I saw this Pa. Swim Club Under Fire After Turning Away Minority Kids | Badeau POV | Comcast.net story today and it got me thinking: can a private club be sued for racial descrimination? I'm thinking that a private club or other private organization has a legal right, though moraly dispicable, to refuse membership or use based on race. But then I'm not a lawyer. But what if a home owner threw a black guy or a white guy for that matter, out of his home because of his or her race. Could the home owner be sued for racial descrimination? Any legal experts out there?

no they could not be sued.
that would be insane

__________________

November 2010...A change we can believe in.

no idea, but can the NAACP be sued for not giving money to white students?

__________________
http://www.BHOCOUNTDOWN.com



Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar."

no they can't. private clubs can't be sued if they truly have private memberships thats in title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. they can discriminate as much as they like. this club is a bit ambigious because it proclaimed that it was a private club with open membership. its gonna have to go to court.

I believe private discrimination is a legal right.

It only becomes a problem when it is so pervasive that it interferes with the individual rights of others.
For example, if white separatists took over Idaho, disbanded the public school system, and made a private school system that only allowed whites, then there would be a problem.

The point being that there can't be anything really essential and unique going on in the private club, if you want to discriminate.

A private club discriminating against women lost, because major municipal political decisions were conducted regularly at the club.

Cypress Point Golf Course called for you. Didn't say anything, but there was a whole lot of laughing and chortling in the background.

That'a interesting.

My understanding is anyone can be sued for pretty much anything. But I suppose the intent of the question is "can they win if they sue?". And that depends on what they sue for. In the Philadelphia case I'd think they could make a claim that they were misled and invested money and time on the reasonable assumption that they were welcome. It's doubtful the club had the balls to make their racial policies explicit, so there's breath of contract possibilities.

I'd think they could definitely sue. Maybe not for "discrimination" per se, but for getting screwed around by vague and unpredictable policies. Of course, in terms of reversing the policy, the more effective tact might be to just to expose the club publicly, and relentlessly, as the backward asshats they apparently are.

It depends. The general rule of thumb when dealing with private club discrimination vis-a-vis protected classes in such statutes is that the listed discrimination practices are frowned upon by the state. Thus, the general practice of states is that such clubs can look for little if not any help from the state if that is their intention. For example, many states grant privileges to private clubs, such as corporate charters, liquor licences, tax exempt status, and permits for various things, etc, provided they do not engage in discriminatory practices. If a club avails themselves of such things and then discriminates against the protected classes, then it can be held liable under laws drafted to address violations of such terms.

And in the broader scope from the above, self-described private clubs cannot have it both ways in how they behave. If they are going to be private, then they must remain just that. If private clubs open themselves to the public such as renting their facilities to others for meetings, tournaments, weddings, etc, then are generally deemed to have opened themselves to being subject to commonly drafted anti-discrimination laws, and especially so concerning any dealings it may have with those they have chosen to deal with.

In the present case, the club solicited and took money from another outside group to admit the children at issue. Allegedly it returned the money and expelled them due to the racial makeup of those children. That kind of conduct, if true, is generally going to put a club in violation of commonly drafted state anti-discrimination laws, even the most tolerant ones of private clubs engaging in discrimination, on the grounds of being a 'private club.'

FYI, the agency and the law they enforce in this case is found here:

PA Human Relations Commission Home Page

__________________

Nothing keeps a person of any ethnic or social origins from becoming a member of the NAACP.

Do you know how much this varies from state to state?

Growing up, I caddied at a country club that would only allow Jewish members. However, non-Jewish players were allowed to use the facilities as guests of the members, including such things as company outings when some member's company would rent the golf course for a day. Also, of course, non-Jewish staff was allowed to work there as well.

So, in that sense, the club didn't discriminate. That is, I remember plenty of occasions where Christian or black or Asian guests played the golf course. They just couldn't be members. Do you know where the member/guest distinction fits in regarding discrimination? The place most certainly had a liquor license and served alcoholic beverages (and thank God they did - at outings, there's nothing sweeter to a 16 year old getting done with a long loop than raiding the beer cart )

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Each state has different laws on the subject reflecting their own policy decisions on the topic, so it's hard to say for certain where precise lines are drawn insofar as grey areas.

Still, it's fairly common for states to exempt religious and/or cultural clubs and allow them to get common perks. In PA, given the city, steel and coal history and the various ethnic and religious groups they attracted, it's very common to see social clubs along those lines. You'll see Polish, Italian, Byzantine, Irish, Russian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, German, etc, clubs. Many of them have club rules keeping the membership in line of preserving the point of the clubs, but are generally not totally excluding of others. An example would be allowing guests and auxiliary memberships to people not of those ethnic groups but having rules permitting anyone of the ethnicity and of good character to join as full members so the point of the club is preserved. But the key is that they are benevolent in intentions and serve a purpose that the government likely finds understandable, worthwhile, useful and desirous. They perform ethnic social functions, charities, parades and parade floats, etc. They make good places for people to learn, enjoy and celebrate a shared culture, help out those from those groups who come to the US and/or send help back there if needed and/or do exchange programmes and otherwise speak of the ethnic groups' issues here and abroad, educate others about them in outreaches and functions, etc. Many statutes also exempt men and women's clubs provided they are also benevolent in character and have a socially acceptable purpose behind them (YMCA, YWCA, etc).

However, laws often seek to tailor such exemptions and granting of privileges to the benevolent aspects of such things and not for anything that isn't. For example, it might exempt a religious school or club for those aspects that are key to the group. If it's a Baptist Fellowship club, it makes sense that the club have enough structure to assure that Baptists run it and shape its character. But it very well might not grant exemptions and privileges if it excludes non-white Baptists out of bigotry.

On the subject of hiring employees and doing business with others, a common point of view in such laws is that if a club is going to hire people from outside the club to perform jobs and functions for it or transact any other kinds of business with outside people, then it cannot discriminate when doing so against any protected classes in the act.

These kinds of considerations are likely the case of what you saw with the Jewish golf club, especially regarding any law your state may have on the subject.

__________________

It seems to me that this club violated the law since it was offering it's premises to the public for rent. Once you cross that line and become a business open to the public for the rental of the premises your claim to privacy is gone.
The restricted membership policy may pass the test but once the premises are offered for rental to non-members, the restrictions smack of illegal discrimination.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address