• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Derrick Hunter sues Maryland Small Arms Range over 'Ladies' Day" promotion

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
A person can discriminate. (just how i dont do business with people that hire illegals, you want to cut my grass? I need green cards please)

A business cannot.

Television can, If the story is about a black slave, cant have a white guy being a slave...

Beauty contests do exist for both men and women, ever watch "Toddlers and Tiara's" /vomits

Actually if you look at history you will find that the British brought Scottish slaves to the Americas. And there were also Chinese and Irish slaves as well. So it is possible to have a white guy playing the part of a slave. Not to mention that Jewish slaves were considered Caucasian, and their masters were black.

Beauty contests for women do not allow a man to enter, that is discrimination. Most strip clubs only hire females dancers for regular employment, that is discrimination by a business. MC clubs do not allow female membership, though they can be club property, the federal government is well aware of the clubs makeup and rules and do nothing, because there is nothing they can do. Some clubs only book black entertainers, that is discrimination.

NONE of the above is discrimination by government, the range is not denying men entrance they just do not give them a discount. The law suit is BS.
 

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
Actually if you look at history you will find that the British brought Scottish slaves to the Americas. And there were also Chinese and Irish slaves as well. So it is possible to have a white guy playing the part of a slave. Not to mention that Jewish slaves were considered Caucasian, and their masters were black.

Beauty contests for women do not allow a man to enter, that is discrimination. Most strip clubs only hire females dancers for regular employment, that is discrimination by a business. MC clubs do not allow female membership, though they can be club property, the federal government is well aware of the clubs makeup and rules and do nothing, because there is nothing they can do. Some clubs only book black entertainers, that is discrimination.

NONE of the above is discrimination by government, the range is not denying men entrance they just do not give them a discount. The law suit is BS.

I am guessing Reading is not your Forte?

I said for television, if the story is about black slaves, you would not have white people being black.

Strip clubs, sell a product. If you want women... goto a female club. If you want men..goto a male club. Its like wanting coke or pepsi, goto a resturaunt that sells coke if you like coke, or if you want pepsi you goto the other.

MC?

Yes Beauty Contests do allow men to enter, there are contests that allow men to enter.

The Miss America pageants you see on television arent the only "pageants" that there is, just the Miss pageants happen to have the money to go mainstream.

They arent denying, but to provide a perk due to ones plumbing whether it be you have a penis or a vagina and not provide that perk to the opposite sex is discrimination.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am guessing Reading is not your Forte?

I said for television, if the story is about black slaves, you would not have white people being black.

Strip clubs, sell a product. If you want women... goto a female club. If you want men..goto a male club. Its like wanting coke or pepsi, goto a resturaunt that sells coke if you like coke, or if you want pepsi you goto the other.

MC?

Yes Beauty Contests do allow men to enter, there are contests that allow men to enter.

The Miss America pageants you see on television arent the only "pageants" that there is, just the Miss pageants happen to have the money to go mainstream.

They arent denying, but to provide a perk due to ones plumbing whether it be you have a penis or a vagina and not provide that perk to the opposite sex is discrimination.

Actually I read you fine, it seems to be your comprehension. My point is there are many instances of discrimination based on many factors. If truly a fair playing field is what is desired then YES a white actor should be allowed to compete for a black part. A business is allowed to give a perk for any legal reason or legal perk. That could be free coffee and snacks for the elderly by the range, or free ammo, or free range time. Yes the idea of free range time for women is sexist, but this is still a sexist country. We are bombarded with it daily, because some people do not like it, does not make it illegal.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Cite the law where it is illegal to charge a man but not a woman.

Access denied based on 'X' is not the same as paying a higher price, or paying anything for that matter, for access based on the same 'X'.

Dude will get his suit tossed if it is a money thing and not a access thing. Just cuz you can't afford or won't pay does not mean that you are denied access when you can pay.....save your pennies or go on a different day.

Big government sucks until I want big government to get me free or reduced cost range time.
 

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
Cite the law where it is illegal to charge a man but not a woman.

Access denied based on 'X' is not the same as paying a higher price, or paying anything for that matter, for access based on the same 'X'.

Dude will get his suit tossed if it is a money thing and not a access thing. Just cuz you can't afford or won't pay does not mean that you are denied access when you can pay.....save your pennies or go on a different day.

Big government sucks until I want big government to get me free or reduced cost range time.

Three Words... Equal Rights Amendment.

Discriminate due to sex, and well you are liable.

I do not think the man is entitled to money, but the owner should not be allowed to hand out freebies due to ones plumbing. If you want to build business, hand out free coupons, 50% off.

not, "Hey you with the vagina, come here and shoot my guns every Tuesday and Thursday for Free all night". "But if you have a penis, well I am going to charge you 25$ an hour..."
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
....the owner should not be allowed to hand out freebies ...

Yes let's ask the Big Government to come and decide what a private business should be allowed to do. This is a great step toward our final totalitarianism goal.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Three Words... Equal Rights Amendment.

Discriminate due to sex, and well you are liable.

I do not think the man is entitled to money, but the owner should not be allowed to hand out freebies due to ones plumbing. If you want to build business, hand out free coupons, 50% off.

not, "Hey you with the vagina, come here and shoot my guns every Tuesday and Thursday for Free all night". "But if you have a penis, well I am going to charge you 25$ an hour..."
Three words.....No Such Critter.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, does not address the issue you claim it addresses. The ability of a business owner to enact pricing schedules that you disagree with is not prohibited under the law. If a business owner wishes to set different price points for his products or services for whatever reason is his business not yours. He is held accountable to those who would patronize his business. You don't like chicks getting 'freebies' while you don't get similar 'freebies'.

Don't patronize that business. Sound familiar?
 

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
Three words.....No Such Critter.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, does not address the issue you claim it addresses. The ability of a business owner to enact pricing schedules that you disagree with is not prohibited under the law. If a business owner wishes to set different price points for his products or services for whatever reason is his business not yours. He is held accountable to those who would patronize his business. You don't like chicks getting 'freebies' while you don't get similar 'freebies'.

Don't patronize that business. Sound familiar?

Title II is the important clause.
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

Public Range is not Private. Private would be your local shooting club that has a range.

Title VII is for Employers and Employees.
 

MagiK_SacK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
257
Location
VA Beach, VA
Three Words... Equal Rights Amendment.

Discriminate due to sex, and well you are liable.

I do not think the man is entitled to money, but the owner should not be allowed to hand out freebies due to ones plumbing. If you want to build business, hand out free coupons, 50% off.

not, "Hey you with the vagina, come here and shoot my guns every Tuesday and Thursday for Free all night". "But if you have a penis, well I am going to charge you 25$ an hour..."

I have to disagree, see following cite:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

"Since the 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws, why do we still need the ERA?

...In September 2010, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated his belief that the Constitution does not protect against sex discrimination. This remark has provoked widespread public reaction, citing his position as clear evidence of the need for an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution."

Even though it is only one Justice, and should not be mistaken for an official court opinion, it does show that the 14th amendment, along with the CRA of '64 can be interpreted many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

"The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982 expired and so it was not adopted."

This most importantly shows that the ERA was never adopted, so that argument has no legs to stand on.

Yes let's ask the Big Government to come and decide what a private business should be allowed to do. This is a great step toward our final totalitarianism goal.

+1

Title II is the important clause.
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

Public Range is not Private. Private would be your local shooting club that has a range.

Title VII is for Employers and Employees.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php

"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation."

No where in the bold section is the word 'sex'. So, in this particular case, violation of the CRA of '64 cannot be claimed. If his case is based around that then IMO he has no case, but IANAL. On the other hand Title II does show discrimination to an extent in certain places of public accommodation is not allowed by law. The question is though what is considered a place of public accommodation. I'll elaborate why I ask that question in response to the next post.

Incorrect,

The laws are in place to protect from Federal / State / Local / Business / Employment discrimination,

You retain the "Right to refuse service", but you cannot charge one group (Men, Blacks), and give free range (Women, Whites).

Ignorance of the Law does not make the law non existant.

If you want to have promotions, then you must have "Ladies Night" and "Men Nights".

Other wise you are in violation of several laws, most businesses break laws everyday and get away with it since the average joe does not know its against the law and if he does, doesnt have the capital to bear the suit / make it known that the business is breaking the law.

MKEGal ; Thanks!

You are correct, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I am willing to admit I am wrong when I can be shown that I am. As stated in my above response, you may have a leg to stand on with the CRA of '64, I may be incorrect. That being said public accommodation is still in question though...

http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2008/09/lawyer-loses-la.html

"Someone should buy attorney Roy Den Hollander a drink. No doubt he needs one, after a federal judge threw out his lawsuit seeking to put a cork in ladies' nights at New York nightclubs. The self-professed anti-feminist's complaint alleged that his constitutional rights to equal protection under the law were violated by nightclubs that charge higher admission prices for men than women. But U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum wasn't buying that argument. Nightclubs are private establishments that can charge whatever they want, she ruled, dismissing his complaint."

The above cite is what puts the question as to what is to be considered a place of public accommodation. Further more, what dictates the difference between a private/public establishment? Granted, this is a New York case, and is for nightclubs. A federal judge stated that nightclubs are private establishments. Even with the name nightclubs, we all know they are not by definition 'clubs'. Anybody who abides by that business 'code of conduct' and agrees to pay said cover charge, if they require one, is permitted to enter. So I would imagine they cannot be considered 'clubs'. So you may have a leg to stand on, but given above said cite what makes a business a public accommodation.
 
Last edited:

Ditty

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
7
Location
Catonsville, MD
As I see it, this is a slippery slope for the plaintiff. In all reality, one could make the agruement similar to above that any establishment that requires an entry fee to get in is a 'private club'. That being said, if the business owner wants to charge Purple People wearing cowboy hats half of regular price, then so be it. Also...This is a privately owned business correct? I'm about 99% sure that a private business owner can limit access to his business as he sees fit. I remember a guy from a LONG time ago who owned a performance car shop in CA. He had a small sign on the wall behind the main counter that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone without explaination." Very simple and LEGAL. (Dude HATED import cars and refused to work on 'em.) It's HIS right, as a business owner. I've seen him meet people at the door and tell them plainly, "I don't service your car. Leave." Did it piss people off? Yeah. Could they do anything about it? No.
This range owner is effectively doing the same thing. "One or two days out of the week I'm going to allow women in for free....just like the bar does down the street. This will drum up more male business.....just like at the bar, and I'll gain more regular business during the other days of the week." It's a pretty sound business plan and it has worked for eons! Plaintiff has no leg to stand on. No one's rights have been violated....just some one's feelings have been hurt. It's not illegal to hurt someone's feelings (not yet at least!).
 
Last edited:

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
As I see it, this is a slippery slope for the plaintiff. In all reality, one could make the agruement similar to above that any establishment that requires an entry fee to get in is a 'private club'.

Incorrect, A private club is defined as a "Club with Membership" aka Only people on this list can access the range and have to pay membership fees.

A range that is open to the public for public use is not a private club. If you provide a service to the public you are bound to the laws of the public.
 

MagiK_SacK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
257
Location
VA Beach, VA
Incorrect, A private club is defined as a "Club with Membership" aka Only people on this list can access the range and have to pay membership fees.

A range that is open to the public for public use is not a private club. If you provide a service to the public you are bound to the laws of the public.

Cite please
 

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
yes, I don't know if private club is legally defined. please site

An organization composed of people who voluntarily meet on a regular basis for a mutual purpose other than educational, religious, charitable, or financial pursuits. A club is any kind of group that has members who meet for a social, literary, or political purpose, such as health clubs, country clubs, book clubs, and women's associations. The term club is not a legal term per se, but a group that organizes itself as a club must comply with any laws governing its organization and otherwise be cognizant of the legal ramifications in undertaking to organize itself in this manner.

Various types of clubs exist. An incorporated members' club is composed of a group of individuals who each contribute to the club's funds, which are used to pay the expenses of conducting the society. An unincorporated proprietary club is one whose proprietor owns the property and funds and conducts the club to attempt to make a profit. The members are entitled to use the premises and property in exchange for the payment of entrance fees and subscriptions to the proprietor as well as any additional rights and privileges provided in their contractual agreement.

An incorporated club is generally governed by state statute. Many statutes provide for the incorporation of clubs, and the statutory requirements must be strictly observed. A statute may require that an application for incorporation state the purposes of the club in a definitive manner to help the court determine whether the objective of the club is legal. In addition, the application should state the manner in which club revenues are to be provided and the basis upon which an individual may become a member of the club.

A club's certificate of incorporation should indicate pecuniary means (i.e., funds, money, property), describe the objective of the club, and specify a place of business or office. If a club is unincorporated, the rules that govern associations apply.

Voluntary clubs are not partnerships, since the members do not join them for profit-making purposes and, unlike partners, are not responsible for the acts of each other. If a club's members do unite for a commercial venture, however, this association would constitute a partnership. In such cases, a club might be required to comply with state law governing partnerships.

Purpose and ObjectiveThe purpose and objective of a club must be in compliance with the law and in the best interests of the community, whether a club is incorporated or not. An application for a club charter will be denied if the proposed bylaws provide for illegal methods of management.

The Police Power of the state encompasses the supervision of amusements and thereby regulates clubs to make sure that the objectives of these organizations are lawful and that the organizations do not become harmful to society. Statutes may authorize the revocation of a club's charter if the club conducts unlawful activities.

Constitution and BylawsThe constitution and bylaws adopted by a club constitute a binding contract between the club and its members. There is a presumption that every member of the club is acquainted with its rules. The rules and bylaws of a club must provide for the selection of officers, handling of money or property, selection of members, and dissolution or disbanding of the club itself.

A club's rights and powers are usually governed by applicable statutes and the club's own charter, constitution, and bylaws. Clubs ordinarily have the power to acquire and convey real property, to hold real estate, and to obtain suitable buildings for their accommodation, as well as to borrow money for such purposes.

Private clubs have the right to Immunity from public interference, since public authorities have no power to interfere with a private club's festivities when they are organized for a legitimate purpose and do not constitute a breach of the peace.

LiabilitiesIf a contract is made by a club's duly authorized agent on its behalf, then the club will be liable under the contract. A membership corporation is subject to strictly limited powers and well-defined methods of procedure, and anyone dealing with such a club is deemed to know this information. Unincorporated clubs are not liable for members' debts.

Concerning liability to its members for torts, an incorporated club that has a clubhouse and is financed by membership dues is financially responsible for injuries due to its Negligence. Similarly, a club, whether incorporated or not, that maintains a clubhouse has a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for its members. It also has a duty to inform and warn guests of all dangers related to the enjoyment of club privileges, that are not immediately observable.

A club may have various responsibilities to nonmembers. For example, a hunting club may be required to carry insurance in case of an accidental injury within its boundaries. Similarly, a club owes invitees on club property the duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent them from being injured.

Protecting Civil RightsAlmost every organization that provides food, drink, lodging, or entertainment must obey the federal Civil Rights laws and any applicable state statutes. The federal laws are designed to protect all people from interference with their right to get a job or education, participate in government, and enjoy public accommodations.

Private membership clubs are exempted from these civil rights laws in order to preserve their rights to privacy and freedom of association. In attempting to determine whether an organization genuinely deserves private club status, courts have considered a number of factors, including the club's criteria for admission, membership fees, membership control over the

organization's operations, and use of facilities by nonmembers. Because the courts have applied these factors on a case-by-case basis, the results have been inconsistent. For example, recreational sports clubs such as golf, tennis, fishing and hunting, private dining, and swimming clubs have generally been found to provide public accommodations. Fraternal orders and lodges have proven to be more difficult to categorize. In four decisions dealing with these types of organizations, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of freedom of association and upheld the constitutionality of state statutes designed to keep private clubs from discriminating.

The Jaycees In the first case, roberts v. united states jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a state public accommodations law that had been applied to a private club. The club, the U.S. Jaycees, a major national and international civic organization, had been ordered by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights to accept women as full members. The Court rejected the Jaycees' argument that this order violated its constitutional rights. In its decision, the Court identified two distinct types of protected associations: intimate associations and expressive associations.

According to the Court, intimate associations, such as families, are distinguished by "relative smallness, a high degree of selectivity in decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion from others in critical aspects of the relationship." Such associations are always subject to protection, the Court said, whereas large business enterprises are not. Private clubs such as the Jaycees fall somewhere in between the two. According to the Court, factors that may be relevant in determining whether a particular organization is an intimate association include "size, purpose, policies, selectivity, [and] congeniality."

The Court concluded that the Jaycees is not subject to protection as an intimate association because its chapters are large and unselective. With regard to the Jaycees' rights as an expressive association, the Court acknowledged that the organization has the right to associate with others for political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural purposes. However, the Court held that this right may be infringed by compelling state interests such as the desire to eliminate Sex Discrimination. The Court concluded that Minnesota had such a compelling interest in ensuring women equal access to the leadership skills, business contacts, and employment promotions offered by the Jaycees.

Rotary Clubs Three years after Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Board of Directors v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987). This case involved the application of the Unruh civil rights act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51 [West 1996]), a California statute that prohibits gender discrimination by all "business establishments," to Rotary clubs. The Rotary is a major national and international service club. The Supreme Court held that application of the act to require the Rotary to admit women as members did not violate the club's First Amendment right to intimate or expressive association. The Court pointed out that Rotary chapters range in size from 20 to more than nine hundred members, the organization has a high dropout rate, and many club activities are carried out in the presence of visitors. In finding that application of the Unruh Act would not interfere significantly with the Rotary's right to expressive association, the Court stated, "Indeed, by opening membership to leading business and professional women in the community, Rotary Clubs are likely to obtain a more representative cross section of community leaders with a broadened capacity for service."

New York Clubs In 1988, in New York State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988), an association of 125 private clubs challenged the constitutionality of a New York City public accommodations ordinance that prevents discrimination. The ordinance, Local Law No. 63 of 1984, exempts clubs that are "distinctly private" in nature, specifically excluding from that status any club that has more than four hundred members, serves meals on a regular basis, and receives payments directly or indirectly from nonmembers in the pursuit of business. The Court rejected the clubs' challenge to the ordinance, finding that the law could be validly applied.

In this case, the Court went beyond its decisions in Roberts and Rotary by approving a statutory presumption that large clubs that serve food and receive payments from nonmembers are not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court emphasized the fact that significant commerce occurs at most of the clubs and that "business deals are often made and personal contacts valuable for business purposes, employment and professional advancement are formed." Such characteristics, according to the Court, are significant in determining the nonprivate nature of clubs. The law upheld by the Court in this case narrowed the definition of a private club in order to remedy a situation deemed inappropriate by a legislative body.

Boy Scouts of America The Supreme Court clarified its position on the reach of civil rights laws in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). The Court, in a 5–4 decision, held that forcing the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to accept gay troop leaders would violate its rights of free expression and free association under the First Amendment. The BSA is a private association and therefore was not subject to state and federal public accommodation laws.

The Supreme Court tied this ruling to its previous decision in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995). In Hurley, the Court ruled that the sponsor of Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade could not be forced to let a group of gays and lesbians participate. The Court held that parades are a form of expression and that the sponsors could not be forced to include "a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey."
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
The man is guilty of nothing. He did not refuse service to anyone. End of discussion.

He can charge or discount to any group he chooses. If he gives a discount to seniors, that's legal as well. It's a private business. This is no different than a restaurant having a "no shirt, no shoes, no service policy."

His house, his rules.

Exactly right. As long as he is not denying service based on a protected class violation he is doing nothing wrong (and I don't even agree with the government making a business allow people in they don't want to because they are "PROTECTED"). Can anyone here give one example of case law where someone has lost a lawsuit because they allowed ladies to get in free at a business and charged men? Or any other combination with the same logistics? The owner did nothing wrong, and he did not violate anyone's Constitutional rights or any law. This is completely repugnant to the Constitution anyways. Anyone that thinks the government has the ability to say who or what a private business owner allows into his business does not believe in freedom. This is America, and in America we are SUPPOSED to be FREE to make our own decisions concerning our own property. Only in some country ran by socialist policies would things like this be allowed, and this is exactly what our country is turning into. There are thousands of businesses across this country that allow women in free, or give seniors discounts and not others. This is a sad day in America when someone would sue a business over something so incredibly foolish. I hope this case is assigned to a judge who understands how ignorant this is and dismisses the case. He was NOT prohibiting entrance, therefore he did nothing wrong by our INSANE laws of this day.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
An organization composed of people who voluntarily meet on a regular basis for a mutual purpose other than educational, religious, charitable, or financial pursuits. A club is any kind of group that has members who meet for a social, literary, or political purpose, such as health clubs, country clubs, book clubs, and women's associations. The term club is not a legal term per se, but a group that organizes itself as a club must comply with any laws governing its organization and otherwise be cognizant of the legal ramifications in undertaking to organize itself in this manner.

Various types of clubs exist. An incorporated members' club is composed of a group of individuals who each contribute to the club's funds, which are used to pay the expenses of conducting the society. An unincorporated proprietary club is one whose proprietor owns the property and funds and conducts the club to attempt to make a profit. The members are entitled to use the premises and property in exchange for the payment of entrance fees and subscriptions to the proprietor as well as any additional rights and privileges provided in their contractual agreement.

An incorporated club is generally governed by state statute. Many statutes provide for the incorporation of clubs, and the statutory requirements must be strictly observed. A statute may require that an application for incorporation state the purposes of the club in a definitive manner to help the court determine whether the objective of the club is legal. In addition, the application should state the manner in which club revenues are to be provided and the basis upon which an individual may become a member of the club.

A club's certificate of incorporation should indicate pecuniary means (i.e., funds, money, property), describe the objective of the club, and specify a place of business or office. If a club is unincorporated, the rules that govern associations apply.

Voluntary clubs are not partnerships, since the members do not join them for profit-making purposes and, unlike partners, are not responsible for the acts of each other. If a club's members do unite for a commercial venture, however, this association would constitute a partnership. In such cases, a club might be required to comply with state law governing partnerships.

Purpose and ObjectiveThe purpose and objective of a club must be in compliance with the law and in the best interests of the community, whether a club is incorporated or not. An application for a club charter will be denied if the proposed bylaws provide for illegal methods of management.

The Police Power of the state encompasses the supervision of amusements and thereby regulates clubs to make sure that the objectives of these organizations are lawful and that the organizations do not become harmful to society. Statutes may authorize the revocation of a club's charter if the club conducts unlawful activities.

Constitution and BylawsThe constitution and bylaws adopted by a club constitute a binding contract between the club and its members. There is a presumption that every member of the club is acquainted with its rules. The rules and bylaws of a club must provide for the selection of officers, handling of money or property, selection of members, and dissolution or disbanding of the club itself.

A club's rights and powers are usually governed by applicable statutes and the club's own charter, constitution, and bylaws. Clubs ordinarily have the power to acquire and convey real property, to hold real estate, and to obtain suitable buildings for their accommodation, as well as to borrow money for such purposes.

Private clubs have the right to Immunity from public interference, since public authorities have no power to interfere with a private club's festivities when they are organized for a legitimate purpose and do not constitute a breach of the peace.

LiabilitiesIf a contract is made by a club's duly authorized agent on its behalf, then the club will be liable under the contract. A membership corporation is subject to strictly limited powers and well-defined methods of procedure, and anyone dealing with such a club is deemed to know this information. Unincorporated clubs are not liable for members' debts.

Concerning liability to its members for torts, an incorporated club that has a clubhouse and is financed by membership dues is financially responsible for injuries due to its Negligence. Similarly, a club, whether incorporated or not, that maintains a clubhouse has a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for its members. It also has a duty to inform and warn guests of all dangers related to the enjoyment of club privileges, that are not immediately observable.

A club may have various responsibilities to nonmembers. For example, a hunting club may be required to carry insurance in case of an accidental injury within its boundaries. Similarly, a club owes invitees on club property the duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent them from being injured.

Protecting Civil RightsAlmost every organization that provides food, drink, lodging, or entertainment must obey the federal Civil Rights laws and any applicable state statutes. The federal laws are designed to protect all people from interference with their right to get a job or education, participate in government, and enjoy public accommodations.

Private membership clubs are exempted from these civil rights laws in order to preserve their rights to privacy and freedom of association. In attempting to determine whether an organization genuinely deserves private club status, courts have considered a number of factors, including the club's criteria for admission, membership fees, membership control over the

organization's operations, and use of facilities by nonmembers. Because the courts have applied these factors on a case-by-case basis, the results have been inconsistent. For example, recreational sports clubs such as golf, tennis, fishing and hunting, private dining, and swimming clubs have generally been found to provide public accommodations. Fraternal orders and lodges have proven to be more difficult to categorize. In four decisions dealing with these types of organizations, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of freedom of association and upheld the constitutionality of state statutes designed to keep private clubs from discriminating.

The Jaycees In the first case, roberts v. united states jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a state public accommodations law that had been applied to a private club. The club, the U.S. Jaycees, a major national and international civic organization, had been ordered by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights to accept women as full members. The Court rejected the Jaycees' argument that this order violated its constitutional rights. In its decision, the Court identified two distinct types of protected associations: intimate associations and expressive associations.

According to the Court, intimate associations, such as families, are distinguished by "relative smallness, a high degree of selectivity in decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion from others in critical aspects of the relationship." Such associations are always subject to protection, the Court said, whereas large business enterprises are not. Private clubs such as the Jaycees fall somewhere in between the two. According to the Court, factors that may be relevant in determining whether a particular organization is an intimate association include "size, purpose, policies, selectivity, [and] congeniality."

The Court concluded that the Jaycees is not subject to protection as an intimate association because its chapters are large and unselective. With regard to the Jaycees' rights as an expressive association, the Court acknowledged that the organization has the right to associate with others for political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural purposes. However, the Court held that this right may be infringed by compelling state interests such as the desire to eliminate Sex Discrimination. The Court concluded that Minnesota had such a compelling interest in ensuring women equal access to the leadership skills, business contacts, and employment promotions offered by the Jaycees.

Rotary Clubs Three years after Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Board of Directors v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987). This case involved the application of the Unruh civil rights act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51 [West 1996]), a California statute that prohibits gender discrimination by all "business establishments," to Rotary clubs. The Rotary is a major national and international service club. The Supreme Court held that application of the act to require the Rotary to admit women as members did not violate the club's First Amendment right to intimate or expressive association. The Court pointed out that Rotary chapters range in size from 20 to more than nine hundred members, the organization has a high dropout rate, and many club activities are carried out in the presence of visitors. In finding that application of the Unruh Act would not interfere significantly with the Rotary's right to expressive association, the Court stated, "Indeed, by opening membership to leading business and professional women in the community, Rotary Clubs are likely to obtain a more representative cross section of community leaders with a broadened capacity for service."

New York Clubs In 1988, in New York State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988), an association of 125 private clubs challenged the constitutionality of a New York City public accommodations ordinance that prevents discrimination. The ordinance, Local Law No. 63 of 1984, exempts clubs that are "distinctly private" in nature, specifically excluding from that status any club that has more than four hundred members, serves meals on a regular basis, and receives payments directly or indirectly from nonmembers in the pursuit of business. The Court rejected the clubs' challenge to the ordinance, finding that the law could be validly applied.

In this case, the Court went beyond its decisions in Roberts and Rotary by approving a statutory presumption that large clubs that serve food and receive payments from nonmembers are not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court emphasized the fact that significant commerce occurs at most of the clubs and that "business deals are often made and personal contacts valuable for business purposes, employment and professional advancement are formed." Such characteristics, according to the Court, are significant in determining the nonprivate nature of clubs. The law upheld by the Court in this case narrowed the definition of a private club in order to remedy a situation deemed inappropriate by a legislative body.

Boy Scouts of America The Supreme Court clarified its position on the reach of civil rights laws in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). The Court, in a 5–4 decision, held that forcing the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to accept gay troop leaders would violate its rights of free expression and free association under the First Amendment. The BSA is a private association and therefore was not subject to state and federal public accommodation laws.

The Supreme Court tied this ruling to its previous decision in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995). In Hurley, the Court ruled that the sponsor of Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade could not be forced to let a group of gays and lesbians participate. The Court held that parades are a form of expression and that the sponsors could not be forced to include "a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey."

All of these pertain to whether or not a certain group of people can be denied membership. This man did not deny anything to anyone. The only thing he did was allow ladies in for free; everyone else could still come in, they just had to pay.

If the owner wanted to widen his customer base by allowing ladies to try out the services for free there is nothing wrong with him doing so. This is foolish.
 
Last edited:

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
All of these pertain to whether or not a certain group of people can be denied membership. This man did not deny anything to anyone. The only thing he did was allow ladies in for free; everyone else could still come in, they just had to pay.

If the owner wanted to widen his customer base by allowing ladies to try out the services for free there is nothing wrong with him doing so. This is foolish.

Maybe User can chime in here and give a perspective from an experienced litigator standpoint.

I and many others feel that it is sexual discrimination, if he wanted to drum up business then hand out coupons / fliers that provide the access to a free/25/50% off day to the range to both sexes.

Seniors are a moot point, as it does not discriminate to either sex. if you are above the age of the business considers "Senior" usually 55+ it applies to you.

But I will concede here as its really going to turn into a chest beating exhibition.
 
Top