Private clubs, discriminating against age, sex, religion, race, etc

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
I read the Time article about Augusta National Golf Club and how the new IBM CEO is a woman. They usually give the CEO of IBM a membership, but Augusta has never had a woman member. The IBM CEO hasn't applied for membership yet, but said she feels obligated to because equal rights orgs are making a big deal about it.

What other clubs/organizations can legally discriminate against people?
Mason/Shriners - Men only
Fraternities/Sororities - Male/Female only
AARP - age based
Churches - religion based
Ethnic clubs - race based

I think Augusta SHOULD be able to discriminate. It is a private club.
I know they don't want the bad PR, but I am talking strictly legality.

Are private clubs allowed to discriminate against race, religion, sex, age, etc?
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,606
15,514
136
Why would a person want to be in a private club whose members don't want to accept that person for who they are?

I'm not pro discrimination, but it's kind of like a reputed carnivore wanting to join a club for vegans.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,606
15,514
136
What is it about the word "private" do you not understand???

So if an organisation writes 'PRIVATE' on the front of their building, it's ok for them to discriminate in ways that the law wouldn't allow any normal organisation to?
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,606
15,514
136
If it says "private" you have no business knowing what is going on beyond the "private" sign.

So you're saying the law hasn't got any power in a situation where someone has hung a "private" sign on the door? Damn, that's what the criminal element has been doing wrong all these years! :rolleyes:
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
What is it about the word "private" do you not understand???

Zing!
/thread


if this was 'illegal' it'd already be in the courts etc etc

as much as certain political philosophies do not like it, private property rights and privacy does still exist

now whether it is a good idea to associate with these types of organizations, that is another discussion
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
So you're saying the law hasn't got any power in a situation where someone has hung a "private" sign on the door? Damn, that's what the criminal element has been doing wrong all these years! :rolleyes:

yeah, that is what that means :rolleyes:
smiley_emoticons_stevieh_rolleyes.gif

pukeroll.gif


rolleyes1024.gif
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
Why would a person want to be in a private club whose members don't want to accept that person for who they are?

I'm not pro discrimination, but it's kind of like a reputed carnivore wanting to join a club for vegans.

right answer

ding ding ding!!
winner winner chicken dinner
people are free to associate with those they choose in a free society

if the men who are members of Augusta all quit because they realize that excluding women is wrong, then the organization would likely change their rules. if not they would cease to exist as no one would be a part of it

it can fix itself without government interventions, people that know what is right just need to take actions on their own
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
People have a right to associate with people they want to associate with and not associate with the people they view as undesirable.

I don't understand how anyone could not see this. Not allowing private clubs to restrict membership on their whims is no different then not allowing me to pick my own friends. For example, I discriminate daily on who I associate with. I hate the stupid, I hate the ultra political, I hate the ultra-religious. No one can force me to be friends with them, if I opened a private club, I don't see how anyone could force me to let them in the door.

However, if that is not the case, why isn't the KKK full of blacks and gays?
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,606
15,514
136
@ Fobot's first, rather graphical response

Well, dmcowen674 had no substance to his point at all.

What is probably the case in most developed countries is that private clubs have a slightly differing set of rules compared to other organisations, but it would surprise me if a private club is within its lawful rights to discriminate based on the usual points such as gender, race, etc. I haven't heard much in the way of 'private club discrimination' in the UK, the only thing I can think of that bears any relation is that the BNP had a court ruling recently explicitly stating that it can't discriminate against new memberships based on race.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
So you're saying the law hasn't got any power in a situation where someone has hung a "private" sign on the door? Damn, that's what the criminal element has been doing wrong all these years! :rolleyes:

1. They are private in that they don't cater to the public
2. Law still applies, just not the ones that deal with organizations that cater to the public. If in doubt, see #1

Your house is private. Would you like the government to tell you that you have to allow everyone who shows up to sit down at your dinner table?
 

dougp

Diamond Member
May 3, 2002
7,909
4
0
So you're saying the law hasn't got any power in a situation where someone has hung a "private" sign on the door? Damn, that's what the criminal element has been doing wrong all these years! :rolleyes:

The law doesn't prevent them from having requirements for membership. This is actually a protected right, one that has been challenged many times and always fails. You can see it ranging from the military (NCO & Officer clubs) to union requirements (job position) to private sector (BSA/GSA, country clubs, etc) to education (school requirements to join & scholarships.)

If you don't like it, avoid it. Kind of like food you don't eat - just because the restaurant put lima beans on your plate with the rest of your food, doesn't mean you have to eat them.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,606
15,514
136
People have a right to associate with people they want to associate with and not associate with the people they view as undesirable.

I don't understand how anyone could not see this. Not allowing private clubs to restrict membership on their whims is no different then not allowing me to pick my own friends.

I find it kind of surprising because then every group of people who want to discriminate against another group of people (ie. not a question of socialising), could simply form "private clubs" to the point of excluding the people they want to discriminate against from say some backwater village somewhere.

I assume there have to be some pretty stringent rules set on what the functions and capabilities of a private club can have, because say back in the days of the US's civil rights struggle, the only state school in a community could have just gone "private" in order to avoid legislation. If it's not possible for a school to do that, then just substitute 'school' for any number of other supposedly public-facing organisations (shops/pubs/hospitals/whatever) to become "private".

I could be wrong of course, that the civil rights struggle was won by protecting a few key institutions in law, and the rest of the racist populace fell in line steadily, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of bigotry and the desire of many to maintain the status quo.
 
Last edited:

Stayfr0sty

Senior member
Mar 5, 2012
465
0
0
yes, normally referred to communism
although some theoretical Utopian systems don't include communal property

Or anarchism, which is bascially same rules as commuism just without a central goverment.....
 

Tobolo

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
3,697
0
0
It seems pretty clear at this point that the members would offer her membership. But they will not do as long as the women's groups are telling them too. I talked with a few last year that were fine with membership being offered to women. This year, they are pissed off beyond all belief.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,902
11,038
136
It seems pretty clear at this point that the members would offer her membership. But they will not do as long as the women's groups are telling them too. I talked with a few last year that were fine with membership being offered to women. This year, they are pissed off beyond all belief.

That's pretty childish...
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,563
9,809
136
It seems pretty clear at this point that the members would offer her membership. But they will not do as long as the women's groups are telling them too. I talked with a few last year that were fine with membership being offered to women. This year, they are pissed off beyond all belief.

Human nature to push back against aggression. It's how we take little pissing contests and turn them into full blown world wars. Next thing you know we drop nukes.
 

Tobolo

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
3,697
0
0
I don't really blame them after what all has been said about them.

From their perspective it looks like people throwing a temper tantrum about something that is none of their business.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,124
12
81
Honestly, there is a lot of stupid going on in this thread:

1. There are laws protecting race, religion, etc. in certain circumstances - Private organization membership is not one of them. So, a private club can discriminate in its membership. However, it cannot discriminate in its hiring.

2. A public school cannot just become private and even if it did, it would have to give up ALL public funding if it wanted to discriminate based on race, etc.

MotionMan
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
I find it kind of surprising because then every group of people who want to discriminate against another group of people (ie. not a question of socialising), could simply form "private clubs" to the point of excluding the people they want to discriminate against from say some backwater village somewhere.

I assume there have to be some pretty stringent rules set on what the functions and capabilities of a private club can have, because say back in the days of the US's civil rights struggle, the only state school in a community could have just gone "private" in order to avoid legislation. If it's not possible for a school to do that, then just substitute 'school' for any number of other supposedly public-facing organisations (shops/pubs/hospitals/whatever) to become "private".

I could be wrong of course, that the civil rights struggle was won by protecting a few key institutions in law, and the rest of the racist populace fell in line steadily, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of bigotry and the desire of many to maintain the status quo.

There is really nothing stopping anyone from making priviate schools, hospitals, shopping centers (sams club), etc. The reason you didn't see all schools and hospitals go private is because they wanted the public money. I am in favor of the government using public money to push agendas that are for the public welfare (like making requirements on schools and hospitals the government funds). I however am 100% against the government telling any private citizen who is using their own private funds how they must run their business or private life.

As an example, I'm all for the state passing no smoking bans on public property. I don't smoke and we have evidence smoking is unhealthy, etc. However, I am 100% against what my state has done in banning smoking in most private establishments. I have no problem choosing not to go to a restaurant that forces me to smell smoke, I don't need to government to save me from the smoke.

So if a private hospital wants to only serve blacks or muslims, I have no problems with this. The moment I am helping fund that hospital, I want them to not discriminate. Like wise, if I open a bar with a sign that says "If you don't believe in evolution, keep the fuck out" or "You must smoke a cigar at all times in bar" that should be my prerogative until the government starts paying for my bar to stay open.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Honestly, there is a lot of stupid going on in this thread:

1. There are laws protecting race, religion, etc. in certain circumstances - Private organization membership is not one of them. So, a private club can discriminate in its membership. However, it cannot discriminate in its hiring.

2. A public school cannot just become private and even if it did, it would have to give up ALL public funding if it wanted to discriminate based on race, etc.

MotionMan

Wouldn't you say they can not admit to discriminating while hiring? I can say I didn't hire you because I didn't like your attitude or manner. What if the reason I didn't like your attitude is because you were a race or religion I didn't agree with? Discrimination laws are really just laws saying you can't tell people what you really think, but instead need to make up something.

To clarify I can come up with a 100% reasons not to hire anyone. Hiring is in itself arbitrary. The law just makes sure people can't always use the real reason.
 
Last edited: