//http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/atheist_group_settles_landmark_discrimination_case_with_michigan_country_cl/
QuotePlaintiff Calls Settlement "Unqualified Vindication" for Nonbelievers' Rights
A Michigan country club that cancelled an event by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), allegedly because of the speaker's and attendees' atheism, has agreed to a settlement in the case brought against it, marking perhaps the first time federal and state civil rights statutes have been successfully invoked by nonbelievers in a public accommodations lawsuit.
In April of last year, the Center for Inquiry, an organization advocating for science, reason, and secular values, brought suit against the Wyndgate Country Club of Rochester Hills, Michigan for violation of both the federal and state civil rights laws, as well as breach of contract, after it cancelled an October, 2011 CFI-Michigan event featuring famous atheist Richard Dawkins. The club tried to justify breaking its contract by stating that "the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies." The club's representative specifically cited a concern over Dawkins' appearance on The O'Reilly Factor a few days before, in which Dawkins' atheism was the chief topic.
"We're very pleased with the outcome of this case, which we regard as an unqualified vindication of the rights of nonbelievers," said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. "We are confident it will send a strong message that as much as this country now rejects discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and religion, so must we reject just as strongly discrimination against those with no religion."
As part of this settlement, the Wyndgate has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the Center for Inquiry.
"Of course the majority of businesses welcome the patronage of nonbelievers as much as anyone else," added Lindsay, "but if one should choose to prejudicially exclude us because of our lack of religious belief, we have shown that there will be consequences."
CFI was represented in this lawsuit by the Royal Oak, Michigan law firm of Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Rivers & Golden, P.C. CFI is grateful for their able assistance in this case.
* * *
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization headquartered in Amherst, New York, with executive offices in Washington, D.C. It is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI's web address is www.centerforinquiry.net (http://www.centerforinquiry.net).
Good to know that this actually works.
I heard about that, good for them.
That's good to hear.
Excellent news! Christians are slowly learning that they can't expect to be treated in a non-discriminatory way if they don't want to return the favor. "Treat others as you want to be treated," and all that. Or is that another of Jesus' teachings that they can safely ignore?
Quote from: "ApostateLois"Excellent news! Christians are slowly learning that they can't expect to be treated in a non-discriminatory way if they don't want to return the favor. "Treat others as you want to be treated," and all that. Or is that another of Jesus' teachings that they can safely ignore?
The test for this is actually quite simple. Do you WANT Jesus to want you to ignore it? Then he does! Or do you WANT Jesus to think it very important? Then he does! He pretty much believes whatever you want him to.
Quote"...the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies."
That's fine. He can just
associate a shit load of his club's money to them, then. Cool?
Not in favor! They should be allowed to not serve atheists.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Not in favor! They should be allowed to not serve atheists.
How many places would atheists not be allowed then? Should business not be allowed to served Christians too? Muslims? Should I be allowed to hang a sign in my business window saying "No Jews"? Would it be all right if I specified that I meant nobody of the Jewish faith, but those of Jewish nationality were welcome? I completely disagree with your assessment.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Not in favor! They should be allowed to not serve atheists.
Quote...Wyndgate Country Club of Rochester Hills, Michigan [violated] both the federal and state civil rights laws, as well as breach of contract...
The law's against you. Sorry.
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "commonsense822"Not in favor! They should be allowed to not serve atheists.
How many places would atheists not be allowed then? Should business not be allowed to served Christians too? Muslims? Should I be allowed to hang a sign in my business window saying "No Jews"? Would it be all right if I specified that I meant nobody of the Jewish faith, but those of Jewish nationality were welcome? I completely disagree with your assessment.
Yes. If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to. There will be implications for such decisions though.
For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service. I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews. Let the market sort them out.
Quote from: "Sleeper"The law's against you. Sorry.
Say that to the Boy Scouts of America. Have you tried joining them lately? I'm pretty sure the law is on their side. There are keywords in this article that are important. First off, they did not go through the court system. They settled. Big difference legally. It said that they were sued for violating federal and state civil rights laws but it didn't say they were found guilty of violating them. When you settle you make no legal precedent, you settle outside the court system.
And they most likely settled not for fear of those civil rights laws, but more importantly probably because of the breach of contract they had. The same laws that protect the BSA protects this golf course.
I agree with your free market attitude, but it wasn't a "Hey can we have a conference here?" "Nah," situation. If it was then you'd be right, they have every right to deny whoever they wish - they are a private club. But to agree (even read and sign a contract) then say "Nah, because we don't like your personal convictions," is a different story. The CFI probably made a lot of time and energy consuming and expensive plans, not to mention the plans and money of the attendees. If it were a Christian group god-blocked by atheists I'd feel the same way.
Bazinga!
Quote from: "commonsense822"Say that to the Boy Scouts of America. Have you tried joining them lately? I'm pretty sure the law is on their side.
Apples to oranges. The Civil Rights Act offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation but it does protect against discrimination based on religion.
Stores being allowed to deny service like that sounds like a dangerous precedent. Certain groups of people (atheists included) are having a hard enough as is dealing with life in religious cities. Imagine if every small store there denied you service for your beliefs in addition to all the other crap you get.
It's nice if the market sorts in out, but in practice you'll run into the opposite situation, where the locals go "deny him service or we'll go someplace else" and then the market favors denying service to certain groups instead of the other way around.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "commonsense822"Say that to the Boy Scouts of America. Have you tried joining them lately? I'm pretty sure the law is on their side.
Apples to oranges. The Civil Rights Act offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation but it does protect against discrimination based on religion.
Not to play devil's advocate here, but the Boy Scouts also don't allow atheists. The difference is that they are afforded certain protections because they are a religious organization, bought and paid for by the Baptists many years ago. It has nothing to do with the type of discrimination.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Yes. If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to. There will be implications for such decisions though.
For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service. I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews. Let the market sort them out.
Yeah, that doesn't work. Ever heard of the '60s? There is a reason we have laws preventing discrimination. If the market could "sort them out" then we would not need or have these laws.
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "commonsense822"Yes. If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to. There will be implications for such decisions though.
For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service. I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews. Let the market sort them out.
Yeah, that doesn't work. Ever heard of the '60s? There is a reason we have laws preventing discrimination. If the market could "sort them out" then we would not need or have these laws.
I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason. And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market. For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.
That's because they made their stance known to the wrong public. The public at large contains large numbers of liberals, and you can't pull something like that.
Now a set of small stores in religious territory on the other hand, could very easily do that and get away with it. You wouldn't want to be gay and/or atheist in such a place if shop owners could deny you service, you might as well move immediately since you won't be able to buy a thing from any store in the area as soon as people find out.
You very much should force official businesses to sell stuff to people, otherwise being a minority in a religious area is pretty much suicide.
Quote from: "commonsense822"I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason. And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market. For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.
Well the thing is, any business owner can in fact deny service to anyone they want. They just can't make their reasons known to others if said reasons happen to fall into a category that is protected by law.
I can choose to not hire or sell my product to you simply because I don't like you and/or your attitude. Perfectly legal. But the moment I decide not to hire or sell to you because of your race religion or gender AND also decide to tell someone else the actual reason, I open myself up to a discrimination lawsuit. Keep it inside your own brain and ONLY inside your own brain and it all good. Speak the words to someone else, anyone else, and its a lawsuit in the making. And that's the problem in cases like this. People are inherently too chatty for their own good and simply can't keep their meat holes shut.
Quote from: "commonsense822"For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.
Yeah, greatly increased sales and a now devoted fan base of wingnuts. What a tragedy for him.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "commonsense822"Say that to the Boy Scouts of America. Have you tried joining them lately? I'm pretty sure the law is on their side.
Apples to oranges. The Civil Rights Act offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation but it does protect against discrimination based on religion.
The Civil Rights Act can be applied to any protected classes. These protected classes do indeed include sexual orientation in some parts of the country.
That said, Article II did exempt private clubs.
I agree with Johan's assessment, that this was settled out of court for a clear breach of contract, and that this is not a victory for equality.
Quote from: "commonsense822"I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason. And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market. For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.
I'm going to have to continue to disagree. I don't think businesses should be able to hang "No niggers" signs in their windows. Maybe it's just me.
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "commonsense822"Yes. If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to. There will be implications for such decisions though.
For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service. I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews. Let the market sort them out.
Yeah, that doesn't work. Ever heard of the '60s? There is a reason we have laws preventing discrimination. If the market could "sort them out" then we would not need or have these laws.
Ever hear of Jim Crow? They needed laws to
keep the market from sorting it out. Civil Rights laws certainly reduced the damage the previous laws had inflicted faster than waiting for nature to take its course would have, though.
However, if you break a contract because it took you awhile to figure out you don't agree with the group even though it doesn't conceal it, you're rightfully liable for any damages caused to the group, for instance, in terms of wasted time and money. NAMBLA could probably win that case if they didn't take any special steps to keep the club from knowing what kind of organization they were agreeing to host.
The BSA isn't legally required to let in atheists or gays, but if they agreed to host a FFRF event and backed out, they'd be liable. Conversely, the BSA may have a case (should they choose to pursue it) against performers who back out of their events because 'they just found out' the BSA discriminates against gay scouts.
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "commonsense822"I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason. And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market. For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.
I'm going to have to continue to disagree. I don't think businesses should be able to hang "No niggers" signs in their windows. Maybe it's just me.
And especially in the case of places of public accommodation (restaurants, hotels, theaters, and the like), the law is crystal clear that race and religion can't be a consideration for service. There was a fairly recent case where a restaurant owner offered discounts to people who came to her place after church with a church program to show they attended. That caused a lot of trouble for her, even though the atheist who complained didn't even live nearby.
They broke a signed contractual agreement, ergo legal penalties were justified.
And comparing the Boy Scouts, a religious organization by and for relijubs, to this is a rather... odd comparison. It would be like comparing this to a physically non-handicapped person being denied entrance to a, say, basketball league for parapalegics. It's an intrisic no-no. Denying business to people simply because you don't like some aspect of them is both stupid and, if voiced, legal suicide.
Not that this was a victory for equality for unbelievers, mind you.
I imagine any business hanging a "no niggers" sign in its window would lose a shit-ton of business, my own included if relevant.
I agree with commonsense that I'd prefer to see the market handle this. But I think the point about being shut out of services in a tiny market is fair, too. It seems to me the real question becomes, then, how much government regulation of a private business should we tolerate? Should a barbershop catering to blacks in Atlanta, say, be required to serve a KKK member? Should the American Atheists (//http://atheists.org/) be required to extend membership to vocal Christians?
Myself, I'd rather the government not regulate memberships and business relationships, except insofar as public health and safety are concerned.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Ever hear of Jim Crow? They needed laws to keep the market from sorting it out. Civil Rights laws certainly reduced the damage the previous laws had inflicted faster than waiting for nature to take its course would have, though.
"Jim Crow" was a series of public laws, as well as private business policies, that was dismantled. The CRA 1965 dismantled the laws. It obviously hasn't dismantled racism, in large part because it regulates government actions, not those of private organizations.
QuoteI agree with commonsense that I'd prefer to see the market handle this. But I think the point about being shut out of services in a tiny market is fair, too. It seems to me the real question becomes, then, how much government regulation of a private business should we tolerate? Should a barbershop catering to blacks in Atlanta, say, be required to serve a KKK member? Should the American Atheists be required to extend membership to vocal Christians?
I'd cut the distinction based on the goal of the organisation. Is it to sell stuff? No exclusions. That means yes, a barber in Atlanta catering to blacks should serve a KKK member. Of course, he'll get cut like a black man, but that's his own choice.
Is it to group together people with a common interest? Then they can exclude, as long as they're fair about it. American Atheists banning non-atheists? Fine. American Atheists banning black people? Not fine. American White Atheists banning black people and non-atheists? Also fine.
Boy scouts banning gay people? Pushing it, but to be honest I think it's their call. I'd be glad if they'd stop, but I think they have the final say in the matter. Same for banning atheists. While I don't see the neccesity to base the boyscouts on faith and christianity, if that's what they want to do, that's what they can do.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Ever hear of Jim Crow? They needed laws to keep the market from sorting it out. Civil Rights laws certainly reduced the damage the previous laws had inflicted faster than waiting for nature to take its course would have, though.
"I'm denying business to you because I don't like your atheism," is
not a free market action, though, because an atheist's money is just as green as a theist's. It makes no market sense to deny someone business just because they're atheist. Just because you have a general "right" to deny business to a person does not mean that you have that right under every specific circumstance — that's called "destroying the exception."
And you even admit that the Civil Rights laws rectified the situation faster than the market could, which means we cut out maybe generations of people suffering under the previous discrimination while the market sorted itself out, so what's the damn problem?
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, though.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I imagine any business hanging a "no niggers" sign in its window would lose a shit-ton of business, my own included if relevant.
Maybe, today. What about decades ago? It used to happen. You seem to be forgetting that the reason we even have these laws is because "free market" didn't work in the very case you're arguing free market for. So your argument seems to be, "Yeah, but NOW it will work!" History is 100% against you on this one. It doesn't matter how things will go "now", after decades of forced equal treatment have softened the people to equality. The fact is that the free market approach to equality did not, thus, does not work.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I agree with commonsense that I'd prefer to see the market handle this.
Calling something "common sense" does not turn it into "common sense", especially when I can, and have, specifically named historical instances within living memory where this approach
did not work. It leads to double standards and second class citizens. How is it "common sense" when history plainly and clearly says exactly the opposite of your claim?
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But I think the point about being shut out of services in a tiny market is fair, too. It seems to me the real question becomes, then, how much government regulation of a private business should we tolerate? Should a barbershop catering to blacks in Atlanta, say, be required to serve a KKK member?
Yes. What's fair for one is fair for all. And a KKK member barber should be required to serve blacks.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Should the American Atheists (//http://atheists.org/) be required to extend membership to vocal Christians?
Apples and oranges and a damned poor example. "Common sense" should apply here so as not to require me to explain further.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Myself, I'd rather the government not regulate memberships and business relationships, except insofar as public health and safety are concerned.
There would be so many problems with that they are innumerable, from monopolies to price fixing to rampant pollution to exaggerated and false claims to destruction of natural habitats to you name it. The Republican mantra, "Let the free market regulate itself" simply does not work. We don't have all these laws regulating business because Congress likes getting laws passed. Most of them came about for the sole purpose of addressing one or more very real issues that the "free market" did not fix on its own.