all nonmembers) a contract to use the facility so clearly it is a public accommodation.
This will certainly end up in court. However, as much as we all don't like to see people acting foolishly, am I the only one who thinks the Swim Club (as opposed to some members) might not be guilty of discrimination?
Assuming that this club is normally a quiet place for seniors, adults and their children to hang out...how would you react to the club bringing in a camp full of kids??? Forget race for a second.
If i were a member of the swim club I'd say - if i wanted to be around a camp full of kids, I would have become a counselor.
The Valley Club is deeply troubled by the recent allegations of racism which are completely untrue.
We had originally agreed to invite the camps to use our facility, knowing full well that the children from the camps were from multi-ethnic backgrounds. Unfortunately, we quickly learned that we underestimated the capacity of our facilities and realized that we could not accommodate the number of children from these camps. All funds were returned to the camps and we will re-evaluate the issue at a later date to determine whether it can be feasible in the future.
Our Valley Club deplores discrimination in any form, as is evidenced by our multi-ethnic and diverse membership. Whatever comments may or may not have been made by an individual member is an opinion not shared by The Valley Club Board.
However, as much as we all don't like to see people acting foolishly, am I the only one who thinks the Swim Club (as opposed to some members) might not be guilty of discrimination?
Assuming that this club is normally a quiet place for seniors, adults and their children to hang out...how would you react to the club bringing in a camp full of kids???
This is the argument they're going to try to make. Whether they're successful or not remains to be seen but I think the public image damage is already done. The Club may try to claim that they're not responsible for the comments by individual members - and ok, that's fine - but their own President was talking about the "complexion" of the campers. I mean, that's not even coded language. If it was about too many kids coming at once, why didn't he just say that on the front end?
My understanding is a private club can choose to exclude who ever they want for what ever reasons they want.
They can even state a policy of not admitting Blacks.
I think a court case would have to prove that they are a public pool masquerading as private club for the sole purpose of excluding Blacks.
Thus August National can exclude women, Boy Scouts can exclude gays and atheists.
Or I might be wrong.
you are wrong.
there are federal laws that prohibit discrimination related to such things as housing, voting, and employment. this area of discrimination falls under "public accommodation" which is also protected by federal under the americans with disabilities act, but not to my knowledge, in regards to race/sex/gender, or any other protected class.
HOWEVER, there is a pennsylvania law that mirrors most other state laws which protects discrimination based on race for public accommodations.
A "public accommodation" can exist at a private club, so long as the private club solicits membership from the general public and not based on any kind of eligibility requirements.
In this case, we know that this is not an elite country club, but a swim club that is open to any member who pays dues. There's not a screening process. Moreover, what they offer - a swimming pool - is actually mentioned in the PA law as being something that would be in the realm of a public accommodation.
We also know that the club originally gave the Camp (who are all nonmembers) a contract to use the facility so clearly it is a public accommodation.
I am glad to hear I am wrong. I was waiting for a lawyer to clarify.
This will certainly end up in court.
Will the state prosecute, or must the camp file a civil case?
However, as much as we all don't like to see people acting foolishly, am I the only one who thinks the Swim Club (as opposed to some members) might not be guilty of discrimination?
Assuming that this club is normally a quiet place for seniors, adults and their children to hang out...how would you react to the club bringing in a camp full of kids??? Forget race for a second.
I did think of that. And it is now clear that is their defense.
But they knowingly sold a membership to a camp. Did they never ask how many children and ages before deciding on how much to charge?
But they knowingly sold a membership to a camp. Did they never ask how many children and ages before deciding on how much to charge?
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Will there really be a lawsuit?
Would the pool lose?
My understanding is a private club can choose to exclude who ever they want for what ever reasons they want.
They can even state a policy of not admitting Blacks.
I think a court case would have to prove that they are a public pool masquerading as private club for the sole purpose of excluding Blacks.
Thus August National can exclude women, Boy Scouts can exclude gays and atheists.
Or I might be wrong.
you are wrong.
there are federal laws that prohibit discrimination related to such things as housing, voting, and employment. this area of discrimination falls under "public accommodation" which is also protected by federal under the americans with disabilities act, but not to my knowledge, in regards to race/sex/gender, or any other protected class.
HOWEVER, there is a pennsylvania law that mirrors most other state laws which protects discrimination based on race for public accommodations.
A "public accommodation" can exist at a private club, so long as the private club solicits membership from the general public and not based on any kind of eligibility requirements.
In this case, we know that this is not an elite country club, but a swim club that is open to any member who pays dues. There's not a screening process. Moreover, what they offer - a swimming pool - is actually mentioned in the PA law as being something that would be in the realm of a public accommodation.
We also know that the club originally gave the Camp (who are all nonmembers) a contract to use the facility so clearly it is a public accommodation.
This will certainly end up in court. However, as much as we all don't like to see people acting foolishly, am I the only one who thinks the Swim Club (as opposed to some members) might not be guilty of discrimination?
Assuming that this club is normally a quiet place for seniors, adults and their children to hang out...how would you react to the club bringing in a camp full of kids??? Forget race for a second.
If i were a member of the swim club I'd say - if i wanted to be around a camp full of kids, I would have become a counselor.
Hey KVH,
If I'm not mistaken, racial discrimination regarding a "public accommodation" is relevant to the 14th Ammendment of the Contsitution, the "Equal Protection" clause. This clause forbids discrimination in public accommodations such as lodging, dining, etc. Thus, I think the camp may have a viable case.
Question: can a country club exclude members on the basis of race? Obviously, it can based on sex.
I think there can be "Private Clubs" of all sorts who's membership can legally be based on race, religion, sex, etc.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Question: can a country club exclude members on the basis of race? Obviously, it can based on sex.
Hey Manny,
I don't think a country club can do so explicitly, but there are myriad ways to do so implicitly (e.g., through charging exorbitantly high member dues). It's the same steelo realtors use to redline exclusive subdivisions to keep out "those people" (see Whitefish Bay aka Whitepeople Bay in Milwaukee). Have you ever seen the "True Colors" video by ABC's "Primetime" back in the late 80's?
Question: can a country club exclude members on the basis of race? Obviously, it can based on sex.
a country club is typically a private club (in that it is not owned in whole or part by the state and is not open to the general public wherein anyone can join as long as they pay and agree to abide by the rules of the contract) that can exclude anyone it likes for whatever reason it wants. that is my understanding at least....i am going to double check this..
If I'm not mistaken, racial discrimination regarding a "public accommodation" is relevant to the 14th Ammendment of the Contsitution, the "Equal Protection" clause. This clause forbids discrimination in public accommodations such as lodging, dining, etc. Thus, I think the camp may have a viable case.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Except that the 14th Amendment protects against State Action. If this were a state run pool, you'd be correct, however it is a private club.
Private Clubs That Aren't Private Under the Law Courts Might Deem Groups Public if They Have Broad Admissions Policies but Discriminate Based on Gender or Race
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor parted ways with her all-women's social club after facing criticism about belonging to an organization that has no male members.
While Judge Sotomayor's membership in the Belizean Grove caused a political flap ahead of her Senate confirmation hearings, a broader issue remains: What constitutes discrimination in organizations that consider themselves private?
Some golf courses, country clubs and social groups long have discriminated against certain types of people, usually women and minorities. Private organizations sometimes presume that they can exclude whomever they want, no questions asked.
And in one sense, they are right. Ironically, the more selective a club is, the more it is considered to be truly private and thus protected against antidiscrimination laws. In other words, a small, all-male group of stamp collectors who meet in a private home aren't unlawfully discriminating by not accepting women.
But clubs that presume they are private frequently turn out not to be in the eyes of the law in some states.
"Over the last 20 years, societal pressures have led to a steady narrowing of what qualifies as a private organization, free from antidiscrimination laws," says Robert Duston, a Washington attorney who specializes in defending discrimination cases.
Organizations like Mill River Club in Oyster Bay, N.Y., have had their membership policies successfully challenged in court.
Take the Mill River Club Inc., a country club in Oyster Bay, N.Y., that considers itself private. Marc Wenger, the club's attorney, says Mill River is selective in choosing members, picking them partially on the basis of religion with the stated goal of achieving a balance of Jews and Christians.
Club member Joseph Pezza filed a complaint against the club in 2002, claiming the religious-diversity policy embarrassed him because "it puts unnecessary labels on people," according to court testimony.
Earlier this year, a New York court ruled that the club wasn't actually "private," and that its religious quota system violated state law. Mr. Wenger says the club is appealing the ruling, and declined to comment on the club's current membership policy.
The court based its decision on evidence that included the fact that nonmembers took tennis lessons and attended social events at the club. The court also noted that the club has more than 100 members -- a factor that is relevant under New York state law in deciding whether a group is a "place of public accommodation."
"When an association reaches a certain size and importance, the public has a legitimate interest in what goes on inside them," says Andrew Koppelman, a constitutional-law professor at Northwestern University School of Law.
In deciding whether a club is private, courts often consider how selective it is in choosing its members. Courts often are loath to allow clubs to claim private status if they open their doors to virtually all comers but exclude people by race or gender, discrimination experts say.
Clubs that have restrictive membership policies have faced accusations of discrimination for decades. In the 1980s, the exclusive Burning Tree Golf Club in Maryland was sued by the state over whether it could exclude women and still claim certain tax benefits. The club lost the case; its general manager didn't return a call seeking comment. In 2003, women's rights groups protested the all-male membership policy of the Augusta National Golf Club, the famously exclusive organization where the Masters tournament is held. The club declined to comment.
The German Social Society Frohsinn Inc. in Mystic, Conn., was surprised last year to find itself on the wrong side of the public-private divide, says its lawyer, Richard Haviland.
A trial judge in an antidiscrimination case brought by a female plaintiff determined that the all-male, German cultural club was indeed a private club, according to Mr. Haviland. "This was a small, local drinking man's club," the lawyer said.
But a Connecticut state appellate court ruled that the club was public and could be sued for discrimination -- for the very fact that it wasn't discriminating enough.
During a three-year period, the Connecticut court found, the German club had rejected only one male applicant, "because he was thought to be a pedophile," the court noted in its ruling. The club eventually settled the case and admitted the female plaintiff.
So, could the Belizean Grove ever be considered a public entity -- and thus open to discrimination lawsuits? The New York City organization, which is focused on providing mentoring and networking opportunities for women, has 115 members, large enough that it might be considered public under state law. On the other hand, it doesn't operate a facility that is open to the public or take money from nonmembers, and it appears relatively selective in choosing members.
"You have to be a woman of substantial attainment, and you have to be recommended by two other members," says Belizean Grove's lawyer, Thomas Hemnes. "It's not just about having an impressive r??sum??," adds the group's founder, Susan Stautberg. "Brains are good, charm is better, but kindness is best," she says.
Even if the Grove were deemed public, it still might be able to fend off a discrimination claim, say civil-rights lawyers. It could assert its First Amendment rights to associate with like-minded people in order to express a particular viewpoint -- a principle that enabled the Boy Scouts of America, though public, to deny an adult leadership position to a gay applicant, according to a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
It might also fend off a claim by pointing out that the Belizean Grove, at least until recently, had never denied membership to a man, because one hadn't applied, according to Ms. Stautberg. But that fact wouldn't automatically prevent a lawsuit, lawyers say, as a male plaintiff might be able to claim he felt unwelcome from even applying.
In any event, the club now has many male admirers. Since the Sotomayor news broke, some 20 to 30 men have applied for membership, Ms. Stautberg says. "We had been a quiet group," she says. "Life has become more complicated."
I'd be interested to hear from KVH or any other lawyer, since KVH focused so much on the "public accomomdation" angle, are private organizations like country clubs exempt from these laws? Are they allowed to discriminate for something like skin color or religion? Obviously this has happened a lot and continues to happen, but wondering if the law has nothing to say once a club's membership is actually private and at their discretion..
I'd be interested to hear from KVH or any other lawyer, since KVH focused so much on the "public accomomdation" angle, are private organizations like country clubs exempt from these laws? Are they allowed to discriminate for something like skin color or religion? Obviously this has happened a lot and continues to happen, but wondering if the law has nothing to say once a club's membership is actually private and at their discretion..
I'd be interested to hear from KVH or any other lawyer, since KVH focused so much on the "public accomomdation" angle, are private organizations like country clubs exempt from these laws? Are they allowed to discriminate for something like skin color or religion? Obviously this has happened a lot and continues to happen, but wondering if the law has nothing to say once a club's membership is actually private and at their discretion..
dude, read the article i just posted....
keep in mind that we are talking about state law. per that article, ny law seems very consistent with pa. i don't know about other states though.
i agree that with these private clubs - it seems to be that the more discriminatory you are in selecting members, the better argument you will have to say that the club does not qualify under public accommodation scrutiny.
however - do we really want what we are asking for? i know a lot of minority groups that like to have inclusive clubs/organizations. the sotomayor example is perfect. her group was a response to the all male organization that she was unable to join. now you have republican commentators omitting that fact, to make it seem like she started this club because she was a man-hater.
i am not sure anyone in this thread thinks that would be a good idea, i certainly don;t. part of your first amendment rights grant you the ability to assemble freely with like-minded individuals to express opinions or whatever.
this incident is something that should and will play out in the court of public opinion and you can be damn sure this place's reputation will be toast if its not already. talk abput not handling the crisis well...wtf was that statement about "complexion"? you can be sure that guy is going down hard...
I don't think we should conflate "minority groups" with "women" since race and sex aren't easily conflated, least of all here.
Outside of some uber-nationalist organizations, there are no major organizations I can think of, run by people of color, that exclude people on the basis of race or ethnicity. That's not the same thing as saying as they're deliberately inclusive but in general, if you're down for the cause, no one's going to stop you at the door.
I think single-sex organizations are trickier only insofar as they're more acceptable in ways that a racially exclusive club would not be.
But in the case of Sotomayor, I don't think anyone's taking that GOP complaint seriously.
wtf was that statement about "complexion"? you can be sure that guy is going down hard...
but for that statement, this would not have gotten past the local news.
first, lets be honest - there is no way the club intended for complexion to mean skin color. second, although this might have been an obvious freudian slip, we are talking about some small swim club in a middle class (not rich by any means) neighborhood. is this really national news territory that some club manager doesn't know how to write a press release?
i picture some fat old guy out in the swim club shed typing on an apple IIE. then i think about the "oh shit!!" this guy must have let out after he realized that his attempt at sounding articulate ("complexion of the club") led to the ultimate shit storm.
yeah, when jessie jackson and al sharpton are boarding planes to come picket you i think you should spend more than 30 seconds composing a statement and you know maybe run it by someone else to make sure its worded properly.
i think this case has undeniable racial overtones and that the real news is that it happened not that a person misspoke- that statement just sent the story into orbit.....
i am not sure anyone in this thread thinks that would be a good idea, i certainly don;t. part of your first amendment rights grant you the ability to assemble freely with like-minded individuals to express opinions or whatever.
Freedom of association. Not sure how it applies in this case. Usually sited when there are attempts to outlaw entire groups, like the Communist Party.
Freedom of association. Not sure how it applies in this case. Usually sited when there are attempts to outlaw entire groups, like the Communist Party.
it was successfully invoked by the boy scouts to exclude gays and a famous country club to exclude blacks that eventually buckled to public pressure. it is fundamental issue in these kinds of cases.
When I was a kid there was a pool called Chevy Chase Lake. Private club, any one could buy a one day membership as long as they were white. When I lived in OK all hard liquor bars were private clubs by law. The dives I went to never enforced the club membership, unless...
I can't remember if Chevy Chase Lake ever got sued. But it closed and was paved over for condos. OK changed their liquor laws I think.
BUT!
In Oregon the Boy Scouts do not allow gays or atheists.
So some groups are still getting away with blatant discrimination.
So some groups are still getting away with blatant discrimination.
but that's the deal with freedom of speech and the concomitant right of assembly- you have tolerate unsavoury ideas and groups of people as long as they aren't committing crimes. if you want to start a poker club with your buddies in the privacy of your own home and you guys decide between yourselves that you hate people with red hair and that you don;t want to be around them, should you be forced to accept a member with red hair as silly and arbitrary as those prejudices may be? that would be an egregious intrusion by the state.
when it comes to clubs or organizations of a public character (ie owned by the state or they are only apparently private as the article discussed)the matter takes on a completely different hue. the state or public organizations cannot sanction undue discrimination---and in the realm of state actions the state may discriminate if it has good reason in countless areas, but the discrimination may not be "undue" in the sense that it based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc..
So some groups are still getting away with blatant discrimination.
but that's the deal with freedom of speech- you have tolerate unsavoury ideas and groups of people as long as they aren't committing crimes. if you want to start apoker club with your buddies in the privacy of your own home and you guys decide between yourselves that you hate people with red hair and that you don;t want to be around them, should you be forced to accept a member with red hair as silly and arbitrary as those prejudices may be? that would be an egregious intrusion by the state.
when it comes to clubs or organizations of a public character (ie owned by the state or they are only apparently private as the article discussed)the matter takes on a completely different hue. the state or public organizations cannot sanction undue discrimination---and in the realm of state actions the state may discriminate if it has good reason in countless areas, but the discrimination may not be "undue" in the sense that it based on raace, religion, sexual preference, etc..
Yeah, but the poker club is a bad analogy. Not comparable to Boy Scouts or August National. And red heads are not part of a historically discriminated against group.
But yeah, point taken.
F*ck the Boy Scouts.
Personally I wouldn't be a member of any club that would have me.
So some groups are still getting away with blatant discrimination.
but that's the deal with freedom of speech and the concomitant right of assembly- you have tolerate unsavoury ideas and groups of people as long as they aren't committing crimes. if you want to start a poker club with your buddies in the privacy of your own home and you guys decide between yourselves that you hate people with red hair and that you don;t want to be around them, should you be forced to accept a member with red hair as silly and arbitrary as those prejudices may be? that would be an egregious intrusion by the state.
This is why I have a problem with some of these smoking bans......public spots, hell yes ban smoking.....but if I want to open a privately owned club that allows smoking I can't in many of the cities that have a smoking ban.
i think the analogy works: you can put any variable you want in there (ie make it jews or blacks) and the only difference with boy scouts, etc is scale- the principle stands.
This is why I have a problem with some of these smoking bans......public spots, hell yes ban smoking.....but if I want to open a privately owned club that allows smoking I can't in many of the cities that have a smoking ban.
i would bet dollars to donuts that a special rule had to be fashioned to prevent establishments from completely circumventing the law to the point that the purpose would be completely frustrated. all clubs and restaurants would suddenly be called "private clubs" and to join you would only need to be a smoker or someone who was prepared to tolerate it and pay some type of nominal consideration. so, sounds like a policy position, to prevent the floodgates from opening...in other words, "smoking bans" are likely an anomalous exception to the basic principle.
Comments
I swear to god people disgust me.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2288776/posts
This shit is fucked up. I have no idea how anyone who calls themselves a Republican with any sense can handle being associated with these people.
you are wrong.
there are federal laws that prohibit discrimination related to such things as housing, voting, and employment. this area of discrimination falls under "public accommodation" which is also protected by federal under the americans with disabilities act, but not to my knowledge, in regards to race/sex/gender, or any other protected class.
HOWEVER, there is a pennsylvania law that mirrors most other state laws which protects discrimination based on race for public accommodations.
A "public accommodation" can exist at a private club, so long as the private club solicits membership from the general public and not based on any kind of eligibility requirements.
In this case, we know that this is not an elite country club, but a swim club that is open to any member who pays dues. There's not a screening process. Moreover, what they offer - a swimming pool - is actually mentioned in the PA law as being something that would be in the realm of a public accommodation.
We also know that the club originally gave the Camp (who are all nonmembers) a contract to use the facility so clearly it is a public accommodation.
This will certainly end up in court. However, as much as we all don't like to see people acting foolishly, am I the only one who thinks the Swim Club (as opposed to some members) might not be guilty of discrimination?
Assuming that this club is normally a quiet place for seniors, adults and their children to hang out...how would you react to the club bringing in a camp full of kids??? Forget race for a second.
If i were a member of the swim club I'd say - if i wanted to be around a camp full of kids, I would have become a counselor.
the one I hear is "Pennsyltucky".
try being in Ohio right near Kentucky it is racist as a mug here in Ohio.... and esp in Cleveland...
The Valley Club is deeply troubled by the recent allegations of racism which are completely untrue.
We had originally agreed to invite the camps to use our facility, knowing full well that the children from the camps were from multi-ethnic backgrounds. Unfortunately, we quickly learned that we underestimated the capacity of our facilities and realized that we could not accommodate the number of children from these camps. All funds were returned to the camps and we will re-evaluate the issue at a later date to determine whether it can be feasible in the future.
Our Valley Club deplores discrimination in any form, as is evidenced by our multi-ethnic and diverse membership. Whatever comments may or may not have been made by an individual member is an opinion not shared by The Valley Club Board.
This is the argument they're going to try to make. Whether they're successful or not remains to be seen but I think the public image damage is already done. The Club may try to claim that they're not responsible for the comments by individual members - and ok, that's fine - but their own President was talking about the "complexion" of the campers. I mean, that's not even coded language. If it was about too many kids coming at once, why didn't he just say that on the front end?
I am glad to hear I am wrong. I was waiting for a lawyer to clarify.
Will the state prosecute, or must the camp file a civil case?
I did think of that. And it is now clear that is their defense.
But they knowingly sold a membership to a camp.
Did they never ask how many children and ages before deciding on how much to charge?
Hey KVH,
If I'm not mistaken, racial discrimination regarding a "public accommodation" is relevant to the 14th Ammendment of the Contsitution, the "Equal Protection" clause. This clause forbids discrimination in public accommodations such as lodging, dining, etc. Thus, I think the camp may have a viable case.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
I think there can be "Private Clubs" of all sorts who's membership can legally be based on race, religion, sex, etc.
Hey Manny,
I don't think a country club can do so explicitly, but there are myriad ways to do so implicitly (e.g., through charging exorbitantly high member dues). It's the same steelo realtors use to redline exclusive subdivisions to keep out "those people" (see Whitefish Bay aka Whitepeople Bay in Milwaukee). Have you ever seen the "True Colors" video by ABC's "Primetime" back in the late 80's?
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
a country club is typically a private club (in that it is not owned in whole or part by the state and is not open to the general public wherein anyone can join as long as they pay and agree to abide by the rules of the contract) that can exclude anyone it likes for whatever reason it wants. that is my understanding at least....i am going to double check this..
Except that the 14th Amendment protects against State Action. If this were a state run pool, you'd be correct, however it is a private club.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588111858449559.html
NATHAN KOPPEL
Private Clubs That Aren't Private Under the Law
Courts Might Deem Groups Public if They Have Broad Admissions Policies but Discriminate Based on Gender or Race
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor parted ways with her all-women's social club after facing criticism about belonging to an organization that has no male members.
While Judge Sotomayor's membership in the Belizean Grove caused a political flap ahead of her Senate confirmation hearings, a broader issue remains: What constitutes discrimination in organizations that consider themselves private?
Some golf courses, country clubs and social groups long have discriminated against certain types of people, usually women and minorities. Private organizations sometimes presume that they can exclude whomever they want, no questions asked.
And in one sense, they are right. Ironically, the more selective a club is, the more it is considered to be truly private and thus protected against antidiscrimination laws. In other words, a small, all-male group of stamp collectors who meet in a private home aren't unlawfully discriminating by not accepting women.
But clubs that presume they are private frequently turn out not to be in the eyes of the law in some states.
"Over the last 20 years, societal pressures have led to a steady narrowing of what qualifies as a private organization, free from antidiscrimination laws," says Robert Duston, a Washington attorney who specializes in defending discrimination cases.
Organizations like Mill River Club in Oyster Bay, N.Y., have had their membership policies successfully challenged in court.
Take the Mill River Club Inc., a country club in Oyster Bay, N.Y., that considers itself private. Marc Wenger, the club's attorney, says Mill River is selective in choosing members, picking them partially on the basis of religion with the stated goal of achieving a balance of Jews and Christians.
Club member Joseph Pezza filed a complaint against the club in 2002, claiming the religious-diversity policy embarrassed him because "it puts unnecessary labels on people," according to court testimony.
Earlier this year, a New York court ruled that the club wasn't actually "private," and that its religious quota system violated state law. Mr. Wenger says the club is appealing the ruling, and declined to comment on the club's current membership policy.
The court based its decision on evidence that included the fact that nonmembers took tennis lessons and attended social events at the club. The court also noted that the club has more than 100 members -- a factor that is relevant under New York state law in deciding whether a group is a "place of public accommodation."
"When an association reaches a certain size and importance, the public has a legitimate interest in what goes on inside them," says Andrew Koppelman, a constitutional-law professor at Northwestern University School of Law.
In deciding whether a club is private, courts often consider how selective it is in choosing its members. Courts often are loath to allow clubs to claim private status if they open their doors to virtually all comers but exclude people by race or gender, discrimination experts say.
Clubs that have restrictive membership policies have faced accusations of discrimination for decades. In the 1980s, the exclusive Burning Tree Golf Club in Maryland was sued by the state over whether it could exclude women and still claim certain tax benefits. The club lost the case; its general manager didn't return a call seeking comment. In 2003, women's rights groups protested the all-male membership policy of the Augusta National Golf Club, the famously exclusive organization where the Masters tournament is held. The club declined to comment.
The German Social Society Frohsinn Inc. in Mystic, Conn., was surprised last year to find itself on the wrong side of the public-private divide, says its lawyer, Richard Haviland.
A trial judge in an antidiscrimination case brought by a female plaintiff determined that the all-male, German cultural club was indeed a private club, according to Mr. Haviland. "This was a small, local drinking man's club," the lawyer said.
But a Connecticut state appellate court ruled that the club was public and could be sued for discrimination -- for the very fact that it wasn't discriminating enough.
During a three-year period, the Connecticut court found, the German club had rejected only one male applicant, "because he was thought to be a pedophile," the court noted in its ruling. The club eventually settled the case and admitted the female plaintiff.
So, could the Belizean Grove ever be considered a public entity -- and thus open to discrimination lawsuits? The New York City organization, which is focused on providing mentoring and networking opportunities for women, has 115 members, large enough that it might be considered public under state law. On the other hand, it doesn't operate a facility that is open to the public or take money from nonmembers, and it appears relatively selective in choosing members.
"You have to be a woman of substantial attainment, and you have to be recommended by two other members," says Belizean Grove's lawyer, Thomas Hemnes. "It's not just about having an impressive r??sum??," adds the group's founder, Susan Stautberg. "Brains are good, charm is better, but kindness is best," she says.
Even if the Grove were deemed public, it still might be able to fend off a discrimination claim, say civil-rights lawyers. It could assert its First Amendment rights to associate with like-minded people in order to express a particular viewpoint -- a principle that enabled the Boy Scouts of America, though public, to deny an adult leadership position to a gay applicant, according to a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
It might also fend off a claim by pointing out that the Belizean Grove, at least until recently, had never denied membership to a man, because one hadn't applied, according to Ms. Stautberg. But that fact wouldn't automatically prevent a lawsuit, lawyers say, as a male plaintiff might be able to claim he felt unwelcome from even applying.
In any event, the club now has many male admirers. Since the Sotomayor news broke, some 20 to 30 men have applied for membership, Ms. Stautberg says. "We had been a quiet group," she says. "Life has become more complicated."
indeed there are
dude, read the article i just posted....
keep in mind that we are talking about state law. per that article, ny law seems very consistent with pa. i don't know about other states though.
i agree that with these private clubs - it seems to be that the more discriminatory you are in selecting members, the better argument you will have to say that the club does not qualify under public accommodation scrutiny.
however - do we really want what we are asking for? i know a lot of minority groups that like to have inclusive clubs/organizations. the sotomayor example is perfect. her group was a response to the all male organization that she was unable to join. now you have republican commentators omitting that fact, to make it seem like she started this club because she was a man-hater.
i am not sure anyone in this thread thinks that would be a good idea, i certainly don;t. part of your first amendment rights grant you the ability to assemble freely with like-minded individuals to express opinions or whatever.
this incident is something that should and will play out in the court of public opinion and you can be damn sure this place's reputation will be toast if its not already. talk abput not handling the crisis well...wtf was that statement about "complexion"? you can be sure that guy is going down hard...
Outside of some uber-nationalist organizations, there are no major organizations I can think of, run by people of color, that exclude people on the basis of race or ethnicity. That's not the same thing as saying as they're deliberately inclusive but in general, if you're down for the cause, no one's going to stop you at the door.
I think single-sex organizations are trickier only insofar as they're more acceptable in ways that a racially exclusive club would not be.
But in the case of Sotomayor, I don't think anyone's taking that GOP complaint seriously.
but for that statement, this would not have gotten past the local news.
first, lets be honest - there is no way the club intended for complexion to mean skin color. second, although this might have been an obvious freudian slip, we are talking about some small swim club in a middle class (not rich by any means) neighborhood. is this really national news territory that some club manager doesn't know how to write a press release?
i picture some fat old guy out in the swim club shed typing on an apple IIE. then i think about the "oh shit!!" this guy must have let out after he realized that his attempt at sounding articulate ("complexion of the club") led to the ultimate shit storm.
i think this case has undeniable racial overtones and that the real news is that it happened not that a person misspoke- that statement just sent the story into orbit.....
Freedom of association. Not sure how it applies in this case. Usually sited when there are attempts to outlaw entire groups, like the Communist Party.
it was successfully invoked by the boy scouts to exclude gays and a famous country club to exclude blacks that eventually buckled to public pressure. it is fundamental issue in these kinds of cases.
Private club, any one could buy a one day membership as long as they were white.
When I lived in OK all hard liquor bars were private clubs by law.
The dives I went to never enforced the club membership, unless...
I can't remember if Chevy Chase Lake ever got sued. But it closed and was paved over for condos.
OK changed their liquor laws I think.
BUT!
In Oregon the Boy Scouts do not allow gays or atheists.
So some groups are still getting away with blatant discrimination.
but that's the deal with freedom of speech and the concomitant right of assembly- you have tolerate unsavoury ideas and groups of people as long as they aren't committing crimes. if you want to start a poker club with your buddies in the privacy of your own home and you guys decide between yourselves that you hate people with red hair and that you don;t want to be around them, should you be forced to accept a member with red hair as silly and arbitrary as those prejudices may be? that would be an egregious intrusion by the state.
when it comes to clubs or organizations of a public character (ie owned by the state or they are only apparently private as the article discussed)the matter takes on a completely different hue. the state or public organizations cannot sanction undue discrimination---and in the realm of state actions the state may discriminate if it has good reason in countless areas, but the discrimination may not be "undue" in the sense that it based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc..
Yeah, but the poker club is a bad analogy. Not comparable to Boy Scouts or August National. And red heads are not part of a historically discriminated against group.
But yeah, point taken.
F*ck the Boy Scouts.
Personally I wouldn't be a member of any club that would have me.
This is why I have a problem with some of these smoking bans......public spots, hell yes ban smoking.....but if I want to open a privately owned club that allows smoking I can't in many of the cities that have a smoking ban.
I'm not a smoker.
i think the analogy works: you can put any variable you want in there (ie make it jews or blacks) and the only difference with boy scouts, etc is scale- the principle stands.
i would bet dollars to donuts that a special rule had to be fashioned to prevent establishments from completely circumventing the law to the point that the purpose would be completely frustrated. all clubs and restaurants would suddenly be called "private clubs" and to join you would only need to be a smoker or someone who was prepared to tolerate it and pay some type of nominal consideration. so, sounds like a policy position, to prevent the floodgates from opening...in other words, "smoking bans" are likely an anomalous exception to the basic principle.