Here is the question:

Should private clubs and organizations be allowed to exclude people based on race, gender or religious beliefs?

Are we free to do as we please, or should the government force us to do as others please?

My opinion:

I believe that private clubs and organizations absolutely should be allowed to choose their members based on whatever criteria they choose. The idea of a group of feminist women being forced to allow sexist men to be members of their organization is not anything that I support... I also do not support anyone trying to force black organizations to allow whites, heterosexual organizations to be forced to include homosexuals (or vice-versa), Christian groups should not be forced to allow atheists, etc.

Why should private organizations or clubs be forced to include people that they do not wish to include? Is being PC so important?

I may agree with this because I dont want any fish or beef on my Chicken Club sandwhiches. Chicken only...

If it's private and membership does not effect one's chances of getting a job or a home loan or entry into certain schools or such, then by all means allow clubs and organizations to exclude whoever they want to...

wellbeyond said:

Right! I agree with you on that for sure.

BUT:

Should private country clubs be forced to allow women as members if they do not want to?

Should the Boy Scouts of America be forced to allow homosexuals and atheists?

IceNine said:

Isn't that like Dr. Laura complaining why she cant get into a gay niteclub for a drink? If you're gay or athiest, why would you want to join these groups?

Look at the other side, athiests and gays are free to start their own camping group for kids

My only fear is that these exclusive private clubs become so huge that they monopolize and negate our government.
[This message was edited Thu Dec 5 10:24:18 PST 2002 by Tom]

IceNine said:

I think that the restriction should have something to do with the club or organization's existence...for example, if NOW wanted to exclude men, I'd have no problem with that...if the "Boys Club" wants to restrict its' membership to males and no females, I say go for it...if the "White left-handed Female Masturbating Birdcallers Of America" want to turn down an application from a black left-handed female masturbaing birdcaller, I'm all for that...But if a country club establishes itself within a community for the purposes of serving that community, then to exclude members of that community based on things like race, sex or religious affiliation would be wrong.


Sexuality isn't one of the reasons the Boy Scouts of America was established, so sexual orientation should not be considered a valid reason for exclusion...if, however, one of the reasons the Boy Scouts was established was to acknowledge the presence of God in our lives in one form or another, then they'd have more footing in my eyes for excluding athiests...

wellbeyond said:

I totally agree.

I love your sig, AbucahX...lol 8)

My fear is that if we allow discriminatory behavior in the private sector...will it eventually become more acceptable in the public(school, workplace, government) sector? No group should be forced to include someone just to be politically correct, but if a woman wanted to join a country club because she liked golf or an athiest youngster wanted to learn how to build a campfire with the Boy Scouts they shouldn't be automatically BANNED...A person's application to a group should be at least be reviewed and considered and if they truly want to be a productive member of the group let them in. A person should not be denied a chance to apply based on an characterisic like race, gender, sexual orientation or religion...because we are HUMAN just the same.

private - being the operative here...

if they are not funded by the government - then what they do is there business...
i am waiting on the day the KKK gets sued for not letting at least one minority in their ranks...

First the issue of private is under question if the club/organization in question receives some form of public accommodation or subsidy in the form of tax exempt status. If so, then the government may have a right to dictate the terms by which such club/organization keeps its tax exempt status, including the proper filing of by-laws, constitution, and accounting papers, taxes, etc.

If a club/organization is TRULY private, i.e., receives NO government subsidy in the form of tax exempt status, etc., then it should be free to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever. It has that right I believe.

Now whether or not someone wishes to align themselves with such a discriminatory organization/club or support it in its discriminatory practices is another question entirely.

I suspect Ice that your post has something to do with my position on Tiger Woods. To be specific how I feel on this issue:

1. Most "private" orgs receive some form of public accommodation inviting public scrutiny and accountability

2. Thoroughly private orgs that do not receive such public accommodation can freely do what they choose without any public accountability

3. Anyone who aligns themselves with such orgs/clubs are making a statement of support of such orgs/clubs practices and beliefs, and about their own acceptance of such form of discrimination

In Tiger's case, if these clubs are truly private, then they can do as they please. But that still doesn't free Tiger from the hypocrisy of supporting a club/org (private as it may be) that practices a form of discrimination that only a few years ago would have kept his black ass off the golf course.

EDITED OUT FLAME.
.
[This message was edited Thu Dec 5 10:52:39 PST 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

NuPwrSoul said:

You certainly do digress, as this topic was created after a conversation with some guys here at work... one guy said that the Boy Scouts should be forced to allow atheists into their club... the subject turned to the country club thing and other private clubs.

This had NOTHING to do with an eye-rolling emoticon on Prince.org in any way.

IceNine said:

aw man. I edited that out. but alas you must have a pager attached to your ass that goes off every time somebody posts shit on here and it two ways you the message... damn Quick Draw McGraw

IceNine said:

last I heard the boy scouts were receiving some federal support from the government, so they should be forced to nclude veryone. but as for the rest, exclude whoever the hell U want!

I essentially agree with Icenine on this issue.


Regardless of how "private" a club or organization is
(in terms of "government funding")
they ultimately should be the ones to decide who can (or cannot) enter their group, & I say this as someone who
generally
believes in "equal rights" under the law..


NONE of us-
no matter who we are,
where we are from
or what we do-
is "entitled" to anything just because we want it.

We are not all "born equal"
& no matter what "advantages" or "disadvantages" a person has, the gov't should not try to legislate "equality" to satisfy someone's (often perceived) needs.


Earlier this week The HBO program "Real Sports with Bryant Gumble" did a piece about a high school senior who plays on the girl's field hockey team- field hockey skirt & all- mainly because there isn't a boy's field hockey team in his school district. Other than the FH coach herself & several of the players, most of those interviewed- including many of the parents- didn't like the idea. The reporter in this story noted that several "women's groups" were contacted, &-
surprise, surprise-
most of those did not support this boy playing on the girls team; but let that have been some 125 pound girl who wanted to play on the boy's football team..
these same women's groups would have said something then!


The Boy Scouts of America was founded with specific ideals & moral standards as an integral part of its organization. Even though much of today's society lacks the same moral standards that existed back when the BSA was formed, that doesn't mean that any indivial or other group can impose itself on the organization. Instead of atheists trying to impose their belief on the BSA..
they should simply form their own version of the Scouts-
which they certainly would be entitled to do under the US Constitution.


Private clubs & organizations should have the right to include or exclude whomever they want.

I agree with your statement, private club's and organizations should be allowed to exclude people based on race, gender, or religious beliefs--but only if they receive no public funding whatsoever. I'm fairly certain the Boy Scouts of America gets some public funding.
The same principle should be applied to any 'faith-based' organizations which get similar funding.

The people that include themselves as members--not just Tiger Woods, but any golfer--are saying they agree with and support those practices. Some people have gotten on Tiger for not standing up for this issue, but why haven't they scrutinized every golfer entering the tournament?

Even more importantly, i don't think these organizations deserve the public's support as much as they currently do.
As much as these clubs have a right to their policy, i feel i am equally justified to protest and/or boycott their members, broadcast, or sponsors.

Washington Post
Forcing a Social Conscience Is Unconscionable

By Michael Wilbon
Wednesday, November 20, 2002

You listen to some folks, you'd think it's Tiger Woods's fault Augusta National has no female members. I read these diatribes criticizing Tiger Woods for not coming out in favor of women being admitted to Augusta, even though I can think of a half-dozen interviews in which he has said he favors women being members of Augusta. But for some folks, that's not good enough; Tiger Woods is apparently supposed to be the caretaker of women's golf in America.

I read an editorial in Monday's editions of the New York Times that suggested that Tiger should boycott The Masters, the most prestigious tournament in the world, in April so that he can send the message that discrimination isn't good for the sport.

Oh, is that right? I bet the editorial pages of the Times never suggested that Jack Nicklaus should have boycotted The Masters because Augusta National didn't have any black members. And if we want to make it a little more current, I didn't see the Times suggesting in that same editorial that Phil Mickelson or Davis Love or Ryder Cup captain Hal Sutton -- all American men with wives and daughters -- should boycott The Masters, or for that matter as much as open their mouths in protest.

Why Tiger and not, say, David Duval?

Because Tiger is black. No, the Times didn't say that, I am. But the writer couldn't have been more obvious. Sure, he's the best golfer in the world, and the most influential, but even if Sergio Garcia or Ernie Els was No. 1, a whole lot of folks -- like the editorial writer for the Times (who did write that Tiger should skip the Masters, Phil Mickelson?) -- would be crouching and waiting for Tiger. I checked the clips this morning, and I didn't find any such editorial by the Times suggesting CBS not televise The Masters.

Tiger, the Times suggests, needs to have a social conscience but other golfers -- read, white golfers -- do not. The men who run broadcast networks do not. I didn't realize that of 248 golfers who have made money on the PGA Tour this year, only one 26-year-old black golfer is supposed to have a social conscience, and everybody else on tour gets a pass. The Times ought to write another editorial explaining why that's so.

In our desperate search to find a clear and unwavering voice on social issues, particularly as they relate to sports, we've rushed to anoint Tiger Woods. Partly, this is his father's doing, saying that Tiger is one day going to be as important as Gandhi, which is insane and puts way too much pressure on the son.

Tiger is 26. How many 26-year-olds who grew up middle-class in Southern California and wanted for virtually nothing because his parents gave him everything could possibly have a fully developed social conscience and know how to express it on the world stage? No matter how hard some folks wish it to be, Tiger isn't Arthur Ashe and isn't ever going to be Ashe, or Muhammad Ali.

Tiger didn't grow up in the shadow of Jim Crow "whites only" signs in the South, or on the wrong side of the tracks. The set of circumstances that produced the Jim Browns, Tommie Smiths and John Carloses haven't come within 10,000 miles of Woods. He has no legitimate reason, not yet anyway, to wake up every morning in a rage over the injustices he has faced because he hasn't faced many, if any. He'll get there, I suspect, in time. But damn if he should be pushed there by the New York Times.

And how is it that Tiger, by boycotting The Masters, absolves white men who play golf from participating in the national discussion on the exclusion of women at Augusta National? Maybe the Times hasn't noticed, despite the reporting of its wonderful golf writer, Clifford Brown, how often the words "no comment" come from the mouths of golfers other than Tiger who won't go on the record with their feelings.

Generally speaking, I don't look to athletes for social commentary. But on this issue, given that it's been raging for five months, I would at the very least like to think there's a pulse. Though I disagree with golfer Len Mattiace's position that he is fine with Augusta not admitting women, I applaud him for not only voicing what he believes but for saying golfers ought to open their mouths and participate in such an emotional national discussion.

In putting all the pressure on Tiger to settle this dispute by withholding his excellence, the Times seems to miss the fact that South African Gary Player has been one of the great crusaders for racial equality in sports, and that Els, also South African, has been willing to enter the difficult and emotionally charged discussions.

My only real criticisms of Tiger throughout this debate have been that he had better not allow marketers to present him as a crusader while backing off in real life, and that his voice is far stronger than he knows.

Not only can he rock the boat, he can turn it over and shake it like a bathtub dingy. The CEOs of Citigroup and American Express (members of Augusta who have denounced exclusion) don't have 1/100th the volume Woods has if he decides to take on an issue.

If Woods wanted to boycott The Masters, I would applaud him. But for the gray old lady Times to suggest he should while making no such demands on anybody else is too arrogant and too transparent for me.

.
[This message was edited Fri Dec 6 5:49:39 PST 2002 by Ifsixwuz9]

I AINT SITTING NEXT TO A LARGE PERSON ON A PLANE

DORA said:

You will sit next to me with your head in the seat so i can bite you on the ass.

Cracula said:

do i have a lot of blood flow there...??


naaa

DORA said:

I don't want your blood.I just want to irritate you and leave my lovemark :LOL:

Wow...this shit is "bleeding" into other threads! :LOL:

teller said:

Good choice of words meatless one,i like you

Cracula said:

Perhaps you do not reply because you thought i was rude by calling you meatless one.I understand this is a politically correct era and i want to make amends.I will call you the "meatally challenged one".

I guess we can consider this thread officially "jacked" now.

:LOL:

IceNine said:

High-jacked.Us vampires like to do it way up in the air :LOL: