think that IF a private club wants to discriminate on the basis of race, it should be legal, because it's a private club.
So what's the difference between a private club and a privately owned grocery store, from your ethical/legal standpoint? A privately owned hospital or physician's practice? What is it in the nature of being a "club" that places denying access to goods and services on the basis of race within the bounds of even grudging acceptability that doesn't apply to other businesses?
And if there isn't a difference... well, I've already elaborated on the consequences there.
And if there is a difference... what's to stop everybody who wants to control access to the shit people need to get along from calling themselves "clubs"? Big warehouse grocery stores already call themselves price clubs and charge members for membership... should they have the right to get more selective in their application process and deny particular groups of people access to the cheapest bulk rates for food and other staples? And if the answer's yes, what (apart from basic human decency, tee hee I made a funny) stops the smaller grocery stores from doing the same?
I know it's tempting to stand behind such principles as individual rights and a man's home(/business) is his castle and so forth, but we have a created a society of mutual dependency. No one asks to be born into it, but so long as we're not being dicks to each other, it's actually a great system. I don't have to grow my own food or make my own computer or create my own internet infrastructure or correct my own eyesight, and so I have time to entertain people (and yell at them on the internet). Yay, awesome. But this only works when people have free access to the other parts of the system.
You might just ignore all this and think, "Look, I'm not talking about kicking people out of grocery stores. I'm just saying as a general principle I believe that private clubs have the right to choose their own members."
That's fine. I mean, fine in the sense of "you are within your rights to think that."
But that doesn't change what it is you're advocating for.
I wasn't saying I personally thought it was okay, or that they were good people, I was just saying I thought they were acting within their rights.
Yes. And I just invited you to explore why you thought that was so important to stress, as if they're being victimized somehow for all this negative attention for them choosing to act upon this "right" to be jackasses to a bunch of kids on a hot day.
If you're comfortable with not examining that... well, see above.
no subject
So what's the difference between a private club and a privately owned grocery store, from your ethical/legal standpoint? A privately owned hospital or physician's practice? What is it in the nature of being a "club" that places denying access to goods and services on the basis of race within the bounds of even grudging acceptability that doesn't apply to other businesses?
And if there isn't a difference... well, I've already elaborated on the consequences there.
And if there is a difference... what's to stop everybody who wants to control access to the shit people need to get along from calling themselves "clubs"? Big warehouse grocery stores already call themselves price clubs and charge members for membership... should they have the right to get more selective in their application process and deny particular groups of people access to the cheapest bulk rates for food and other staples? And if the answer's yes, what (apart from basic human decency, tee hee I made a funny) stops the smaller grocery stores from doing the same?
I know it's tempting to stand behind such principles as individual rights and a man's home(/business) is his castle and so forth, but we have a created a society of mutual dependency. No one asks to be born into it, but so long as we're not being dicks to each other, it's actually a great system. I don't have to grow my own food or make my own computer or create my own internet infrastructure or correct my own eyesight, and so I have time to entertain people (and yell at them on the internet). Yay, awesome. But this only works when people have free access to the other parts of the system.
You might just ignore all this and think, "Look, I'm not talking about kicking people out of grocery stores. I'm just saying as a general principle I believe that private clubs have the right to choose their own members."
That's fine. I mean, fine in the sense of "you are within your rights to think that."
But that doesn't change what it is you're advocating for.
I wasn't saying I personally thought it was okay, or that they were good people, I was just saying I thought they were acting within their rights.
Yes. And I just invited you to explore why you thought that was so important to stress, as if they're being victimized somehow for all this negative attention for them choosing to act upon this "right" to be jackasses to a bunch of kids on a hot day.
If you're comfortable with not examining that... well, see above.