Forgive me if this has been done here, I couldn’t find it.
If I start a golf course as a private club, does the constitution or the legal system have any hold on me whatsoever? The following quote from the linked article is attributed to Kathleen Ferraro, director of Women’s studies at Arizona State University:
Now I wonder two things. First- a more concrete question- are there any legal ramifications for this? Would there be precedent in the recent Casey Martin case which IIRC found a golf course to be a “public institution”? I don’t have the legal knowledge to determine this.
Second- is it in our best interests to legislate things like this? Arguments on both sides are legitimate to me. My feeling is that, though I would have no interest in belonging to such a club, a private club may make whatever restrictions it wishes as to its membership.
Probably not, so long as the club is strictly private. You get to invite whomever you want to your own house.
Again, probably not. The Martin case held that golf courses were “public accommodations” (not public institutions) under the ADA, but the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. I don’t think gender is not a disability.
IMO, no. Everybody has the right to do what they will with their property and associate with whomever they choose. People can be racist, sexist little piggies, and I will defend their right to do so, but that doesn’t mean that I have to associate with them.
And I do think it’s utter bullshit, and I don’t have to respect anyone associated with it.
Thanks for the clarification. Your answer then makes me wonder about Professor Ferraro’s aside about “the view the law embraces”. Is that hyperbole on her part?
By the by, I agree with your assessment of the club in question, it just seems kind of childish to me.
Oh, it’s totally childish, IMO. I mean it’s one thing to say “You have to be able to play to this extremely high level in order to participate,” but this is just hanging a “No Girls Allowed” sign on the old tree fort.
I don’t think the lady’s comment is totally hyperbole, because the law will certainly step in to prevent gender discrimination anywhere it can, and rightly so. But for a totally private endeavor, there’s really no basis for government intervention – and, again, IMO rightly so.
If the golf club turns into a hotbed of business deals, as it usually does, then it becomes a matter of commerce, which comes under the jurisdiction of Congress. They established laws against discrimination from access to commerce.
Yeah, this is such bullshit, frankly. Either we have freedom, or we don’t. It’s analagous to free speech. We cannot restrict private associations to just the happy, kumbaya versions that we can all feel good about, and I’ve no idea why we should even try. “Social Fabric” indeed.
I’m quite certain that Ms. Ferraro needs a refresher course on the law, perhaps she’s spent a little bit too long in the rarefied air of academia to be making sweeping generalizations… But, of course she knows what’s best for all of us. [barf] hurl [/barf]
I don’t believe the Martin case did determine that golf courses are public accommodations. Rather, it determined (declared?) that PGA Tournaments are public accommodations. There are plenty of golf clubs which do not have black members. Cypress Point gave up hosting the AT&T because they didn’t bow to the demand of the PGA that all host courses be open to all. If I’m not mistaken, Burning Tree Country Club in Bethesda MD excludes women. Plenty of clubs still have preferred tee times for men on weekends.
Childish? Maybe, maybe not. But by what right does the government intrude, especially given the constitutional right of freedom of association?