gay rights in private country club?

[zixxer]

Okay, I think it's here in atlanta (heard it on local radio this morning) that the druid hills country club will not allow a gay, unmarried couple to join their club and get join benefits (as in what would be offered to man and wife) and have stated that the gay couple should "not waste their time getting married" as they will not be allowed to join.


Thoughts?

Mine:
it's a 'private' club. you pay to join, and they have the right to deny anyone, for any reason. Also, as one of the callers said "they have the right to make you tuck in your shirt at formal functions. If you showed up with an untucked shirt, they have the right to deny you access, as it is a private club."

 

[toekramp]

while i think it's bullsh!t, no one should be able to instruct a private club on how they select their members.

 

[XZeroII]

100% agreed.

 

[Triumph]

A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

 

[virtuamike]

I disagree with the morals but I defend the club's right to restrict membership. Hell, it's not like we give the KKK grief for not giving black people membership.

 

[zixxer]

the couple (two females) have "instructed the state to take their part in enforcing gay rights"

a lawyer then called in and reamed them a new one about how GA has NO "code" "law" or anything else that says you cannot discriminate (wtf? is this true?) that georgia is one of 4 states that don't...

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay (the people in question are members of the club already), it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay, it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

well.. not really gay marriage either. I'm sitting here listening to it, and apparently the club will allow "couples" as well.. As in, there are people who have a "joint" membership but are boyfriend/girlfriend.


Wonder if things would be the same if they didn't allow a black couple to join?

 

[damiano]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay (the people in question are members of the club already), it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

nooooooooooooooo

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay (the people in question are members of the club already), it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

Well, I dunno. I mean, it's still a private club. If you don't like it, leave. But what if the club had different green fees for blacks than whites? What if it was easier to get into the club if you were bla... Oh wait, that's affirmative action, and that's a whole 'nother topic!

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay (the people in question are members of the club already), it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

Well, I dunno. I mean, it's still a private club. If you don't like it, leave. But what if the club had different green fees for blacks than whites? What if it was easier to get into the club if you were bla... Oh wait, that's affirmative action, and that's a whole 'nother topic!

imo if that happened they would be forced to allow blacks as well..

I think it's ridiculous how the US is "Free"... but only to the extent that your allowed to be "Free".

I understand things that are for "the good of all people" .. what about things like seatbelt laws?? You not wearing a seatbelt (however STUPID it might be) is only a detriment to your health.. bleh.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: se7enty7

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay, it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

well.. not really gay marriage either. I'm sitting here listening to it, and apparently the club will allow "couples" as well.. As in, there are people who have a "joint" membership but are boyfriend/girlfriend.

Here's the story link.

When Kyser and Demorest sought to join Druid Hills Golf Club in 1999 --- it was in their neighborhood and had great golf --- they asked if Kyser could be the member and Demorest could be the spouse. They had a domestic partner certificate and were as close to married as they could legally be.

The hope was that Demorest, like other spouses, would be permitted to golf without paying guest fees, hold business meetings there on her own and assume the membership if Kyser died.

They were told they could join separately, not as a couple.

The club says...

Druid Hills Golf Club's position, according to general manager Randy Delaney, is that "a domestic partner is not a spouse, and the club has been consistent for generations in its unwillingness to recognize any form of spousal equivalency, no matter what the gender, sexual orientation or equivalent status might be."

He acknowledges that the club operates under various city licenses, and therefore might be bound by the city's anti-discrimination ordinance. That ordinance, passed in 2000, prohibits any person or organization doing business in the city from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other identifiers.

So, it boils down to the legality of gay marriage. As usual, the only way to get laws changed (you may recall the repeal of the archaic sodomy laws in several states) is to create a court case.

 

[stormbv]

Even the opinion of the ingnorant is protected in America

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: stormbv
Even the opinion of the ingnorant is protected in America

Great, thanks. Can I have my soapbox back now?

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: se7enty7

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay, it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

well.. not really gay marriage either. I'm sitting here listening to it, and apparently the club will allow "couples" as well.. As in, there are people who have a "joint" membership but are boyfriend/girlfriend.

Here's the story link.

When Kyser and Demorest sought to join Druid Hills Golf Club in 1999 --- it was in their neighborhood and had great golf --- they asked if Kyser could be the member and Demorest could be the spouse. They had a domestic partner certificate and were as close to married as they could legally be.

The hope was that Demorest, like other spouses, would be permitted to golf without paying guest fees, hold business meetings there on her own and assume the membership if Kyser died.

They were told they could join separately, not as a couple.

The club says...

Druid Hills Golf Club's position, according to general manager Randy Delaney, is that "a domestic partner is not a spouse, and the club has been consistent for generations in its unwillingness to recognize any form of spousal equivalency, no matter what the gender, sexual orientation or equivalent status might be."

He acknowledges that the club operates under various city licenses, and therefore might be bound by the city's anti-discrimination ordinance. That ordinance, passed in 2000, prohibits any person or organization doing business in the city from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other identifiers.

So, it boils down to the legality of gay marriage. As usual, the only way to get laws changed (you may recall the repeal of the archaic sodomy laws in several states) is to create a court case.

I dunno, true or not true, someone called the radio station saying that him and his g/f joined there.. unmarried..

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: se7enty7

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: se7enty7

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

That's not really the question though. It's not about the members being gay, it's about whether their domestic partners should receive the same benefits as the spouse of a hetero partner would (greens fees, etc). Basically it's just another case addressing the legality of gay marriage.

well.. not really gay marriage either. I'm sitting here listening to it, and apparently the club will allow "couples" as well.. As in, there are people who have a "joint" membership but are boyfriend/girlfriend.

Here's the story link.

When Kyser and Demorest sought to join Druid Hills Golf Club in 1999 --- it was in their neighborhood and had great golf --- they asked if Kyser could be the member and Demorest could be the spouse. They had a domestic partner certificate and were as close to married as they could legally be.

The hope was that Demorest, like other spouses, would be permitted to golf without paying guest fees, hold business meetings there on her own and assume the membership if Kyser died.

They were told they could join separately, not as a couple.

The club says...

Druid Hills Golf Club's position, according to general manager Randy Delaney, is that "a domestic partner is not a spouse, and the club has been consistent for generations in its unwillingness to recognize any form of spousal equivalency, no matter what the gender, sexual orientation or equivalent status might be."

He acknowledges that the club operates under various city licenses, and therefore might be bound by the city's anti-discrimination ordinance. That ordinance, passed in 2000, prohibits any person or organization doing business in the city from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other identifiers.

So, it boils down to the legality of gay marriage. As usual, the only way to get laws changed (you may recall the repeal of the archaic sodomy laws in several states) is to create a court case.

I dunno, true or not true, someone called the radio station saying that him and his g/f joined there.. unmarried..

Yeah, and either they both pay the full member ship fees ($40,000 just to join) or she doesn't have all the benefits mentioned above. The clubs bylaws are pretty clear about that or the suit wouldn't have ever come up.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: se7enty7
Okay, I think it's here in atlanta (heard it on local radio this morning) that the druid hills country club will not allow a gay, unmarried couple to join their club and get join benefits (as in what would be offered to man and wife) and have stated that the gay couple should "not waste their time getting married" as they will not be allowed to join.


Thoughts?

Mine:
it's a 'private' club. you pay to join, and they have the right to deny anyone, for any reason. Also, as one of the callers said "they have the right to make you tuck in your shirt at formal functions. If you showed up with an untucked shirt, they have the right to deny you access, as it is a private club."

private clubs do have their rights. OTOH if the gay couple made enough of a stink about it that it turned off other members and it started to effect the marketability of the club you have to wonder if they would still pursue this course of action.

i don't see the big deal, basically management doesn't want to acknowledge that gay couples have the same rights as hetro couples, so they are going to get one extra members fees out of the whole deal.

what this could cost them in publicity may not be worth that one extra members fees.

again, i maintain their right to make the choices they've made, i'm just not sure it's the smart choice.

 

[dquan97]

Originally posted by: Triumph
A private club has every right to limit their membership like that.

 

[digitalsm]

There are still several white only country clubs spread across the US, okay mainly Texas, but still private clubs can choose their members.

 

[Fausto]

People. Read the story. I know that involves actually reading through the thread, but give it a try. It's not about who's a member and who's not. The gay couples mentioned are members of this club already.

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: Fausto
People. Read the story. I know that involves actually reading through the thread, but give it a try. It's not about who's a member and who's not. The gay couples mentioned are members of this club already.

iirc only one was a member of the club. She wanted her lover to join to help get a discount like the hetero couples.

 

[stormbv]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: stormbv
Even the opinion of the ingnorant is protected in America

Great, thanks. Can I have my soapbox back now?

But you already have a high horse...what do you need a soapbox for?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: se7enty7

Originally posted by: Fausto
People. Read the story. I know that involves actually reading through the thread, but give it a try. It's not about who's a member and who's not. The gay couples mentioned are members of this club already.

iirc only one was a member of the club. She wanted her lover to join to help get a discount like the hetero couples.

Right. So the point everyone is missing is whether the domestic partner should have the same benefits as a hetero spouse, not whether the club accepts gay members. They do, but that's all half the people in this thread keep yammering about because they have the collective attention span of a crack-addled chipmunk.

 

[EXman]

If I'm not wrong their are private clubs that are %100 gay. No one bitches at them who cares.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: EXman
If I'm not wrong their are private clubs that are %100 gay. No one bitches at them who cares.

Yay! Another person didn't read the story! You guys kick ass!

77- could you edit your OP with the story link so this discussion is at least pointed in the right direction?