# Fred Couples Likes Men **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2001, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601 "2001-08-28T20:54:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/1 "2001-08-28T20:54:21Z")
…to be able to play golf [unfettered by women](http://www.azcentral.com/sports/golf/0823menonly.html). 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: > [@](#): > > “There are two points of view,” Ferraro said. “One is that it’s a free country and you can choose who you associate with and who you exclude. The other view, and the view that the law embraces, is that those kinds of exclusions are harmful to the social fabric.” 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. Any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/2 "2001-08-28T21:14:45Z")
> [@](#): > > First- a more concrete question- are there any legal ramifications for this? Probably not, so long as the club is strictly private. You get to invite whomever you want to your own house. > [@](#): > > Would there be precedent in the recent Casey Martin case which IIRC found a golf course to be a “public institution”? 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. > [@](#): > > Second- is it in our best interests to legislate things like this? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/3 "2001-08-28T21:15:46Z")
Of course, that should read “I don’t think gender IS a disability.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/4 "2001-08-28T21:25:30Z")
**Jodi:** > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/5 "2001-08-28T21:32:51Z")
To trade followups, it is the **club** that seems childish to me, not your assessment thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/6 "2001-08-28T21:41:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/7 "2001-08-28T21:54:50Z")
One wonders if Ms. Ferraro has a similar problem with [Curves](http://www.ut-biz.com/curvesforwomen/)? ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/8 "2001-08-29T00:31:29Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/9 "2001-08-29T01:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stolichnaya \* > \*\* > The following quote from the linked article is attributed to Kathleen Ferraro, director of Women’s studies at Arizona State University: > > > [@](#): > > > > “There are two points of view,” Ferraro said. “One is that it’s a free country and you can choose who you associate with and who you exclude. The other view, and the view that the law embraces, is that those kinds of exclusions are harmful to the social fabric.” > > Any thoughts? \*\* 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] ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/10 "2001-08-29T01:29:33Z")
Quick hijack-would Kathleen Ferarro be any relation to Geraldine Ferarro? ---
**Author:** ![johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@johnson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnson)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2001, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-couples-likes-men/78601/11 "2001-08-29T02:19:59Z")
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?