Private Pool Bans Minority Campers

[Kevin]

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?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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!!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Right on, be that as it may, if they still believe in Santa Clause, why spoil it? Y'know?

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

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.



.

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

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

One thing some people apparently don't realize is that you have to use common sense when looking at a situation.

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:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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).

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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

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.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

private clubs are legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of race

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

[Kevin]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.