Race-baiting is so fun, why stop? It pays to do it even when there’s no racism and it really hasn’t hurt anyone who used it.
Have you ever been to a pool? I find it highly unlikely 
I’ve been at a pool where a handful (much less 60) of rambucous kids have shown up and felt like mowing em down with automatic within a few minutes. And I am a tolerant, easy going guy that LIKES kids.
There WAS a remedy. Tell em to leave and give them their money back. Wise PR and otherwise? No. Proof positive that they racists to the core? No either IMO.
Ok ok ok. I jumped the gun. These people protesting the, and all the conversations we are having here about whether the pool was public or private or whatnot was all just for shits and giggles. No “tacit” allegations of discriminatory/illegal behavior by the pool club.
Get real. If this wasn’t about people alleging unlawful race-based behavior (or wishing that private clubs would be covered under the 1964 CRA), this wouldn’t have even made the local thrifty nickle as news.
The answer to both those questions is that members made racist comments. This was tacitly acknowledged by this statement on their updated website:
The translation of this is that “we can’t deny that members made racist statements.”
As far as I’m concerned, the legality is irrelevant. That fact that you think the legality is all that matters is very strange.
So you are suggesting that the camp simply up and canceled the contract, apparently at the pressure of the members, without explanation to the other party why?
What, with your superior reading comprehension skills, have you read and believed as the reason they did it?
Personally, I am certain everyone will get together and work it out in the end, but what is your belief as to why they suddenly and without warning canceled the contract rather than address any issues with the other contracted party?
This oughta be good
No, the translation of that is “members opinions are not the opinions or policy of the board”… you know, the entity that actually owns and operates the club? you know, the entity that would have to defend a lawsuit? i could bore you with why they need to say this, but it’s clear that your mind has been made up beforehand.
you’re not very objective when you read something that says “they may or may not have made statements” as “they made statements”
If you really know legalese, you know a tacit admission when you see one. There’s no reason to say that statements of the members aren’t the opinions of the board unless they know the members said something they need to distance themselves from.
you don’t get it, do you. you have to allege and prove that my cancellation of the contract was racial discrimination. i can sit back and twiddle my thumbs and say nothing until you prove your case. all that we have here is hearsay and an operating assumption that because it was a camp predominantly made up of black campers and a club predominantly made up of white members it just has to be racist. has to be. no evidence of this (and, in fact, one member has (edit, removing “, he”) explicitly stated that they have kicked out large groups of white people before; i’m curious why you dismiss his statement as self-serving but the hearsay claims of a camper that “i heard a member say that she was worried that the black kids would hurt her kid” have great veracity)
regardless, i have proffered my own version of events here, which have been echoed by others: some members got peeved that there were a bunch of loud obnoxious kids at their pool which they paid membership dues for and had some expectation that, since in their mind it was a private club, by being in a private club they wouldn’t have to deal with bunches-o-kids. this expectation was not met, someone bitched about it enough that the manager-on-duty told the campers to take a hike.
fer chrissakes, read up on hearsay, adopted admissions of non parties, and agency rules. then come back and understand why they made this very generic statement (which, by the way, is contained in every DVD that has a commentary track not authored by an agent or principal of the movie studio).
Then you haven’t been reading all the posts, because you would have noticed I mentioned as a kid my family belonged to a similar pool club not all that far from there.
And you will have noticed even earlier I mentioned when I have been to swim laps, a pool of the size that can support a swim team (which the web site says they have) can easily handle 60 adults swimming laps. That would be near capacity for a 6 lane pool, no problem for a 8 lane pool.
Kids are smaller than adults.
What about you?
That’s why your job is not “running a pool club”
Agree there is not proof positive but there is enough smoke to look for the fire.
But arbitrarily breaching a contract with another business rather than simply manage the issue? Which you don’t even know happened?
Maybe I could see it, IF if happened, and the club rules said (which they don’t) “anytime an employee talks to a kid about a behavior problem, the kid and the family will be banned from the club and issued a pro-rated refund”.
But somehow I don’t think it works like that.
Personally, I am waiting to see confirmation of the claim that the club has done this before.
Nor are you. Member liability may not be so easily dismissed, if nothing else, it may depend on the equity structure of the club, and it seems it has been reported that the board reports to, or at least has been swayed in this matter by a group of members.
I am neutral on if the members and the board and/or the club are in the same boat, to sink or, ahem, swim together or not.
Do you have specifics on that that I don’t have?
I didn;t say the bit about previous episodes was self serving did I? I said I want to hear more about that. I don;'t know if it happened, under what circumstances, or the makeup of those kids. Do you?
So anyway, what we have here is a dispute.
Luckily we have the judicial system to resolve that
The Valley Swim Club is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation.
Cite that the kids were being “loud and obnoxious?” No one from the club has made any allegation that the kids were misbehaving in any way.
The kids paid the same money that the members did, and their appoinment was approved by the board. The club already knew when they were coming and how many. The members did not have any more right to the water than the kids did. Any “expectation” to the contrary was not something they had paid for or had any right to.
We know for a fact that the members made racist statements. The club has effectively acknowledged as much by virtue of its disclaimer.
We also have the testimony of the kids and the staff that were there, none of whom we have any basis for calling liars.
We also have the fact that, at best, the club gave no explanation to them for kicking them out (after having already taken their money), and at worst (if we can believe the testimony of the kids, which we have no reason not to) were told that the club did “not allow minorities.”
Meaning what exactly?
We’re not in a court of law. The statement was made for public relations reasons. Are you only pretending to be this stupid or do you think everyone else is?
Getting admitted to a bar costs money, chief. i’m not going to teach you for free.
It means that any members/owners/equity holders can’t be held personally liable for the actions of the corporation. The actions an owner takes as an individual person and as a representative of the organization are distinct. they need to parse those out and make it abundantly clear that those statements are not statements made in any capacity as an owner of the club. Otherwise the statement by camper X “i heard soccer mom x say to the manager that these black kids were scaring my white child” is admissible as non-hearsay evidence against the club in any discrimination suits.
Ok. Serious question: are you a lawyer?
Yawn.
You are saying, that if you were representing the clubs or the kids, you could not think of a single way to proceed because of the type of incorporation papers?
If so, maybe you should ask for your money back from your law school