Private Pool Bans Minority Campers

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

But why wait til NOW with this incident to be ashamed?

heh!

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

@bolded. Technically, I wonder how much of imminent domain plays a role in this? The club still uses municipalities to serve its needs, as I understand it, the privacy is contingent on the ability of the club to charge fees for grounds maintenance or moorings. And if they have a restaurant, they still have to follow the public health code. They still pay property taxes and if they are non-profit they cannot be classified as fully rejection exclusive, especially to children.

It brings to meaning: "This ain't your granddaddy's country club anymore... Grow up and be in the 21st century!"

What we are witnessing is severe growing pains to human evolution, IMHO...

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.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think you're combining different concepts here. As far as emminent domain, I highly doubt that a local government would take over a piece of property because of a private group's allegedly discriminatory practices.

As to the rest, those are tenuous ties to government services; too tenuous, in my opinion, to allow the government to come in and enforce certain regulations.

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...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

LOL...and I really don't use twitter...

When I mean networking...it's not always in the conventional sense...some 'clubs' and groups still like to be able to 'self segregate' so they can let their hair down...why not?

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

[Kevin]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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?

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.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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...

[Kevin]

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.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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

I think you give Pennsylvanians too much credit.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not any kind of lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think you give Pennsylvanians too much credit.

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