Like many people, they probably didn't think about it ("it" being "hey, there aren't any black people here, are there?") until they were confronted with it. Although I think that the majority are probably more my second possibility rather than this one. That is, they agree with the club's decision and are more upset about the PR clusterf**k.

I think you forget that we have a Constitutional right of free association. If that doesn't mean that we can join private clubs and select our membership based on any criteria we want to use, then what exactly does it mean?

Do I like that for some of these clubs, race is obviously an issue? No. It's repulsive. Do I think the government has any place forcing these private groups to accept members they don't want to accept? Nope.

As times change, people will change. Looking back at the past 50 years, we've come a hell of a long way. It's obvious we have a long way to go. I don't think we can simply legislate away the legacy of Jim Crow, etc.

But who's land is it? If it is the municipalities land, and under the state, which is also under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, they still have to follow the Civil Rights acts, at some level.

Sure, you'd know more than me. But at some point, like RhoyalTempest said, these people KNEW what they were doing before these kids got to the club--no matter how tenuous this overt blatant act of child abuse this club's membership enacted...

You are reading too much into what I wrote. I said nothing about free association.

As far as we've come, then why in Pennsylvania would you have such an overt blatant act of "changing the complexion" of the pool?

LOL! Like at 11 AM on Sundays? ;) That's a lot of hair these days, with the boxes falling off the shelves...

Those Civil Rights Acts only apply to state action.

In fact, I referred early on to the Katzenbach v. McClung case -- the case which said that restaurants and places of public accommodation could not discriminate based on race because to do so had too much of an effect on interstate commerce (can't remember the exact holding, but you can Google it). Anyhow, Ollie's BBQ, the defendant in that case, a restaurant in Birmingham, AL, which wanted to be whites only lost the case. Rather than opening their doors to blacks though, they simply announced that they were a private club and they only served members... who were all white. They continued to operate like that until they were later purchased by a Baptist Minister who did away with that nonsense. That was the case though which really opened up the doors to lunch counter sit-ins, which as you know were a major part of the civil rights movement in the 60's (at least they were here in OKC).

At any rate, you'd have to make the argument that perceived racial discrimination in membership selection (which can't be proved) is state action.

I don't think the interstate commerce argument would fly today. That doctrine has been in a state of contraction lately.

Didn't I also say we still had a long ways to go? You can't deny race relations have come a long way since our parents' and grandparents' time.

That's why most restaurants have the "right to refuse service" to whomever they want without (hopefully) explanation.

But this case is different: it included pre-arranged verbal/written contract that included an agreed exchange of funds, ~$2000. The innercity group provided the transportation and the counselors.

If there was a modicum of behavior this country club wanted, that needed to be explicitly stated when the agreed verbal/written funds were exchanged, not during when the kids jumped into the pool and acted all kind of crazy--which kids do when they see the water...

If membership stated ignorant comments, then from a business perspective, I find the owner at fault for not tracking they kinds of members his/her club upholds. Sheer marketing these days commands some level of demographics. Seriously, if you don't know your demographic, who are you trying to serve...

When I say, "this ain't your granddaddy's country club--these days"--that includes a corporate branding perspective, too...

The group can sue the club for damages on the breach of the contract if it wants, but that'd be difficult considering the group got its money back and other facilities have offered free use of their facilities, so the group has actually obtained substitute performance for less than they originally bargained for.

Otherwise, the $2,000 granted them a license to use the premises which was freely revocable by the licensor, who again, as above is only on the hook for damages.

And there can't be punitive or exemplary damages here because those sorts of damages are not available in contract suits.

You are a contract lawyer, correct? So is that all they can do?

The other is report to BBB or broadcast the foul behavior experienced by the children. And do not let a viral video jump up.

But that is a big mistake in this country club's corporate branding efforts, conflict resolutions and other pending issues.

What we read/saw in the news is minuscule to the internal problems this business really has--stuff we will never see. But, I'd say if his business doesn't go under with a year, I'd be shocked... You just cannot stay in business without a major overhaul and restructuring with an incident like that looming overhead.

No denial sweetheart, but can you blame me when I am so guarded, when some bullisht happens like this in PA?

I'm not any kind of lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But yeah, based on generally universal principles of law, there's nothing to be sued over here... unless PA has some sort of weird thing I don't know about.

Who knows? Apparently they have at least some clientèle who didn't object to kicking the kids out... so internally, they might think it's all a big misunderstanding or that they didn't want any AA kids running around their pool.. your guess is as good as mine.

This might cost them something, but how much? I'd be shooting completely in the dark.

I'm not so sure it's going to register as that big of an event on their books. Who knows?

I think you give Pennsylvanians too much credit.

:)

Harsh words from an Oklahoman... What, you got haterade against Joe Paterno this upcoming season? LOL!

Other than being old, and I mean old as in Lo Pan old (Big Trouble/Little China), what is there about the Nittany Lions a Sooners fan would even care about?

LOL!!! Are we ready for some College Game Day!!!

Most definitely. Can't wait to see Oklahoma put up crazy numbers, go undefeated and lose another damn National Championship game to the SEC flavor of the year.

From the article I find that I do not believe the person who contracted with the day camp is racist or that the club as a business has any racist beliefs. The daycamp person who contracted with the club seems to have been black. So, if race was an issue they would have denied the request and not signed the contract. I do, however, believe that a significant amount of the membership are racist. Overcrowding doesnt cut it for me as an explination as they were aware of exactly how many children would be swimming there. They have a pool specifically for young children and no one reported that the children were ill-behaved so changing the "complexion or atomsphere" is not cutting it either. If it is a pool for young kids how could young kids change the atmosphere or complexion?
I dont think the club officials realized how racist some of the members were.


When believing in Santa could get them hurt (physically or emotionally) it becomes necessary to tell them the truth.

I highly disagree. These club officials often DO realize how racist some of the members are.

And just how, exactly, do you know this? You seem to know a lot about what other people think/know. Especially when it comes to racism. And people you don't know. :rolleyes:

One thing some people apparently don't realize is that you have to use common sense when looking at a situation. If these club officials are working at clubs that have no black members, and every single time someone black tries to join they get turned down, these officials are going to realize that the club members are racist. It's not rocket science. I don't have to know them to know this.

:rolleyes:

Well, its all in the inference. One might infer that because the club has no black members and a situation like this happens that the members are racist or have racially discriminatory beliefs. One might also infer that the club management knows its members very well and that management would recognize the general sentiment of the members and thus know that they are racist.

I disagree in that the person who contracted with the day camp did not realize the extent to which the members were racist. If the person did why would they contract with a minority day-camp? If you know your members do not like rap music why would you agree to let 50 Cent practice his music at your club? You wouldn't. To contract with a group of people who would upset your membership would be jeopardizing your business and making your members unhappy. And members should always be happy.


And for people who believe that private clubs should be allowed to discriminate based on race....thats a bunch of bull.

People don't realize they have to use common sense? I guess I disagree - even if many don't use it the way I'd like. :)

Also, unlike something like, say, formal logic, nowhere is "common sense" enumerated or listed or even defined - it's basically a combination of experience, attitudes and beliefs of the individual. It's not universal. Let's keep that in mind:

In the specific scenario you detail above (with repeated rejections of otherwise-apparently-qualified black members), I agree with you completely - it's highly unlikely the club officials would not understand the extent of racial bias/racist beliefs held by the members responsible for decisions.

However, you extended this specific scenario (complete with "every single time" and similar absolutes) to a different specific scenario (the pool club in question) without really showing that there was overlap. Basically, you're saying that common sense dictates this particular pool has turned down a multitude of black members in the past, enough to show the officials knew how racist the members were.

Do we know this club has such a history? We don't - in fact, the club has had black members in the past. While that doesn't disprove your overall point, it does call into question whether common sense would dictate that officials would realize how racist some of the members are (as IASK posited and you rejected).

I think we're mixing two issues here.

I think, personally, that private clubs absolutely should never actually discriminate on the basis of race.

However, given the laws of the United States and the Bill of Rights (and their application to private institutions), I can't come to any conclusion other than that private clubs are legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of race in certain situations. Since I think the ramifications of changes to the law to eliminate this would be sweeping and overwhelmingly negative, it's an unfortunate reality we have to live with.

this is what i'm under the assumption of as well.

FWIW, one of my MBE review questions posed a hypo not unlike this one. The answer to it was bizarre -- that the Thirteenth Amendment would prohibit this sort of discrimination. I didn't follow or agree with the analysis, but it was one of those "choose the best answer" sorts of questions. So maybe an argument could be made under the Thirteenth Amendment that the government has a duty to stamp out the 'badges and incidents' of slavery.

-- I'm not buying that though, not touching it with a ten-foot pole.

Yeah . . . without the benefit of, well, any sort of reading whatsoever on review or interpretation thereof, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around that use of the 13th Amendment. It's an interesting angle, though.

I don't recall, but was/were (can't decide whether it's a plural or singular thing) the Slaughter House Cases about the 13th or 14th Amendment? I guess that'd be a starting point if it talked about the 13th.

The Slaughterhouse Cases talked about both the 13th and 14th Amendment (although I think the big takeaway was the discussion of the 14th Amendment (privileges or immunities).

I would be interested to see how a 13th Amendment analysis plays into the hypo, because I can't really think of a way off the top of my head.

Commission Finds Cause to Penalize Club
 

(CNN) -- A state commission issued a finding of probable cause that racism was involved in the decision by a suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, swim club to revoke privileges of a largely minority day care center.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/23/pen...a.swim.racism/

I truely dislike suburbanites.

Apparently, a fine of up to $55,000 is possible here as there is a state law which provides penalties in the event of this sort of racial discrimination.

Ummm...ok.

Yeah, random, but I got cut off three times by them before reading this thread. Just kind of re-inforced my opinion.

LOL - weren't the kids like 9 years old?

Responding to someone who used the term "nignogs" in here? Srsly?

Why do people feed the trolls, seriously?

your comments and the timings reek of epic fail.

Thanks for losing at life today.

Culinary Arts? So this is a dangerous cooking school? for some reason this struck me a funny.

So they flambe you to death? Or beat you with a rubber spatula?