Philly swimming pool kicks out black kids, "doesn't allow minorities"

[Ludovic]

@Cheesesteak

They can do what they want, and I can do what I want, which is to hope that folks like Al Sharpton take up this cause, and descend on this club like a swarm of locusts, causing them to lose membership, go out of business, and be forced to sell out to a group that isn’t run by a bunch of stinking racists.

If there’s anyone who could make me feel sympathy for the club, it’d be good ol’ Al.

[not_alice]

@kaylasdad99

Sure would like to see a list of the members of this “club”.

The pictures on the web site tell at least a partial story confirming that they don’t allow minorities. Or at least they don’t allow them in the photos on the web site :dubious:

And btw, why would anyone take the club’s word for it that they are private, when that is a complex legal matter? After all, these are the same people who not only kicked the kids out, but completely botched the response to the reporter.

I predict soon enough, the camp is going to be full partners in the ownership and operation of this club

[kaylasdad99]

@Ludovic

If there’s anyone who could make me feel sympathy for the club, it’d be good ol’ Al.

Good point. Better it be done by someone who doesn’t have their picture in the dictionary next to the word “self-aggrandizing”.

[DSYoungEsq]

There are plenty of private clubs that continue to discriminate on the basis of “race.” There is a reason that the PGA Tour’s AT&T Pebble Beach Invitational doesn’t include Cypress Point Golf Club in the rotation any more.

And yes, it’s morally reprehensible.

And yes, it’s probably going to get them in some legal hot water, for failure to complete the contract. Probably, they don’t really care.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Liberal

Maybe it was their behavior. Or some reason other than their skin color.

Yeah - maybe those kids brought their gats into the pool with them!

[whole_bean]

@not_alice

Also, I would suggest that, private or not, they had a binding contract with the camp, freely negotiated by the club’s representatives with whatever policies they have in place known to them or ought to have been known to them, yet they entered into it anyway, and then failed to perform while causing incalculable damages to not only the poor kids in the camp, but the other kids too who were forced to adhere to damaging policies, and I am sure a jury and court would be happy to try to figure out what the damages ought to be thank you very much your honor.

This is gonna cost that camp a bit more than $1900 to fix now I suppose. I hope they have a paid up “racist insurance” policy

(Emphasis mine)

The damages are easily calcuable at $1900 (maybe some interest). They’ve been paid. Any breach of contract has been remedied.

[RickJay]

@atomicbadgerrace

And this is really why I can’t get too riled up about this. Racism in any form sucks, but I also have a hard time telling private business owners what they can and can’t do; who they can and can’t allow. I’d be pissed, for sure, if it happened to me – but this is why people can vote with their wallets.

It’s also legal to stand outside their facility with a sign saying “This Club Won’t Allow Black People - Don’t Support Racist Scum!” I wonder if that would adjust their attitudes.

[PoorYorick]

What is it about swimming pools and racism? From my childhood memories, swimming pools were the last bastion of whites-only. If I remember correctly, the city amusement park in Oklahoma City (Spring Lake Amusement Park) closed their public pool in the '60’s because whites would not use it after it became integrated. Is it that there’s something more intimate about swimming with someone?

[Duke]

@Mr.Moto

Yes - restaurants and stores that serve the general public are considered public accomodations and thus can’t discriminate. Private clubs and religious organizations are specifically recognized as not being public accomodations - they are free in most regards to do what they want.

There’s a question as to whether this place is considered a “public accommodation” area under Pennsylvania law. Let’s go to Findlaw and another case under PA law…

The “public” versus “distinctly private” accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership’s control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club’s existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Although no one factor controls the determination, the two that have been found most significant are: (1) the club’s selectivity with respect to membership, and (2) the use of the club’s facilities by nonmembers. If all of the above factors, when considered together, indicate that a club is private in name only, and is really a “place of public accommodation,” the anti-discrimination statutes like the PHRA will apply.

So, the relevant questions here are:

1. Does the club have a selective membership? Answer in this case–no. You can apply for membership online, and the club “advertises open membership.” Take a look a their online membership form here. See any restrictions to membership? Nope.

2. Can the club’s facilities be used by non-members? Answer in this case–yes. You can’t usually swim as a guest without a member present, however according to their rules:

For parties, our grounds are open to members and non-members, alike. Parties must pre-register with the pool manager to reserve enough tables/space.

So, for some occasions, non-members are allowed to use the facilities.

Sounds like there is in fact a case to call the Valley Club a “place of public accommodation” under PA law.

[whole_bean]

@DSYoungEsq

And yes, it’s probably going to get them in some legal hot water, for failure to complete the contract. Probably, they don’t really care.

What do you have in mind? They breached. They refunded the money. Are you suggesting there are more actual damages aside from the $1,900?

[Voyager]

@DSYoungEsq

There are plenty of private clubs that continue to discriminate on the basis of “race.” There is a reason that the PGA Tour’s AT&T Pebble Beach Invitational doesn’t include Cypress Point Golf Club in the rotation any more.

And yes, it’s morally reprehensible.

And yes, it’s probably going to get them in some legal hot water, for failure to complete the contract. Probably, they don’t really care.

There are some things in this story that are odd. The kids were not applying for membership, remember. The pool signed a contract with a camp to allow non-members to use the facilities, which gets rids of a “members only” argument. Perhaps someone can make an argument that they started to act as a public accommodation by doing this, and thus fall under anti-discrimination laws.

[atomicbadgerrace]

@RickJay

It’s also legal to stand outside their facility with a sign saying “This Club Won’t Allow Black People - Don’t Support Racist Scum!” I wonder if that would adjust their attitudes.

If some people want to do that, then good on them – go for it. I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t be allowed to do that, either, within the law.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

They said “we don’t allow minorities.”

No. One of the kids said they said “We don’t allow minorities.” Very different.

@friedo

Agreed. We can still call them dicks, though, assuming the racism reason is true. (News stories like this tend to be pretty dubious until all the facts come out.)

But on that note, racism is obviously the cause for this. Just look at the quote from the club owner, if that’s very thinly veiled racism (he used the word “complexion” for christ’s sakes), I don’t know what is.

[Voyager]

@whole_bean

(Emphasis mine)

The damages are easily calcuable at $1900 (maybe some interest). They’ve been paid. Any breach of contract has been remedied.

I suspect someone could argue that there were additional damages stemming from the kids being discriminated against and made to feel inferior because of their color. I don’t know if a jury would find for them, but it seems like a basis of a damages claim.

[Captain_Amazing]

@DSYoungEsq

There is a reason that the PGA Tour’s AT&T Pebble Beach Invitational doesn’t include Cypress Point Golf Club in the rotation any more.

Just for the record, Cypress Point now has black members.

[atomicbadgerrace]

@Voyager

I suspect someone could argue that there were additional damages stemming from the kids being discriminated against and made to feel inferior because of their color. I don’t know if a jury would find for them, but it seems like a basis of a damages claim.

Perhaps; but the actual damages in this case have been repaid. Any claim for additional damages for pain/suffering/mental distress would probably require that the camp file a suit for them, since the breach of contract issue was pretty much dead when the pool issued a refund.

[not_alice]

@whole_bean

(Emphasis mine)

The damages are easily calcuable at $1900 (maybe some interest). They’ve been paid. Any breach of contract has been remedied.

I am sure their attorney will make such a case should he ever be dumb enough to let it get to a jury. And he will get his lunch promptly handed back to him.

Aside form the racist aspect of it, the whole point of a contract is to obligate to perform, and for someone else to be able to rely on it. Necessary consideration was exchanged, and the execution of the contract was underway - the kids were already there! I am guessing there was no violation of the contract on the camp or kid’s part, and so the club doesn’t get to unilaterally cancel it. If nothing else, the camp has opportunity costs in that had the camp negotiated and then executed terms it thought it might need, and the camp agreed to them, then the camp could have found an alternate place before the hot day.

Sorry, this is going to cost the club big time.

I doubt it will get to court, it will be settled without admission of guilt, but I stand by my prediction that one likely outcome that will minimize the direct costs to the club will be to partner, both in ownership and operation, with the camp moving forward.

Risking a jury award would be stupid in this case - the club will surely lose everything. Oh maybe they appeal it out for a while, but then they end up with the same settlement, years of bad publicity, and legal bills for both sides.

[muldoonthief]

@Sage_Rat

It should be noted that Philadelphia is 45% white, 43.2% black. “Minority” is a bit of a misnomer.

FWIW, once you get that far into Northeast Philly, it’s very white. Philadelphia still has black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods.

[Claire_Beauchamp]

@PoorYorick

What is it about swimming pools and racism? From my childhood memories, swimming pools were the last bastion of whites-only. If I remember correctly, the city amusement park in Oklahoma City (Spring Lake Amusement Park) closed their public pool in the '60’s because whites would not use it after it became integrated. Is it that there’s something more intimate about swimming with someone?

Because if you stand in the same body of water with someone like that, you might get cooties. or sompthin’ :rolleyes:

Did you ever see the movie Far from Heaven? Great scene with a kid dabbling in a swimming pool and alllllll the white peoples bolt outta the water, parents looking very very disturbed. Then the pool is drained and scrubbed.

[billfish678]

@Captain_Amazing

Just for the record, Cypress Point now has black members.

But you can cover those parts with clothing