Abolish Anti-Discrimination Laws

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?

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.'

California law denies the existence of such private rights for businesses. It asserts, instead, that the public has a civil right to access an owner's property and services even over his or her objection.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51(b), stipulates that business establishments must provide "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services" and not discriminate on the basis of "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition." The businesses in question include, but are not limited to, hotels, non-profit organizations, restaurants, theaters, retail establishments, and beauty shops.

Arguably, California claims control over the customer policies of every business in the state.

In 1995, the California Supreme Court decided a case in which a woman demanded entry into an exclusive men-only golf club. The court ruled that private clubs operating as businesses were required to follow state laws against discrimination.

That's the law in California. But is it just, or does the law itself constitute a violation of individual rights?

In 2003, Phillip Kottle was refused membership at the women-only gym in Santa Rosa on the basis of his sex. A few months earlier, Kottle had attempted to gain full membership at the Elan Fitness Center in nearby Petaluma, which offered only restricted access to men. (Acting on his complaint, the DFEH also filed a suit against Elan, which was settled in January 2005 on the condition that men have full access to classes and facilities, with the exception of lockers and showers.)

The DFEH concluded that Body Central was in violation of the Unruh Act and, in 2004, the owner signed a settlement agreement by which the club was opened to men. Separate shower facilities were to be provided; a monetary settlement was offered to Kottle; women-only advertisements were withdrawn; the club's staff received anti-discrimination training. In return, the DFEH ceased its enforcement action against Body Central.

The DFEH's renewed action against the club alleges violations of the 2004 agreement and points to such transgressions as language on the club's website.

For example, Body Central states, "We specialize in fitness for women, with a women only policy you get the privacy of the entire gym."

The owner may have gambled on the possibility that California would ultimately ignore a cause as unpopular as a man forcing his way into a woman's gym. After all, the cost of compliance is high. Body Central's equipment and facilities are geared exclusively for women's specific needs, and other gyms have gone bankrupt under the financial strain of expanding to accommodate both sexes. If so, the gamble lost. A "status conference" on the DFEH lawsuit is set to be heard in April before the Superior Court.

The facts may be clear but the appropriateness of involving law in the customer policies of a private business is in dispute.

An ideological conflict underlies the attempt by either sex to force open the doors of 'exclusive' businesses: individual rights versus egalitarianism. Under individual rights, every human being has control over the peaceful use of his or her own body and property. Under egalitarianism, access to and use of property is equally distributed across society, with or without the consent of owners.

In terms of Body Central, I don't believe any man or woman has a legal 'right' to exercise on someone else's private property. I do not believe anyone has a moral obligation to provide another person with exercise. Freedom of association means that individuals, including property owners, have a right to say 'yes' or 'no' at their own front door.

Some men applaud the turn-around as an opportunity to give feminists a taste of their own medicine. In doing so, they adopt the very principles they allegedly decry: egalitarianism, the legal imposition of gender policy, the use of collective 'gender-think.' In short, they become feminists.

Women who believe in egalitarianism will either apply that principle to men or be confronted by their own hypocrisy. Men who believe feminism's door-busting has been wrong will have to decide whether they value revenge more highly than justice.

That's the way it used to be, not the way it is now. Let the PC bitch bite its own butt. It'll be fun to watch.

(preemptive clarification: bitch, as in female dog. There is no intention to impugn the owner or women at Body Central.)

You can make the case that aggressive enforcement of bad law gives an incentive to abolish the law. That should be music to the ears of trial lawyers.

But in spite of the example that Wendy illustrates here, discrimination law is seldom enforced in favor of "non-protected" minorities. A recent news story related how a white social worker traveled to a national convention of social workers only to find out that whites were excluded. He wants to sue but he has yet to find anyone who will take an interest in his case.

I don't understand any of this crap.

At issue is whether an owner has the right to control the customer policies of his or her private business.

Well, can you smoke on the premises? Probably not, but that's the owners right and decision....not like local, state, federal gubbmint making it so.

FMCDH(BITS)

4 posted on 01/07/2006 12:10:57 PM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)

Sauce for the goose. I originally thought this was silly, but I thought about the attack on Mens Only clubs like Augusta and changed my mind.

If there can be Mens Only clubs, Smokers Only bars and the like, then fine. If not, then we have to equalize the other way.

Look out "Curves." You're next.

If I thought payback would do any good I would be for it. But I can't think of a case where aggressive enforcement of a bad law contributed to its demise. Can you?

But I can't think of a case where aggressive enforcement of a bad law contributed to its demise.

No, but that doesn't mean a discriminatory law gets to only discriminate one way. This is a question of fairness if nothing else.

Partially enforcing the law won't remove it either.

According to the principle of private property ownership, any property owner should be allowed to contract with anyone he wishes to, and to refuse to contract with anyone else. Any infringement of this law is a violation of private property ownership and should be illegal.

I wish that a number of white conservatives would demand to join the "Congressional Black Caucus," and if they were to be denied membership, would sue them in federal court.

Mark

9 posted on 01/07/2006 12:38:49 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)

I wish that a number of white conservatives would demand to join the "Congressional Black Caucus," and if they were to be denied membership, would sue them in federal court.

JC Watts, a Black Conservative member of Congress, was not allowed to join.
There are two big problems with the CBC. The first is that it's misnamed; it should be the Congressional Black Democrat Caucus, and second, that taxpayers have to pay for it. Why Conservative white taxpayers have to support a group that is opposed to everything they stand for is explained only by "pc".

I think they should let each club's members take a vote to decide if they want to admit men. I don't think a man would want to actually pay money to attend CURVES when the ladies get through with him -- he'd be toast! Remember, we've been working out!

Why does your right of free asociation go away when you are engaged in commerce? Does anyone understand that?

Because the Supreme Court said so thats why. Remember the Civil Rights movement. The only way that the government could enforce its social engineering program was to take away your right to free association by claiming that they could regulate interstate commerce.

Its not a convincing argument in the least but...when you get to sit in the cushy chairs at the Supreme Court and no other branches of government take action against you then you can pretty much do what you want.

13 posted on 01/07/2006 2:53:38 PM PST by TASMANIANRED (Democrats value the privacy of terrorists higher than the lives of Americans.)

(...men have full access to classes and facilities, with the exception of lockers and showers.)

This smacks of "separate but equal".

Seems to me they should be allowed to join if they want. Now the showers are a different issue - then it becomes a question of privacy.

Does "handicapped only" parking equal discrimination on the basis of "medical condition"?

If a hospital (or other medical research facility) were to run paid studies on certain diseases, can they discriminate on the basis of the "medical condition"?

16 posted on 01/07/2006 5:46:16 PM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)

JC Watts, a Black Conservative member of Congress, was not allowed to join

I did not know that.

Does this organization actually get public funding?

Does this organization actually get public funding?

Yes, they do. Years ago (maybe stopped by the Gingrich revolution), there were many caucuses in the House that were supported by taxpayers. They got funding for staff positions, offices, etc. Most of the caucuses were disbanded. The Congressional Black Caucus survived (pc, of course).
We pay for their staff and offices.

Curves doesn't have showers, just a bathroom. It's a circuit of machines with old, sweaty women chatting about TV and grandkids. Can't imagine a man WANTING to be a part of that, unless they just want to cause grief for others. Not a good reason to join.

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.