Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[Sava]

Agathon, you are wrong.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
The are many different types of "corporations". Because of legal reasons, most private clubs are corporations. Augusta National is a Not For Profit Corporation. While they do indeed take in tons of revenue, it is all allocated to the needs of the Club, and not to share holders as it would be for the type of corporation that you seem to keep alluding to.

I wasn't alluding to that at all. Not for profit corporations are no less guilty if they practice discrimination than IBM is.

Again I'd ask you this question. Do you think that racists have a greater right to engage in racist practices than the victims have the right not to be subject to them?

That's the point here - all the rest is window dressing.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
That has already been answered. This is a golf club. It's for playing golf. Golf - a game that has a long history of bigotry. Soccer clubs don't discriminate in this way.

Ahhh... so you are really saying that golf clubs should be treated differently than other clubs private because of past bigotry. Not very logical...

Augusta is not the same as other clubs. Most clubs don't sell a branded product for mass consumption.

You are incorrect... most private famous course do sell branded products for mass consumption. I own a bunch of stuff from different courses... most golfers do.

Sidestep the argument again why don't you? I like this "private" stuff - it is virtually meaningless due to the equivocation implicit in "private". i.e. private meaning not owned by the state and private meaning pertaining to one's personal social life.

But it is private... a bunch of people getting together in private to do what they enjoy doing. You seem to be the one not understanding this simple fact.

There's a difference between me and my friends getting together and creating a club where the point is "Ag and his friends have fun" and a local golf club where people get together to play golf.

Actually, there is no difference. Just a bunch of friends getting togther.

Most golf clubs do not admit people on the basis of friendship - they admit them on the basis that they can pay the fees and they aren't criminals or other ne'er do wells.

Again you are wrong. Most Private Club have "Membership Committees". To even have a chance of joining most clubs, you need multiple people to sponsor you for membership... In other words, you have to have friends at the club who think you will be a good addition. And in most cases, most clubs have trial periods... and if the members don't like you, you aren't given permanent membership.

Sporting clubs are private in the first sense but not really private in the second sense. Not letting in women or blacks isn't about who you hang out with - its about bigotry.

But they are private in the second sense as well, just like any other private club. It's ALL about who you want to hang out with.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
I wasn't alluding to that at all. Not for profit corporations are no less guilty if they practice discrimination than IBM is.

US laws force Private Clubs to incorporate for liabilty and many other reasons. They are NOT companies. They are private clubs and subject to different laws.

They are NOT GUILTY of ANYTHING. They are simply deciding who can be members and who can't be.
If a bunch of guys don't want to hang with women, why should they. It is NO different then Jewish Country Clubs, or any other kind of Private organization that limits its membership for whatever reason.

[Ming]

If you want to argue ALL private clubs don't have the right to limit their membership, that's one thing.

But you aren't doing that. You are saying that Augusta/Private Golf Clubs shouldn't be allowed the same rights other Private Clubs have. Talk about discrimination...

[Lincoln]

Right to associate with whomever you choose is a natural right. Even the birds do it...

[Sava]

Ming, don't embarass Agathon any more please.

He's undoubtedly been duped by that wh0re Martha Burke into thinking this is an issue about sex discrimination. Agathon is the victim here Ming.

[Ming]

Just north of Chicago is one of oldest male only Private Golf Clubs.

Women are only allowed on the front porch to wait for their husbands or friends. They even built a outhouse for women to use while they wait (it was an expansive and expensive outhouse)

When you walk in the front door, you walk right into the locker room, where men are sitting around in all forms of dress or undress, playing cards, smoking cigars, swearing, and just being men... scratching their asses and belching...

On the golf course... there is NO dress code restrition, and men some times play in just their jock straps.

They have all types of minorities as members, just no women. They just want to act like men, and not be limited because of the presence of women.

This is NOT discrimination in any way... They have the right to have a Private Club where they can be themselves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know, you will make a lousy lawyer. Read the rest of the thread - this point has already been addressed.

Ah, I was wondering when the ad hominem attacks would begin. Sure sign you've lost the debate.

Although it is amusing to see someone with no legal training whatsoever say that someone will be a bad lawyer.

Perhaps restating the question indicates it hasn't been answered yet (you may have addressed it, but I want an answer)?

Ming, don't embarass Agathon any more please.

He need it... cut him down a peg.

When you walk in the front door, you walk right into the locker room, where men are sitting around in all forms of dress or undress, playing cards, smoking cigars, swearing, and just being men... scratching their asses and belching...

But Ming, if women were admitted they could do the same thing . Why does Agathon think that minorities should have seperate groups because there are 'good reasons' but ignores the reason men want their own club.

Again I'd ask you this question. Do you think that racists have a greater right to engage in racist practices than the victims have the right not to be subject to them?

But this has already been addressed . Maybe you should be make some snide comment about your debating skills?

[loinburger]

Those racist Jews won't let me become a Rabbi for the sole reason that I'm not Jewish. Talk about discrimination!

[Ming]

Some people like to ignore logic and hide behind chants of "discrimination"... I guess they consider it easier than trying to argue the facts

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

I expected better arguments from Apolyton.

You're from Apolyton.

The "their club, their rules" argument does not hold water.

You sure convinced me with that rebuttal.

It's easy to think of many things that private individuals or clubs are not allowed to do. A better argument than this has to be found.

So government can observe and regulate everything you do in your bedroom because you aren't allowed to murder people there? Gee, do laws against molesting children in the privacy of your home now mean you live on public property?

Similarly, with the "women are treated differently in X" argument. This is also not a sufficient response. One can justify treating the sexes differently when there is a good reason to do so, and not when there isn't.

Since when do we need your permission to treat people as WE see fit? Anyone who thinks communism isn't about dictatorships need only read your BS.

For example, women aren't entitled to publicy funded prostate exams because they don't have prostates; and we have separate toilets for men and women because anyone whose ever used a "gents" knows that men are pigs.

Then women should start their own country club and you can complain about them.

I don't believe that anyone here thinks that either racism or sexism is not unjust.

Less unjust than threatening people with violence for not liking the right people.

What this issue boils down to is the conflict between two freedoms.

(1) The freedom of racists to construct racist institutions.

and

(2) The freedom of minorities not to be discriminated against.

We have a freedom against discrimination? Then the next time you buy a music CD, you better buy CD's from all musicians because if you don't you're discriminating.

Violation of the second is clearly the more harmful so the first should be curbed.

Freedoms only conflict in the minds of people who don't understand the meaning of freedom.

This needn't be by making it illegal, rather the tax system could be brought to bear. Would anyone care to suggest that violating (1) is more harmful? I think not.

Not that I expect a response, but yes. Freedom of association is more important than your hypocritical "freedom" from discrimination.

All the arguments about liberty and so one have to face this uncomfortable fact.

The only uncomfortable facts displayed in this thread is your ignorance of what freedom means and the hypocrisy of arguing that discrimination is wrong only when you say so.

In other words racist institutions should not be tolerated.

"Tolerated" or physically eliminated by your thought police?

There are of course pragmatic limitations to what can be done (as there are with any policy), but giving racist clubs and corporations a hard time seems feasible.

This isn't about giving someone a hard time, you want government to step in to legislate your "morality" with money stolen from the rest of us - what an oxy-moron.

And yes - I think the KKK should be outlawed - it is basically a criminal gang set up with the express purpose of violating the civil rights of black people.

If a KKK member violates the civil rights of another human being, then they should be punished. If they don't and only belong to the KKK for other reasons, then they shouldn't be punished.

Yeah right. We are talking about a golf club here.

So your wedding guest list should be exempt from discrimination laws but not a private golf club? How convenient...

If the club was instituted by friends only for friends then you would have a case.

Why? Friends can discriminate but not others?

But this is a golf club, for people who play golf. Most of the members are golfers or businessmen who use the club as a background for business (the woman in question is complaining about this as much as anything else).

Still having trouble with facts I see, the club is not for people who play golf, it's for people who can pay and are invited to join.

Since this is one of the world's best golf clubs it isn't as if women can easily join an equivalent club.

There are all sorts of people who can't join, your arguments are discriminatory since you exclude them.

[Q Classic]

I would like to point out until this whole flap over whether women being admitted into augusta national came into being, the tournament held at augusta national had a whole ****load of corporate support.

what did augusta national do with that money? after paying the expenses of the tournament, it donated pretty much every bit of money it got from it to charities.

this flap has annihialated corporate support-- and with it, all the donations to the charities.

======

i'm in the camp that it's a private club, and miz martha here is just an attention hound on a stupid personal crusade.

why? you ever remember, when you were a little kid, how some of the boys would build a fort and then write "no girlz alloud" ?

it's the same thing. these men are just building their own little fort-- let them. they weren't harming anyone before.

can you honestly say that augusta national not allowing women into the club was causing any harm to anybody? can you prove it? therein lies the crucial difference that separates that golf club from say, "separate-but-equal" schooling.

incidentally, miz martha wiped out any respect or credence i may have ever had for her when she made a statement along the lines of this:
"it is disgusting that a woman can fight for freedom in iraq but still not be allowed to play golf when she comes back home."

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

It's a private club. They can set their own rules - and that includes barring women, blacks, Jews, the left handed, people with less than $5,000,000 net worth, 22-handicappers, and those who spit uncontrollably when outdoors, if they want.

The analogy to a business - saying that this is the same as a business being allowed to discriminate in its hiring practices - is a weak one. There are employment laws which govern employment, because society presumably has an interest in making sure that people are able to work (and thus, pay taxes). But a societal interest in letting people play golf - not just at any golf club, but this particular one? Get real.

A private club is like a private party I'm having next week. I can invite who I want. If I only invite certain people, and others feel excluded, that's too bad for them. And if I don't want to invite women, or black people, or communists, I can do so. Perfectly within my rights. Hootie and friends are simply doing the same thing, on a larger scale.

A public golf course - run with government money - is another story, of course.

Originally posted by Agathon
No. It's ok to frustrate the ambitions of racists.

The sad thing is, people are wasting their time focusing on Augusta when there is so much real racism and sexism going on that actually merits attention. I'm talking about discrimination that actually affects real people and causes real harm - not the hypothetical, vague harm 'suffered' by a hypothetical wealthy woman (who already has life pretty much as she wants it, regardless of whether she can have a membership at Augusta).

[Ming]

Well... the protesters can do what they want now...

Mike Weir just beat Len Matiace on the first hole of the sudden death play off.

After both finishing at 7 under par, Matiace hit his second shot behind the green on the first playoff hole... he never recovered.

Congratulations to Mike Weir... The first Canadian to EVER win one of the Majors. OH CANADA!

And to you protesters... screw off You couldn't disrupt this GREAT tournament.