I would have thought that getting your local Representatives to put a bill through the state legislature, amending the charter, would have added to the respectability of the club - rather than leaving themselves open every so often to a news article about how “Although the rest of the country considers racism intolerable, the Proud Whoosit Club continues to keep the bar on blacks in their charter, even though they know it’s legally unenforceable…yadda yadda yadda.”
How soon people forget.
The old Bing Crosby National Pro-Am (now the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am) used to include Cypress Point Club in its rota. That changed in 1990 when Cypress Point was dropped because it did not have any black members, and refused to say if, when and how they would admit one. See for example this NYTimes article on the subject.
I believe that they still have not admitted a black member.
My neighborhood has CC&Rs that are no longer enforced, but nevertheless appear as part of each new homeowner’s mortgage packet.
Changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% affirmative vote from all homeowners… yet we consider it a big turnout if even 5% of homeowners attend a meeting. Some 30% of homes are owned by landlords who don’t live in the neighborhood. Voting by proxy is not permitted by the CC&Rs so it is just literally impossible to change them.
Fortunately, none of our covenants have to do with race or anything else I would find offensive, but I could see how a very old rule might still be in writing with no way to remove it.
What if you are black but can, what we used to term in my day “pass.” Do they kick you out once they find out?
Uh oh … somebody better tell the Supreme Court about that.
Roberts did not involve a claim of discrimination under the 14th Amendment. The claim of discrimination was under a Minnesota human rights statute. The club in question, the Jaycees, then tried to take the benefit of the 14th Amendment, by arguing that the Minnesota statute infringed their rights to freedom of association and expression.
In case there was any ambiguity, by asking why a private club would “be subject to the 14th Amendment”, I am asking if there is any basis that a discrimination claim could be made against a private club based on the 14th Amendment? I agree that a private club can claim the protection of the 14th Amendment against state or federal action, just like anyone else.
But to repeat, why would a private club be subject to the 14th Amendment?
I’ll leave it to Friedo and DSYoungEsq to respond to your question about their comments. 
Based on the link I quoted above only when they call the upon state to enforce their contract. As in the case of the housing development “covenant”, the housing development is a private organization, and the “convenant” is a private contract between them and their residents. But in order for it to be anything other that worthless peice of paper it must be enforced by the courts. And at that point the 14th Amendment applies, and the courts could not apply the “cannot sell to non-whites” clause without breaking it.
You are right, of course, that a private club, in general,* is not subject to the 14th Amendment. However, when someone says “A private club can’t discriminate; that would be illegal under the 14th Amendment.” To respond with the enigmatic “Why is a private club subject to the 14th Amendment?” leaves the impression that perhaps private clubs may legally discriminate.
It was to fight this misapprehension that I cited Roberts. Depending on the laws of your jurisdiction, it may very well be illegal to discriminate. Just not because of the 14th Amendment, as you (kinda) point out.
- It is certainly possible for situations to exist where a nominally private club implicates state action because of favorable treatment by and close association with government entities, among other things.
I bought a house a couple of years ago. At the closing, the lawyer mentioned that the title search had uncovered (obviously unenforceable) covenants regarding religion. Should I have stormed out of the office? Unenforceable covenants are rightly (IMO) ignored all over the country except as interesting historical footnotes.
I dunno if it’s official, and it’s not a country club, but I’m pretty sure Ben’s Chili Bowl in DC only employs black people. Or maybe just doesn’t employ white people. And that’s a commercial establishment open to the public. If they can get away with “discrimination” like that, I imagine private clubs do it all the time.
Unless of course they were a domestic servant employed by a white family. The no overnights clause was in place to deal with mixed marriages; no cheating by putting the title in the white/gentile spouse’s name.
Then you are being foolish. It is indeed a huge, time consuming and expensive PITA to legally unwind and re-assemble a deed. If an offensive notation or restriction is in a legal chain of title and is completely and utterly unenforceable and invalidated by current law, how many thousands of dollars do you want to spend to make it less esthetically objectionable? Most rational people will assign that to the prejudice of yesteryear and move on.
Given that it’s family owned and operated, and in a neighborhood that’s almost entirely black, I don’t think that’s racism as much as it is circumstance.
They’re not going to be in covenants for new houses in new subdivisions. They were quite common in some parts of the country before WWII. They didn’t quite say “no blacks”, but rather something like “Owners or occupants of the property shall not be of the Ethiopian, Malay, Mongolian, Spanish or Hebrew races”. Such covenants were deemed unenforceable in a 1948 Supreme Court ruling (Shelley v. Kraemer).
I can’t see the point of taking a lot of your time and money to change a restrictive covenant in your deed that is totally ignored and 100% unenforceable anyways.
Where would this be anyways? The deed to my house describes the property and the transfer. I don’t see anything about loud parties, drugs, black people, etc. I didn’t know that deeds had these things.
At least in the case where of subdivision covenants, I doubt 1 in a 1000 buyers read and understand what they are committing to. Certainly I don’t believe (it can’t happen in my experience) that anyone signs the covenants. Around here covenants are documents on file at the courthouse and in practice rarely if ever presented to the buyer. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. No agent wants to risk the sale and (almost) no buyer asks. And if one asks, the agent will simply and truthfully say that the clause is obsolete and unenforceable. As for changing it, in Louisiana it takes a 2/3s majority of all residents to agree. (and 100% of the residents if the change results in a more restrictive clause) Not just those voting, all residents. I have never seen it happen no matter how important the issue is.
I dunno, I thought I heard that it was policy.
That’s kind of a tenuous rumor to hang a charge of discrimination on. How many employees of other neighborhood stores are all black in a predominantly black neighborhood?
Some deeds have convenants, easements or other documents attached. Those auxiliary docs may not be physically written on the part of the deed that describes the property boundaries, owners, etc., but they are part of the legal transfer and ownership.
Covenants are often created to insure that one owner’s wishes are carried out perpetually. This may affect the value of the property in an up or down direction. A covenant may, for example, prohibit parking of cars on front lawns or erection of opaque fences higher than 3 feet, things that the originators may have felt would enhance the property value. The existance of an easement, allowing a non-property owner use of the property, may decrease property values.
Most properties in my area include rights to use various beaches even if the property is not on the water. This probably enhances the value of those who are not on the shore, and decreases the value of properties who are on the shore, who have to share the beach with others. So it can work both ways.
Anyone buying property will find out about these from a title search, and it is wise to read them carefully and consult an attorney if you have any questions.
I hear there’s a coffee shop in Manhattan that only hires large-breasted women!