Gender equality
Feb 3rd 2017, 9:17 pm
#196
Stand-up Philosopher
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Regina Saskatchewan
Posts: 16,344
Re: Gender equality
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.
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.
Feb 3rd 2017, 9:27 pm
#197
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,006
Re: Gender equality
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.
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.
So I point out ( I admit from just a brief internet search) that actually the law does seem to allow a private organization to be selective/discriminate, so the answer is that private organizations shouldnt be allowed to be selective/discriminate even though the law permits them because the law is wrong.
Cant have it have it both ways !
My only argument was that I believe in a free society as such tend to favor more freedom rather than less; and I see nothing wrong if a group of parents prefer their children to be involved in activities with children of the same gender, and have an organization to do so why should the law interfere with their choice to do so. And if someone else feels that it is better to have their children in a different type of organization they should be free to do so. Would I want my children to be enrolled in some fanatic organization I didn't agree with ? No. But neither would I believe the law should restrict the rights of other parents to make their own choice.
As far as the courts becoming more political on the issue I don't know much about that. I would guess in the for the first 190 years of the republic no one even thought about the issue much, Perhaps because of changes in the culture or laws, the issue is looked at more closely by the courts.
If I have misconstrued someone's post or misunderstood by all means explain. The only agenda is to advance understanding, why else would someone make a post and read other posts ?
My two boys past age to be in boy scouts so no agenda. I freely admit the one who was in the boy scouts had a positive experience, and the boys in the troop generally I found more polite, disciplined and less likely to get in as much serious trouble than other local boys. So I have nothing against the Boy Scouts as it has been run. Maybe other troops different, but I didn't see any negatives.
