Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> At 08:43 PM 17/12/00 -0600, steve wrote:
>
> >> Oh. That's an odd comment, I could have sworn a tenth of the US population
> >> was black.
>
> >In the US, most golf courses are private clubs, and, as such, were just
> >about the last institutions to racially integrate.
>
> I get it now. How silly of me, I keep falling back into thinking that `land
> of the free' actually means what it says.
Under recent supreme court ruling (Boy Scouts of America), you are free
to associate and NOT associate with others based on moral/religious
principles, which is why the BSA could prohibit gay members but cannot
prohibit black members. Under this logic, for example, a Muslim group
could prohibit female members because the Koran says so, but the Elks
cannot prohibit female members because they have no religious reason to
object to their presence.
There is significant argument that constitutional prohibitions on
discrimination only apply to governments and not on individuals. Saying
that you have a right to belong to my club even if I formed that club
specifically for the purpose of having someplace to go where you are not
present is a violation of my right of free association. If your right of
association is greater than my right of association, then that is a
violation of the equal protection clause, or else the right really
doesn't exist as a right, but a priviledge that can be given or taken
away. The right of association is a right of 'free association' NOT
'forced association'. This is why forced busing, hiring quotas, etc are
technically unconstitutional.
Because governments are corporations which all of us are members of,
then that government cannot exclude one citizen more than another, which
is why only governments are bound under these discrimination laws.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:37 MDT