Quote:
Originally posted by Divine Nine
Whether a private club has the right to discriminate is not as important as whether or not it is morally correct. The law determined that a private business had the right to discriminate against its customers, hence the segregated Woolworth lunch counters, however the Supreme Court and the rest of the country determined that it was morally wrong. Which leads me to our BGLO organizations.
Private clubs can discriminate as for membership AS LONG as they don't have people who do the tasks of full members, however are not given full rights. Where does that come in for our organizations? Sweethearts and sweetheart organizations will have a pretty good case if one ever decides to petition for membership. According to Dr. Walter Kimbrough, a Georgia judge stated that he is waiting for a case from a fraternity sweetheart because they tend to do a lot of the activities of the fraternity without the benefits. So my advice, disband your sweethearts as soon as you can, or you just may have fraternity members who can give birth. 
Lawrence Ross
|
There is nothing immoral in having a private club or organization as you state. It would only be immoral if you had the only means to some life sustaining or life affirming entity. There is nothing immoral about like-minded people of enjoying each others company. If women could not golf elsewhere or had access to meeting or speaking with these movers and shakers in some other legal capacity, then it would be illegal. I am absolutely certain that these Masters members have memberships at other multi-sex clubs (swim, tennis, etc) and I am sure that they sit on boards with women. So to say that women would not have access to powerful men if they are all ensconced at this one club is liberal double-talk. Being denied a meal at a PUBLIC restaurant because of your skin color is far different than not playing golf or hobnobbing on a private golf course
Secondly, despite the all-knowing Dr. Kimbrough and his friend the judge, it would be an execise in judicial activism to demand that women who have engaged in banned and illegal activity be rewarded with membership as a result of their illegal activites. Parenthetically, if a Sweetheart is a member of an Auxillary, aren't they by definition, members of an org designed to aid the main body of the parent org in its activities, without being a full member. The WACS and the WAVES were not full members of the Navy. More legal bullshit to continue to get us to cave in at the mere threat of litigation. Pure and simple legal blackmail. Not that this couldn't happen, because judges overstep their boundaries everyday by making law instead of interpreting it.
I applaud the leaders of Augusta National for not being dictated to by outsiders or public opinion. Its a private club for a reason. They don't exist to serve the public, they exist for themselves and that is all that they have to please.