Do you value freedom of association?

[Japher]

the true test is not allowing freedom of association when you agree with the association, but even when it is offensive

Yes, that is the true test. Yet it should not be the job of the government to tipy-toe around issues for the sake of not offending someone.

Am I offended that "Curves" doesn't allow men to join? -No. Could I be? - Yes.

When does someone becoming offended become more of a perpetuate nuissance than an actual complaint?

Instituitions naturally generate avoidance issues by generating advertisment and facilities towards their tageted audiences. While some rules are needed to ensure the targeted audience and promise to the customer, rules that govern restrictions on who is actually being targeted as per services offered, should be wiped out.

Men only and Women only Black only White only... all these things should be illegal.

Heck, the gay community has it right. I don't go to certain bars or clubs because they are considered gay bars. Do these bars or clubs advertise that they are gay establishments? No! Do they bar straight people from coming? No! So where's the problem? Or, rather, what are they doing right?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Japher


Yes, that is the true test. Yet it should not be the job of the government to tipy-toe around issues for the sake of not offending someone.

Am I offended that "Curves" doesn't allow men to join? -No. Could I be? - Yes.

When does someone becoming offended become more of a perpetuate nuissance than an actual complaint?

Instituitions naturally generate avoidance issues by generating advertisment and facilities towards their tageted audiences. While some rules are needed to ensure the targeted audience and promise to the customer, rules that govern restrictions on who is actually being targeted as per services offered, should be wiped out.

Men only and Women only Black only White only... all these things should be illegal.

Heck, the gay community has it right. I don't go to certain bars or clubs because they are considered gay bars. Do these bars or clubs advertise that they are gay establishments? No! Do they bar straight people from coming? No! So where's the problem? Or, rather, what are they doing right?

This is quite a confusing post Japher. At the beginning you seem to support freedom of association, but then you say "Men only and Women only Black only White only... all these things should be illegal.".

Which is it?

[Japher]

rules that govern restrictions on who is actually being targeted as per services offered, should be wiped out

Men only and Women only Black only White only...

Those are rules right? People shouldn't be allowed to have these as rules. Yet, when some black guy doesn't get into a country club and cries discrimination, they should be ignored because of freedom association. Or when some guy is refused membership to a gym. Or when someone is denied entrance to a club (which happens all the time)...

[Ben Kenobi]

the true test is not allowing freedom of association when you agree with the association, but even when it is offensive.

Well said Berz. I wish Canada had an amendment protecting freedom of association.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
First, how does this preferential treatment translate into freedom of association? I don't see a connection, it appears to be an excuse to deprive others of their freedom of association.

Exactly. Those groups that are favored by society get preferential access to public facilities, regardless of their exclusionary policies. Those groups not so favored, well, gee, there's a different set of rules and costs for them.

Second, I agree groups and people should not get preferential treatment, but that's the pols fault. And there just isn't much of a market for "renting" (occasionally) a chunk of forest so it's not like a bunch of other groups are getting shut out.

Actually, in California there's a very big market for prime campground space. And city park land and recreational facilities, etc.

Jim Crow is not analogous, that too, ironically, was about government violating freedom of association.

You mean we really wanted coloreds in our pools and sitting on our toilets and eating next to us in restaurants, but the evil government kept us from being able to mix with darkie?

Jim Crow was about preferential treatment of exclusion - the majority of whites didn't want "coloreds" using their public facilities, and nobody gave a damn what the coloreds wanted.

I'd agree these other groups (NAMBLA?) should be allowed to "rent" space, but it's not like they're really competing with the Boy Scouts which seeks "natural" settings.

The Boy Scouts and many other groups use far more public facilities than merely remote campgrounds.

What if all these groups (and more) had the year booked and individuals couldn't use that land? Would that mean we can now take away their freedom of association too? These are separate issues:

Nobody's taking away their freedom of association. I don't think the White Aryan Resistance has had to open it's membership to jews, ******s, spics and queers yet. They just aren't entitled to subsidized use of public facilities for which the cost is underwritten by some of the people they exlcude. They are entitled to equal access use (i.e. parade permits, public assembly, etc.)

A) Preferential treatment
B) Freedom of association

A != B

Attacking B doesn't solve A, so what's the motive here?

B is not under attack. The Boy Scouts still exclude gays, for one example. The KKK and WAR have their exclusionary rules, as does the Nation of Islam, and all sorts of private groups. The myth that B is under attack is a bogeyman for those groups who want to maintain their "private" rights while getting subsidized, preferential benefits.

Let's say you ran a private association that wanted to rent my land for a particular function, but I didn't like your membership rules - am I obligated to rent to you anyway? Hell, no.

If it's public land, and you meet all the standard public health and safety requirements that are applied to any applicant, and you pay the standard fee charged to any applicant for the same type of use, are you entitled to rent or use the land for that function on the same basis as any other group? Yes. Are you entitled to get a special subsidy that's not customarily available to any other group? No.

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't think you guys are quite getting the distinction between "public", "open to the public", and private. A facility is public if it is woned by a governmental institution. A facility which may be privately owned, but keeps its doors open to use without paid membership is "open to the public". These two categories of facilities can not refuse to admit or serve someone by virtue of race, religion, or sex according to Supreme Court rulings. Public schools can't discriminate because they are owned by a government. City buses and restaurants can't discriminate because they are generally accessible to the public without the qualification of membership. A private facility is privately owned and is open only to a particular membership. A private facility may be exclusive. A country club can exclude certain people if it is open only to (generally paid) members. There may be even some restrictions on exclusivity, for instance I think that many years ago some country clubs in New Jersey were forced to open their membership to Jews.

[st_swithin]

Do it if you're gonna get some.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Hueij
Why are people still replying in a Cali race thread?

We respond, because this is when Callie gets on stage, giving us the opportunity to throw tomatoes at him.

[Berzerker]

MtG - I can't disagree with most of your comments

However, freedom of association has been under attack for decades and the targets are gradually expanding beyond businesses and anti-discrimination laws.

[Lincoln]

Give em an inch and they will take a mile... This reminds me of the smoking bans. Now they want to forbid smoking in New York in your own car. Eventually the intrusions have to stop.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Japher




Those are rules right? People shouldn't be allowed to have these as rules. Yet, when some black guy doesn't get into a country club and cries discrimination, they should be ignored because of freedom association. Or when some guy is refused membership to a gym. Or when someone is denied entrance to a club (which happens all the time)...

Sorry, but if the government decides that nobody can have a club or organisation in which people associate with people like themselves, you don't have free association. What you are advocating is a massive extension of govt power. You suprise me.

[MrFun]

** throws tomatoes at Cal **

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You mean we really wanted coloreds in our pools and sitting on our toilets and eating next to us in restaurants, but the evil government kept us from being able to mix with darkie?

I'm sure there were some who would have been willing to open their restaurants or other facilities to blacks, but were prevented by law from doing so. Not a lot, but some. Why bother to have a law requiring exclusion if the desire to exclude was unanimous?

[Urban Ranger]

Does freedom of association apply to organisations as well? It seems that these "rights" and "freedoms" are applicable to individuals only.

[Berzerker]

Organisations are made up of individuals exercising their freedom of association.