Right, they always fail. Those pesky liberals that opposed slavery and got it abolished, what a total failure that was. And then the crazy ones who thought women should have the right to vote. Some were actually institutionalized for their beliefs in order to try to quiet them down. You can see what a failure that's been, allowing women to vote. Oh, and don't forget those crazy liberals who thought people of different races should be able to marry (that was still illegal in some states only 40 years ago). What a failure that's been.
If you want to discriminate against women, go ahead and start your own private club. You can keep out anyone you want. But you just can't have a public club that plays on public courses be discriminatory. It doesn't matter what you think, it's the law. If you don't like it, try to get it changed.
Ahh... read your history book, it was the Republicans that eliminated slavery and got the civil rights bills passed, also don't forget that it was the Democrats that created the Jim Crow laws and historically have done more harm to the black race than any other group of people.
And as for women voting, nothing wrong with that, they have that right.
So why is it OK or fair to have a "WOMEN's ONLY" tournament but its NOT OK to have a "MEN's ONLY" tournament?? Its simple...you either believe it OK for both, or its OK for neither. You can have it both ways.
Right, they always fail. Those pesky liberals that opposed slavery and got it abolished, what a total failure that was. And then the crazy ones who thought women should have the right to vote. Some were actually institutionalized for their beliefs in order to try to quiet them down. You can see what a failure that's been, allowing women to vote. Oh, and don't forget those crazy liberals who thought people of different races should be able to marry (that was still illegal in some states only 40 years ago). What a failure that's been.
If you want to discriminate against women, go ahead and start your own private club. You can keep out anyone you want. But you just can't have a public club that plays on public courses be discriminatory. It doesn't matter what you think, it's the law. If you don't like it, try to get it changed.
Ahh... read your history book, it was the Republicans that eliminated slavery and got the civil rights bills passed, also don't forget that it was the Democrats that created the Jim Crow laws and historically have done more harm to the black race than any other group of people.
And as for women voting, nothing wrong with that, they have that right.
I'm not the one that needs a history lesson. The Republicans and Democrats were much different parties in the mid-1800's.
And the only reason women were given the vote was because a small minority of "pesky liberals" fought for it. Most people of the time, including women, were against it.
So why is it OK or fair to have a "WOMEN's ONLY" tournament but its NOT OK to have a "MEN's ONLY" tournament?? Its simple...you either believe it OK for both, or its OK for neither. You can have it both ways.
Personally, I think that my dogs should be allowed to play too - in the interests of an all-inclusive policy. Why should they be excluded simply because their faces are hairy and their ears stick up? It's blatant speciesism to exclude them from a 'men's' golf event in my opinion.
A bit silly I grant you, but really, letting dogs play is only marginally less daft a suggestion than a woman lobbying to play in a men's event and then claiming tens of thousands of dollars for supposedly feeling 'ostracized, marginalized, humiliated, embarrassed and denounced' after not being allowed to in my book. We've got service personnel coming home from abroad with life changing injuries and being awarded paltry sums as compensation, and yet the courts are wasting time looking at this sort of silliness for a woman who's essentially been confronted with a blatant display of common sense.
Why are these ludicrous lawsuits allowed to even see the light of day? They're an utter waste of time and detract from genuine cases of discrimination where legitimate grounds exist for a grievance. If this nuisance of a woman gets a red cent, then it'll finally convince me that the world has indeed gone mad.
There's too much of this state-sanctioned PC idiocy going on and the sooner these people are told where to go, the better.
I completely agree, worst part, this is happening in my state.
The PC liberals take control and try to force their beliefs on you through the court systems.
Waste of time and money.
gjones77, on Jun 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:
krustyburger, on Jun 2 2008, 02:58 PM, said:
Right, they always fail. Those pesky liberals that opposed slavery and got it abolished, what a total failure that was. And then the crazy ones who thought women should have the right to vote. Some were actually institutionalized for their beliefs in order to try to quiet them down. You can see what a failure that's been, allowing women to vote. Oh, and don't forget those crazy liberals who thought people of different races should be able to marry (that was still illegal in some states only 40 years ago). What a failure that's been.
If you want to discriminate against women, go ahead and start your own private club. You can keep out anyone you want. But you just can't have a public club that plays on public courses be discriminatory. It doesn't matter what you think, it's the law. If you don't like it, try to get it changed.
Ahh... read your history book, it was the Republicans that eliminated slavery and got the civil rights bills passed, also don't forget that it was the Democrats that created the Jim Crow laws and historically have done more harm to the black race than any other group of people.
And as for women voting, nothing wrong with that, they have that right.
Hahahahahahahahah....what history book are you reading. The one that said the free market economy would have ended slavery. Who was the old guy in Congress a couple years ago who was 90 years old and opposed the abolishment of slavery? I'm pretty sure he was conservative.
I'm not the one that needs a history lesson. The Republicans and Democrats were much different parties in the mid-1800's.
And the only reason women were given the vote was because a small minority of "pesky liberals" fought for it. Most people of the time, including women, were against it.
No, they're the same parties with the same basic beliefs (minus slavery on the Democrat side), have certain positions changed over the course of history as is to be expected.
But last time I checked the Dixiecrats were an offshoot of the Democrats, painfully racist.
So why is it OK or fair to have a "WOMEN's ONLY" tournament but its NOT OK to have a "MEN's ONLY" tournament?? Its simple...you either believe it OK for both, or its OK for neither. You can have it both ways.
If that's what you truly believe, then stand up for yourself. Sign up for a women's tournament, and when they won't let you play, file a lawsuit.
Hahahahahahahahah....what history book are you reading. The one that said the free market economy would have ended slavery. Who was the old guy in Congress a couple years ago who was 90 years old and opposed the abolishment of slavery? I'm pretty sure he was conservative.
That was Strom Thurman, he was a Democrat at the time, and he was one of the founders of the offshoot party the Dixiecrats.
Yes, he was a racist at the time, then again the Democrats still have a former grand dragon of the KKK in the senate, Robert Byrd.
I'm not the one that needs a history lesson. The Republicans and Democrats were much different parties in the mid-1800's.
And the only reason women were given the vote was because a small minority of "pesky liberals" fought for it. Most people of the time, including women, were against it.
No, they're the same parties with the same basic beliefs (minus slavery on the Democrat side), have certain positions changed over the course of history as is to be expected.
But last time I checked the Dixiecrats were an offshoot of the Democrats, painfully racist.
Your confusing my use of liberal with Democrat. The women who fought for their right to vote didn't belong to any party. They were just considered a bunch of crazy nuts.
And of course the Democrats in the south wanted to keep slavery. They were very conservative in their views of human rights, and they thought the people in the north were just liberals trying to shove their view of the world on them.
But what I'm saying has nothing to do with any party affiliation. Not sure why it always has to come down to that.
I am not stating which side of the argument I am on.....I just stating that you cant have it BOTH ways. For the record, I fully believe men and women BOTH should be able to have exclusive tournaments. I have no problem with men excluding women, and or women excluding men. Pretty soon there is gonna be a lawsuit because women aren't allowed to use the men's restroom where the LINES ARE SHORTER!!!!
I am not stating which side of the argument I am on.....I just stating that you cant have it BOTH ways. For the record, I fully believe men and women BOTH should be able to have exclusive tournaments. I have no problem with men excluding women, and or women excluding men. Pretty soon there is gonna be a lawsuit because women aren't aloud to use the men's restroom where the LINES ARE SHORTER!!!!
Completely agree!
However I don't think that it's entirely Liberal's fault for these lawsuits.
BTW Strom Thurmand had Republican values(todays standards) running as a Democrat in today's terms. A Dixiecrat wasn't and isn't really a Democrat. He was a Republican from 1964 until 2002 or 3.
Your confusing my use of liberal with Democrat. The women who fought for their right to vote didn't belong to any party. They were just considered a bunch of crazy nuts.
And of course the Democrats in the south wanted to keep slavery. They were very conservative in their views of human rights, and they thought the people in the north were just liberals trying to shove their view of the world on them.
But what I'm saying has nothing to do with any party affiliation. Not sure why it always has to come down to that.
It gets split into party because as of right now we have a 2 party system, yes I know we have other 3rd parties but none with any real ability to make a policy change.
Ending slavery wasn't a liberal or conservative thought, it was a simple basic human rights thought, though the south was overly Democrat the north Republican.
And to be thoroughly honest, slavery was a factor, but not the major factor with regards to the Civil War, but going into that is going WAY off topic.
Now, lets bring this all back to present day belief systems.
And you're right, best political debate thread in a long time
However I don't think that it's entirely Liberal's fault for these lawsuits.
BTW Strom Thurmand had Republican values(todays standards) running as a Democrat in today's terms. A Dixiecrat wasn't and isn't really a Democrat. He was a Republican from 1964 until 2002 or 3.
No Strom didn't, Republican values by today's standards are no where near what his values back then were.
Republicans fought for the civil rights movement more than any Democrat and push all major civil rights changes through congress.
The only political belief you might be able to say Republicans have now that is in common with Democrats from back then is State's Rights, which is something they've always believed in.
And you're right, best political debate thread in a long time
Only on a golf forum could one assign accolades to this thread as a political debate.
Stop taking life so serious, I was just agreeing with Srockafe
You're the last person that should be giving advice along the lines of taking life so seriously. I'm not the one that insists on injecting their political views into a golf forum.
You're the last person that should be giving advice along the lines of taking life so seriously. I'm not the one that insists on injecting their political views into a golf forum.
Relax there scooter, people can have a discussion who have varying views, doesn't mean I wouldn't buy the guy a beer.
So enjoy the discussion, and relax.
And yes, in this case political views are warranted since it's those views that create the underlining reasons for either agreement or disagreement with this woman's case.
I know very little about the Republican v Democrat arguments in the US, but I do knowthat asking for 75 grand in damages because as a woman you weren't allowed to play in a men's golf event is taking the proverbial, wherever you are in the world. And it is using up public funds however you look at it. As well as using up court time that could be better spent on more sensible matters.
'I'm a victim because I wasn't allowed to play in a golf tournament'..? Please... A reality check is needed methinks.
Shut up whining and go and win the equivalent women's event at the club which is clearly the last bastion of sexism in Massachusetts. Or a normal muni with perfectly reasonable rules depending on how you look at it. It may restore some of the respect I've lost as a result of this ridiculous lawsuit that you've filed.
I know very little about the Republican v Democrat arguments in the US, but I do knowthat asking for 75 grand in damages because as a woman you weren't allowed to play in a men's golf event is taking the proverbial, wherever you are in the world. And it is using up public funds however you look at it. As well as using up court time that could be better spent on more sensible matters.
'I'm a victim because I wasn't allowed to play in a golf tournament'..? Please... A reality check is needed methinks.
Shut up whining and go and win the equivalent women's event at the club which is clearly the last bastion of sexism in Massachusetts. Or a normal muni with perfectly reasonable rules depending on how you look at it. It may restore some of the respect I've lost as a result of this ridiculous lawsuit that you've filed.
That's easy to say when you aren't the one being discriminated against. If you actually read the article in the original post, she just wanted to play with her dad. She wasn't trying to play in some men's stroke play tournament. This was a public club, and she wasn't given equal access. According to the article, there were 5 times as many men's tournaments as there were for the women. That's discriminatory no matter how you look at it. Would it really have been so bad to just let her play? This whole thing could have been easily avoided, but some stupid club pro probably decided to puff out his chest and feign outrage over the situation, and probably told her to go home and do the laundry.
You can tell her to stop whining and go play the equivalent women's event, but the problem is that there was no equivalent women's event! She didn't want to play all of the men's tournaments, she just wanted to play with her dad, and this was the only tournament that provided that opportunity.
As for the $75,000, you have to sue for damages in court. That's just the way it works. It doesn't matter how much you sue for, you only get what the judge or jury decides, so the number is irrelevant.
You're the last person that should be giving advice along the lines of taking life so seriously. I'm not the one that insists on injecting their political views into a golf forum.
Relax there scooter, people can have a discussion who have varying views, doesn't mean I wouldn't buy the guy a beer.
So enjoy the discussion, and relax.
And yes, in this case political views are warranted since it's those views that create the underlining reasons for either agreement or disagreement with this woman's case.
Scooter? OK, Tricky Dick Junior.
Political views do not provide the underlying reasons for deciding this case. But you are using this case to underline your political views. But you enjoy grandstanding don't you, Dick?
You're the last person that should be giving advice along the lines of taking life so seriously. I'm not the one that insists on injecting their political views into a golf forum.
Relax there scooter, people can have a discussion who have varying views, doesn't mean I wouldn't buy the guy a beer.
So enjoy the discussion, and relax.
And yes, in this case political views are warranted since it's those views that create the underlining reasons for either agreement or disagreement with this woman's case.
Scooter? OK, Tricky Dick Junior.
Political views do not provide the underlying reasons for deciding this case. But you are using this case to underline your political views. But you enjoy grandstanding don't you, Dick?
The name is Greg, not Richard
None the less, try to enjoy the rest of your day Scooter
The bottom line, regardless of the ratio of women's to men's tournaments at that club is that it simply isn't applicable for her to play in a men's event. The fact that there is no equivalent women's event is immaterial. She shouldn't expect to be allowed to play in that event and she shouldn't be milking the system in this way. To kick up such a fuss over a trivial matter that's perfectly reasonable denigrates genuine cases of discrimination and bigotry like this one isn't.
The fact that the number of men's events outweighs those for women isn't evidence of discrimination. It's simply the case that there are more men's tournaments. If there is credible evidence that women are prevented from, or dissuaded from holding events at the club, I'll change my tune; but on the face of it it simply appears that there are more tournaments for men - which may mirror the fact that there are perhaps more male members than female members.
Cases like this one do absolutely nothing for furthering the cause of combating genuine prejudice and discrimination. They simply alienate people and make them look on the whole situation as a ridiculous and embarrassing spectacle by someone who clearly fancies themself as a bit of a Lady Godiva-esque martyr. She's not. She's a woman who's looking to do something that anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise isn't going to happen. Because it's a public course it doesn't mean that common sense should be suspended. It's a male tournament. Therefore, it's neither unreasonable nor unexpected to find that invitations are extended to male golfers. I wouldn't expect to be able to play in a women's tennis tournament with my mother any more than she should expect to play in that event.
And, regarding the 'damages' aspect, the sum is not important. It's the fact than anyone can claim to be so traumatised by not being allowed to play golf with their dad that they deserve any damages whatsoever that gets my goat. To even suggest that what probably amounts to a bit of annoyance amounts to 75 grand is laughable though.
The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, and to compare it to things like slavery and emancipation of women in society in general is ludicrous. It's a woman with a chip on her shoulder who fancies creating a bit of contoversy and lining her pocket at the same time. Any judge with an ounce of sense wouldn't give it court time. It's not a pivotal civil rights issue. It's a woman who wants special treatment because she deems that she deserves it for some reason.
The bottom line as I see it is she hasn't been discriminated against in any way. She's being petty and acting like a child who's been told 'no.'
Sign In
Register
Help
This topic is locked
krustyburger, on Jun 2 2008, 02:58 PM, said:
Quote
