Posted on 01/03/2006 4:56:16 PM PST by teldon30
Last week, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a lawsuit against the Santa Rosa health club Body Central.
According to the agency, which enforces California's civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, the club's women-only policy violates the civil rights of men.
Is the suit just payback for feminist intrusions into male-only groups? Or does the suit merely extend an unjust law and embed it further into society?
Body Central is poised to become a test case.
At issue is whether an owner has the right to control the customer policies of his or her private business. If so, then the state cannot properly dictate whom that owner must serve or allow onto the premises. A decision to discriminate among customers would be an expression of the owner's freedom of association and of the same property rights that protect his or her home from unwelcome 'guests.'
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I take the club's side in this one. While it would certainly put a stick in the eyes of the feminists, the fact remains that businesses should have the right to serve whoever they choose to.
I liked it better when men and women could have private clubs.
"I take the club's side in this one. While it would certainly put a stick in the eyes of the feminists, the fact remains that businesses should have the right to serve whoever they choose to."
there is a difference between a private club and a public buisiness. The business is usually legally a place of public accomodation. i don't know how this club in question is structured... it could go either way.
For example it's legal for Augusta National, a private country club to not have female members but it's not legal the local kroger to refuse to sell beer to black people.
But, but, women are allowed in NFL and NBA locker rooms.
I said should. It's against the law to discriminate against anyone but:
Men
Whites
Christians
Conservatives
This is just stupid and mean-spirited. I mean, what guy REALLY feels that he will get equal or better excercise at a chick gym?
To what end was this lawsuit really filed?
Feminism is stupid and this is just as stupid.
Someone who obviously wants to prove a point. If men are not allowed to have their own clubs then women don't get to have them either. Frankly. most of the women who go to chick only gyms are not really ones you want to see anyway.
This is just as wrong, IMHO, but if there is a feeling of "sauce for the goose" in it, that's why. We need a consistent public policy on the matter. I'd be fine with it either way, but not one that dictates equal access for women and no access for men.
They won; were able to join the club and in a very short time trashed both the club house and pool.
> I liked it better when men and women could have private clubs.
That's one of the advantages of being a Freemason.
I have 4 strikes on me.
I agree. Maybe if the feminazis get enough pokes in the eye, they'll quit violating the rights of men.
Some women prefer to workout without men around, but the way to get those women on our side on this is for the court to hold this type of discrimination illegal. The more people who join the side of businesses having a right within reason to set their own policies the better. I bet now there are some clients of this business who are all in favor of forcing businesses that cater only to males to allow women.
I wanna join the DAR.
Goose, meet Gander.
Bro's, ya mean
Smokers, you forgot smokers. And heterosexuals. And meat eaters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.