Souvy

I had to check the date when I read that article. I have seen dumber ideas but not many.

morpeth

Please don't be ridiculous, you already no the answer to this.. That clearly is against the law, and any sense of morality. How on earth does that comment have any relevance to parents wishing their boys to be in the boy scouts , or an all boys school, or girls wanting to be in their own group.

What on earth is your problem with parents deciding it is better for boys to be in an all boys boy scout group, or girls deciding the same with the girl scouts ? Or if a group of atheists wanted an all atheist group ?

It is very dangerous the trends on both the right and left this extreme partisanship, lack of common sense, and trying to reduce the amount of freedom in our society, and yes that to me a totalitarian mindset of having the government manage more and more of our lives,

Danny B

I'm with you. If I had a boy who was of Scout age, and as a parent there were two groups available, all boys or boys and girls mixed, I'd want him in the boy only group.
If I had a girl, I'd send her to the girl group.

For someone to ask if they should create a child molestation group I find particularly disturbing. You know they have lost the argument when they stoop that low.

Gordon Barlow

Bristol - you've stepped over the line here, and have been unnecessarily offensive. This is just a chat-room, for people to offer comments; every topic doesn't have to become a war. There is no way you could have misunderstood what Morpeth said, to have warranted your response.

Just take it easy, man... A chat-room, not a schoolyard arena. Stay calm. Don't kill the thread.

not2old

Apart from the booze & coffee discussion, I think this thread should be closed.

BristolUK

I haven't even commented on that.

You must be mistaking me for someone else in your haste to accuse those of a different opinion of a totalitarian mindset.

BristolUK

I thought that was a perfectly calm response to the suggestion that club rules could just flout discrimination laws.

Sometimes an exaggerated example is necessary to make a point.

morpeth

Not in haste at all, though perhaps I should explained further or worded better.

" political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life "

So I tend to support more freedom rather than less.

To me the idea that a private organization shouldn't be able to set its own policies for its membership is part of a mindset that wishes to impose a regimented control through whatever conventional wisdom is current on others- even though this mindset might not be considered as such by those seeking to impose their conventional wisdom, and I grant probably well-intentioned.

The Naziis amd various Communist states also justified many of their policies in controlling various private groups and organizations, so I agree I associate such thoughts with a totalitarian mindset. So I don't make that judgement I'm haste at all, though perhaps I should have explained myself in case you took my comment differently as no disrespect intended on a personal level. The view that one group should be able to dictate to another what their membership policies for me just smacks of the same mindset of fascists and communists. It is ok, I know communists and I don't disrespect them by saying in my opinion their views are totalitarian.

I admit a personal bias in this discussion of the boy scouts , and single gender groups. I have three children. One was in the Boy Scouts, it was a great organization for the boy.

morpeth

Actually it isn't exactly clear what discrimination laws you feel are being flouted when a private club has selective membership criteria. Just doing a brief internet search shows quite a complicated situation both at the Federal but also at the state level,

"According to the Court, “in the decision of whether a discriminatory public accommodation practice has occurred, the determinative issue is whether an establishment that serves the general public has denied access to its goods and services to a member of a protected class. Thus, the issue is not whether an establishment is a private rather than a business or commercial enterprise. The issue is whether it serves the general public." (at page 298).
The court went on to say, although no private organization is duty bound to offer its facilities and services to all comers, once it has determined to eschew selectivity, it may not discriminate among the general public."

That was referring to one northeast state.

So as I suspected , clubs and other organizations can and often do have the right to be selective in their membership in principle (though there are differences in different states, and of course the federal government uses it purse strings to impose some federal rules). As I would hope in a free society private groups do have some rights. .

not2old

I wasn't going to post to this thread again, yet the latest few posts have sent this way off topic to the point of nasty.

So, here goes

Gender bias clubs, the folks that run them (within the law) have the right to exclude or accept anyone (the club rules).

Either gender can & do have a choice to join a club of their choosing as long as they are accepted

The fact that there are gender bias exclusions.... we know that men cannot join certain 'women only' clubs & vice-versa, is because the club chooses to exclude certain gender.

On private clubs that exclude anyone for whatever reason based on age, gender, race, creed, status, education, honours, decoration is also perfectly OK in todays world.... because is has become the way it is.

So, we know boys cannot join the brownies or girl guides, nor can girls join the cubs.

An all female sports club is just that, as is an all Gentlemen's club, just for those gender

Women do not play on an all professional sports team, nor do men play on the all female sports teams

Men & women do not compete against each other on lots & lots of things, its just the way it is

Men & women do not (so it appears) on an equal shared basis go dutch on a lunch or dinner. Why, well I haven't a clue

Its not an equal society for males & females

It will continue that way till the cows come home & BTW (repeating myself) there will never be a female US president

On the sensitive topic of weird stuff, I say blame the media, technology & parents for anything that goes off the rails with their children when they're allowed the freedom to lock themselves away on their ipads, smart phones & computers & don't communicate

There is no discrimination in bullying, luring, weirdos, substance abuse, LBGT..... that is a whole different topic from this thread intentions 'Adults only' 'equality at work' or 'how each gender treats the other'

Oink

How do you know that?

not2old

I don't know squat, I just made it up as I went along, just like all the other posts on the thread

Danny B

moneypenny20

Why?

Oakvillian

I really don't think he has. Morpeth has (surprise, surprise) been selectively misconstruing others' points of view to serve his own agenda.

Since we're straying into the realms of political incorrectness in a thread on gender equality, perhaps I can illustrate the point by an old, old adage...

A wealthy man (in the original story, supposed to have been Lord Beaverbrook) asks an actress if she would spend the night with him for $1000. "Why yes," she answers. "What if I were to offer you $2?" he asks. "Certainly not!" she replies, "What do you think I am?" Beaverbrook replied: "We've already established that; now we're simply haggling over the price."

Once you decide that rules against discrimination, which would otherwise be illegal for a public entity, need not apply to private clubs and societies, the only natural conclusion of that premise is that private clubs should not be bound by any laws at all regarding their membership. To take offence at any suggestion to the contrary is, surely, simply arguing over the degree to which one is a whore.

The fact that the US courts have allowed such discrimination is a commentary on the miserable politicization of the US justice system, much more than it is a reflection of the rights and wrongs of the discrimination.