For the umpteenth time, a "progressive"/liberal/whatever columnist or blogger has discovered -- oh gasp horror -- that private clubs (most places) get to dictate who may or may not join. Ooooo, the awfulness!
Which part of the word "private" is she missing out on? I think the problem stems, in part, from believing "legal" is or ought to be the same as "ethical," "fair," "moral" or "nice," none of which it necessarily is or even can be.
--Mind you, I'm not saying I approve of arbitrary discrimination; I'm saying that at a private club of which I am not a member, it's none of my darned business -- and no business of the .gov's, either.
Defiance Of Common Sense Award for this: "It may surprise some Americans to learn that not only do certain private clubs still refuse to admit African-Americans, women, and gay people, but that this kind of enrollment discrimination is considered perfectly legal." [emphasis mine] No, it is "perfectly legal." It's 2009 and you'd be hard-pressed to find a venue where "this kind of enrollment discrimination" hasn't already been tested in court. Don't like it? Join the club and work to change its policies -- or STHU.
I await with great interest the day -- probably in California -- when a huge lot culturally conservative folks join a gay bathhouse under anti-discrimination laws and turn it into a chaste place to go have a steambath. What goes around, comes around.
T. R. MCELROY'S STREAMLINED TELEGRAPH KEYS
3 months ago