Court Orders Men's Club to Allow Women...?

Z

Zedicus

New member
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125309,00.html

What's next?, Allowing Women into the Mens Restroom's because some Feminist thinks that Men having any place only they can go is Infringeing on Her Rights?

IF a Guy was to try any of this on Women only places He would be called a Pervert & The case would be Thrown Out!...

Gotta love all of the Double Standards we have eh? Makes you wonder what some people are putting in ther coffee.... :rolleyes:
 
IF a Guy was to try any of this on Women only places He would be called a Pervert & The case would be Thrown Out!...
Click to expand...
A few years back, a guy sued Hooters for not hiring him as a waitress.
 
a NON-issue,

despite your attempts to make it one. Check the facts:

"Prohibiting women from a public dining area is unconstitutional, the court ruled, whether or not there's a locker-room atmosphere inside."

What part of "PUBLIC" don't you comprehend?

"On top of that, wearing towels or birthday suits goes against the country club's dress code that requires "casual but appropriate attire" in dining areas"

Meaning the club was not even enforcing its own rules. What a tempest in a testosterone teapot...... :rolleyes:
 
Number 6, so you are saying that you agree that the government can come along and declare private property and private business's "PUBLIC" just because they allow some of the public on their property?

No wonder our rights are being sucked away!!!
 
http://www.southern-trace.com/index.htm

According to the website, the Southern Trace Country Club is a private club, membership is by Invitation Only, and I'm guessing that not only do you have to get invited in, but a stiff membership fee is probably required on a yearly basis.

Last I checked, in order for something to be 'public' - such as a 'public dining area' - the public or a substantial portion of the public had to have access to the area.

A restricted membership, particularly one involving large amount of money, means that (technically, legally speaking) no part of this private club is a public area.

If the ladies were upset because one of the three dining areas was off-limits to them because of a pack of nekkid guys, the proper legal response would be to take up their concerns with the membership, and if that didn't resolve the issue, for the ladies in question to simply not renew their memberships and to take their membership money elsewhere.

LawDog
 
On top of that, wearing towels or birthday suits goes against the country club's dress code that requires "casual but appropriate attire" in dining areas, the court decided.
Click to expand...

This part really bothers me.

It is not the place, nor the function nor duty of the government to enforce the dress code of a private club.

Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

If the Louisiana Supreme Court doesn't have anything more pressing on its docket than whether or not a private club is enforcing a dress code, then I suggest that the Louisana Supreme Court be dissolved and save the Lousiana taxpayers some money.

If the State can decide that a private club is violating its own dress code, then it isn't far away from the State deciding to enforce the dress code.

And the day that an arrest warrant crosses my desk because a member of a private club decided to dine au natural in violation of the dress code of the private club -- that, ladies and gentlemen, is the day somebody is going to get punched in the mouth.

LawDog
 
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)

PUBLIC - By the term the public, is meant the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; sometimes it signifies the inhabitants of a particular place; as, the New York public.

A distinction has been made between the terms public and general, they are sometimes used as synonymous. The former term is applied strictly to that which concerns all the citizens and every member of the state; while the latter includes a lesser, though still a large portion of the community.

When the public interests and its rights conflict with those of an individual, the latter must yield. if, for example, a road is required for public convenience, and in its course it passes on the ground occupied by a house, the latter must be torn down, however valuable it may be to the owner. In such a case both law and justice require that the owner shall be fully indemnified.

This term is sometimes joined to other terms, to designate those things which have a relation to the public; as, a public officer, a public road, a public passage, a public house.
Click to expand...

LawDog wrote:
Last I checked, in order for something to be 'public' - such as a 'public dining area' - the public or a substantial portion of the public had to have access to the area.
Click to expand...

The problem nowadays, is that legislatures have routinely co-opted the term to mean any place where the general public is invited (see that last paragraph in the definition). And "invitation" can and has been limited to a few, not a "substantial portion." Even so, it is the erosion of the other term, "private" that is at work here.

When the State is allowed to redefine the terms of public and private places, the individual loses his rights to his property. Thus, the State may regulate such "public" places without regard as to the actuality of private ownership. So that while I generally agree with LawDog, I also disagree with his definition of "public." The distance between LawDogs definition and that used by the Louisiana Supreme Court is not as far removed as it would first appear.

Hence, "private club" no longer means private but public.
 
Y'know, I just don't understand it. Down in town there's a very successful franchise called Curves for women, a women-only exercise club. Apparently that breaks no laws and requires no legal adjudication.

People are funny.

pax
 
Help me out with this . I was told some time back that private property does not always mean "private". Example : You own a lot on the corner . People have been walking across your lot for years as a shorter way of getting to Bubbas' Burger Barn or some other place . I was told that after a period of time you MUST allow this . I know people that buy large pieces of land in the desert are at war with dirt bikers that have been going across that piece of ground "forever".
 
No private party in the United States "owns" land.
You either rent it from the government (if you pay taxes every year on it), or you are temporarily in possession of it until the goverment decides it wants it or needs it for whatever reason. Maybe to preserve a habitat, to build a road, to bring in a business that will pay them more than you do, to sell the mineral/water/whatever rights or whatever else they decide.

I guess I'm not sure why there's such a fuss about this. The court has decided to enforce some arbitrary rules on another piece of government-owned property.

"Private property" indeed. :rolleyes:
 
When the public interests and its rights conflict with those of an individual, the latter must yield. if, for example, a road is required for public convenience, and in its course it passes on the ground occupied by a house, the latter must be torn down, however valuable it may be to the owner. In such a case both law and justice require that the owner shall be fully indemnified.
Click to expand...
I don't accept this. Individuals have rights, not a nebulous "public interest." The above sounds like it came from Robespierre via Marx.
 
I don't accept this. Individuals have rights, not a nebulous "public interest." The above sounds like it came from Robespierre via Marx.
Click to expand...

Accept it or not, but it's part of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution! :eek:
 
They should just make it a Males Members Only club, have applications for membership charge a meal or two a month for membership, There are plenty of Male Members clubs in the U.S an the gov' t can't say any thing about. women have there little secret stuff, we need ours as well. Women go into our gentlemens clubs and 90% don't like girls in that fashion and the only men you see in a Female's stip club are the ones that like males. SO LADIES GIVE US OUR SPACE BECAUSE WE DEFFINETLY GIVE YOU, YOURS. :mad:
 
Cactus, you either mis-read Destructo, or the 5th!
Click to expand...

I understood Destructo to say that the government didn't have a right to take private property for a public interest. I may have misunderstood him, and he can correct me if I have, but my reading of the 5th Amendment is spot on.

Amendment V

...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

This is the legal and constitutional authority for "imminant domain" and has always been upheld by the courts (when used as intended) since the beginning of the Republic. There are recent incidences where localities have misused (IMO) imminant domain to attempt to take private property to give to private business' that the localities say will benefit the public. This is in total contradiction to what the founders intended, in my opinion.

If it weren't for the laws regarding imminant domain, it would be impossible for the government to construct highways (interstate commerce), military bases (defense), etc. needed to meet it's constitutional mandate.
 
Cactus has it.

The fifth says the government owns everything. More accurately, can buy anything they want at whatever compensation they decide is "just".

No need to get angry that the gov't is telling you what to do - you're doing it on their property and you should be thankful they haven't taken yours yet.
 
The fifth says the government owns everything. More accurately, can buy anything they want at whatever compensation they decide is "just".
Click to expand...

That statement contradicts itself! If the government owned "everything", they wouldn't need to buy "anything they want", they would just take it.

And the government doesn't decide what compensation is just. The property must be appraised by an independant appraiser and the government must pay the appraised value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top