First of all, according to the article, the club had "open enrollment". That's an imprecise term... it could just mean that they were accepting applications from the general public, or it could mean that their "application" process was pay a membership fee and join (like most fitness "clubs" and grocery store "price clubs"), no selectivity involved. That being the case, it could be a public business and not a private club.
More, these kids didn't apply for membership and they weren't turned down! The private club decided to contract with the camp for access to their pool. The fact that the club might have the backwards-ass "right" to discriminate on the basis of race* for memberships doesn't grant them the right to do so in a business they decide to operate on their premises, does it?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a club could have a shop on the premises that's only for club members, but if it's got a door on the public street and a sign that says "Public welcome!" so that "anyone" walk in and buy stuff, they can't start kicking out the people with visible disabilities or the Eastern Europeans.
If they were worried about some of the walk-ins "changing the tone", then their only recourse would be to stop allowing the general public to use their club shop.
I get the impression that the end result of the campers' first visit was that the club decided to do just this... I believe the article said they canceled contracts with other camps as well. It certainly seems like they reconsidered the whole idea.
And they only might have been within their rights to do that... I would imagine those contracts had a clause that said they could be canceled at any time for any or no reason. Either that or these are idiots with a fetish for courtrooms. The problem is... they were stupid enough to give a reason when they probably didn't have to, and they did it in a way that 1) resulted in a lot of disappointed kids and 2) put the worst possible reason on full display and given us some heart-wrenching footage of some very disappointed children.
In America, we have anti-discrimination laws and we have certain categories of people that are recognized as protected classes... using them as criteria for certain things is considered to be legally "suspect". I'm not sure how that would unfold when it's a contract between a day camp and the club... while not acting as a private club when it inks these deals with camps is also not under any obligation to give one to anybody who walks through the door... but if race is also a suspect class for such contract discrimination in that jurisdiction...
Well, I think that's an excellent reason for the government to be "looking into this", to figure out if they did break any law and what they can be hit with as a consequence.
If somebody in the government wants lawyers and investigators who are trained in the specifics of these matters to look at exactly what happened and figure out any laws that were broken and then put the wheels of justice in motion to punish those who did it... glory glory, Hallelujah. The system might actually work. In the meantime, your opinion that the right of the club to discriminate takes primacy over all else in the matter is just that... an opinion, not a balanced viewpoint or a voice of reason. It's an opinion that is siding against the angels and with the douchebags. I mean, there are people who aren't overt racists who still believe in "states' rights" to the extent that they believe the majority should be able to vote for state laws that are discriminatory against one race or sex or whatever.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2009-07-11 06:22 pm (UTC)More, these kids didn't apply for membership and they weren't turned down! The private club decided to contract with the camp for access to their pool. The fact that the club might have the backwards-ass "right" to discriminate on the basis of race* for memberships doesn't grant them the right to do so in a business they decide to operate on their premises, does it?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a club could have a shop on the premises that's only for club members, but if it's got a door on the public street and a sign that says "Public welcome!" so that "anyone" walk in and buy stuff, they can't start kicking out the people with visible disabilities or the Eastern Europeans.
If they were worried about some of the walk-ins "changing the tone", then their only recourse would be to stop allowing the general public to use their club shop.
I get the impression that the end result of the campers' first visit was that the club decided to do just this... I believe the article said they canceled contracts with other camps as well. It certainly seems like they reconsidered the whole idea.
And they only might have been within their rights to do that... I would imagine those contracts had a clause that said they could be canceled at any time for any or no reason. Either that or these are idiots with a fetish for courtrooms. The problem is... they were stupid enough to give a reason when they probably didn't have to, and they did it in a way that 1) resulted in a lot of disappointed kids and 2) put the worst possible reason on full display and given us some heart-wrenching footage of some very disappointed children.
In America, we have anti-discrimination laws and we have certain categories of people that are recognized as protected classes... using them as criteria for certain things is considered to be legally "suspect". I'm not sure how that would unfold when it's a contract between a day camp and the club... while not acting as a private club when it inks these deals with camps is also not under any obligation to give one to anybody who walks through the door... but if race is also a suspect class for such contract discrimination in that jurisdiction...
Well, I think that's an excellent reason for the government to be "looking into this", to figure out if they did break any law and what they can be hit with as a consequence.
If somebody in the government wants lawyers and investigators who are trained in the specifics of these matters to look at exactly what happened and figure out any laws that were broken and then put the wheels of justice in motion to punish those who did it... glory glory, Hallelujah. The system might actually work. In the meantime, your opinion that the right of the club to discriminate takes primacy over all else in the matter is just that... an opinion, not a balanced viewpoint or a voice of reason. It's an opinion that is siding against the angels and with the douchebags. I mean, there are people who aren't overt racists who still believe in "states' rights" to the extent that they believe the majority should be able to vote for state laws that are discriminatory against one race or sex or whatever.