- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,224
- Reaction score
- 10,762
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Actually , Country clubs are for profit though - No.
If you were to research it most true "country clubs" are organized under the provisions of IRS Code 501 as "non-profit". They have membership requirements, they do not operate "for profit" (which doesn't mean they don't have or handle large assets or cash), they are not mananged by an "owner" for that owners profit - they have elected Boards of Directors by the membership, their funds are not controlled for the profit of an owner - they are managed by finanical representatives selected by the Board and through membership.
There are many "country clubs" though incorporated under general for profit provisions (there was one near where I grew up). They were owned and operated by a family. Anyone could walkup pay green fees and play. You could buy a "membership" which allowed you unlimited rounds of golf and the ability to reserve Tee Times and the attached restruaunt was open to the public. As such they would have not qualified as a "private club" for Public Accommodation purposes.
You are asking what the law should be, I'm discussion the law as it is. Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws in general as applied to private entities, Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. But that is a different discussion.
The elected Representatives of the Legislatures and the Congress have passed such laws and they have been upheld through state judicial review up to and include State Supreme Courts as a valid function of State governments to regulate commerce within their States under the 10th Amendment and Federal Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Just say'n that a for profit bakery owned and operated for the profit of the owners isn't likely to succeed trying to claim "private club" status under the legal definitions and applications of "private club". They could try, and some have, but the only people that normally end up happy with the results are the lawyers for the individual trying to get special privileges to evade discrimination laws.
And as noted in the link I provided, private clubs created for the purpose of evading anti-discrimination laws will not normally be recognized as exempt from the law. Take the BSA for example - truly a non-profit organization (even though it is large), organized and run by it's members, managed through an elected Board of Directors - and recognized as a "private club" if you will and not subject to anti-discrimination laws (SCOTUS case). They can keep out Atheists and gays all they want.
>>>>
Country clubs are for profit though, yes?
Actually , Country clubs are for profit though - No.
If you were to research it most true "country clubs" are organized under the provisions of IRS Code 501 as "non-profit". They have membership requirements, they do not operate "for profit" (which doesn't mean they don't have or handle large assets or cash), they are not mananged by an "owner" for that owners profit - they have elected Boards of Directors by the membership, their funds are not controlled for the profit of an owner - they are managed by finanical representatives selected by the Board and through membership.
There are many "country clubs" though incorporated under general for profit provisions (there was one near where I grew up). They were owned and operated by a family. Anyone could walkup pay green fees and play. You could buy a "membership" which allowed you unlimited rounds of golf and the ability to reserve Tee Times and the attached restruaunt was open to the public. As such they would have not qualified as a "private club" for Public Accommodation purposes.
So there can't be a bakery called Resurrection Loaf or Jesus has Risen that had strict membership regulations that are staunchly enforced? If not, why can other businesses or private clubs discriminate?
You are asking what the law should be, I'm discussion the law as it is. Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws in general as applied to private entities, Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. But that is a different discussion.
The elected Representatives of the Legislatures and the Congress have passed such laws and they have been upheld through state judicial review up to and include State Supreme Courts as a valid function of State governments to regulate commerce within their States under the 10th Amendment and Federal Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the SCOTUS.
Just say'n that a for profit bakery owned and operated for the profit of the owners isn't likely to succeed trying to claim "private club" status under the legal definitions and applications of "private club". They could try, and some have, but the only people that normally end up happy with the results are the lawyers for the individual trying to get special privileges to evade discrimination laws.
And as noted in the link I provided, private clubs created for the purpose of evading anti-discrimination laws will not normally be recognized as exempt from the law. Take the BSA for example - truly a non-profit organization (even though it is large), organized and run by it's members, managed through an elected Board of Directors - and recognized as a "private club" if you will and not subject to anti-discrimination laws (SCOTUS case). They can keep out Atheists and gays all they want.
>>>>
Last edited: