Posted on 07/08/2009 1:16:54 PM PDT by Titus-Maximus
More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.
"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.
The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcphiladelphia.com ...
From what I've read, this was a special arrangement with the day care center, not a set of memberships. They don't appear to have denied anyone a membership, rather reneged on a contract. It's still not good; the management messed up in a big way by not anticipating the problems of this huge influx of kids from outside the neighborhood, regardless of ethnicity. There are municipal pools sprinkled throughout our area. This would have been a better arrangement for the day care center, since they are typically larger and better able to manage these numbers of incoming swimmers.
On the other end of the racial spectrum...
Private proptery rights
(Not a public pool)
Poor planning
Racial accusations..
Missing information
Poor media coverage
Where are the security video tapes
... except for the "slightly overweight moms" part. This is Iowa. ;^)
I understand you find racism repugnant. Most reasonable people do, however that doesn’t mean you can run over those peoples rights by claiming moral authority.
Extending this repugnance to claiming they have no right to draw a paycheck is where you lose any sort of defensible ground.
Yes, you have a right to be offended by it, and you can work to change the clubs policies/mind. However they do have every right to rebuff your efforts and continue in their actions.
They have the right to associate with whoever they want and not associate with whoever they want, and have the right to allow or disallow whoever they want from using their property for whatever reason they decide.
You can disagree with their decisions, but when you or others claim they should not have the right to make those decisions, or should be punished by government for them, you advocate tyranny not liberty.
Those people are wrong and sadly being a legislator does not remotely make one well versed or educated on the principles of the nation and its history. Its sad, but they haven’t taught US history in proper context in public schools in nearly over 40 years now.
So odds are pretty good that unless you run into a person who went to private school, or specialized in the study of this area in their post secondary education, they are patently ignorant of it.
The guns in parking lot issue is a great example, the property owner has every right to refuse to allow the weapons on their property. This is not only supported by the principles of private property rights but also by historical precidence. Such laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
Now, I have some real legitimate questions and concerns regarding how our legislatures have positioned corporations in our legal framework. This is a construct that did not exist in the founding days of this nation, and frankly I find they should not exist. Granting companies and those that run them deniability for their actions by claiming they are just a corporation is indefensible, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Stop with strawmen, you are making yourself look foolish.
Freedom of association is a fundamental principle of a free society, and yes the freedome to peaceably assemble is exactly what this entails.
Your strawman argument of trying to portray “conspiracy” as peaceable assembly is laughable on its face.
You have one thing right, freedom of the individual is tantamount. Yet, you continue to defend a stand that is absolutely at odds with that principle. No indidivual has the right to claim the right to another individuals property, or to their right to associate with who they choose. Just because they don’t like it.
You are arguing a stand that in the absolute oposite of individual freedom and trying to argue individual freedom justfies it. This is not only patently wrong, it requires a complete bastardization of the construct of personal liberty to say it with a straight face.
Your arguing that a group has a fundamental right to another persons property, not only that but also that the other group has absolutely no right to decide who they can or cannot associate with. Those are principles of statism/totalitarianism and communalism, they are not principles or liberty.
You are free to be offended by a group of racists having a club, but you have absolutely no right to their clubs property or their right to associate with one another in peaceful ways.
There just isn’t a leg to stand on for the arguments you are making that is based in historical reality, you are tryihng to claim liberty allows you to engage in opression of a group you don’t like, and that is the complete bastardization of the very concept of liberty.
I bet their “open” membership has a right of refusal.
The way I see it at this point, at most you have a contract dispute, assuming the groups had contracts with the club and the club did not have escape clauses built into their contracts.
Its all a matter of are they a club or a business, if they are a club they are free to do whatever they want. If they are a business they would be screwed.
Yep, its racism, and if this is a private club, it has every right to do so.
That’s the funny thing about rights, others excercising their’s doesn’t mean you will be happy about it. Failing to respect their fundamental right to exercise them however ensures that yours will not be respected down the line.
You are free to not associate with racists, and you are free to be offended, and they are free to continue to continue exercising their rights in a way you don’t like.
There are, however, specific circumstances where “piercing the corporate veil” has held management and ownership responsible, both financially and criminally.
It exists, but isn’t used nearly enough.
Lord you jump over cliffs. Where or where am I “oppressing” or calling for the oppression of any group?
You suggest that I set up straw men when you are in fact a master at it. I will not continue with this exchange since you have some other agenda going.
Hope its real
Yes, I know the veil can be pierced, but its really nothing more than a cop out to exist in the first place.
Company sells prom dresses that look like something that hookers walk the streets in, the executives just claim “shareholder value” not their fault... Sell music that promotes killing cops.. Executives just claim “shareholder value”. Its nonsensicle and frankly is impossible to logically and rationally defend.
As is the very concept of a non dividend paying share... how can you be an owner of a business if you have no right to any of the profits?
But like I said, that’s a discussion for a completely different time.
You have argued that the club has violated others rights, which is not remotely the case. They have a fundamental right of association and private property. They can admit or deny admittance to whoever they want. You don't have to agree, don't have to like it and can find it as repugnant as you like. However to make any argument on any grounds that they don't have a right to do so puts you clearly in the column of tyranny and oppression.
I see, so you believe a private club reflects on the community around it? Interesting. You see when you have a large enough group of people you will always have a percentage that do or believe things the majority find repugnant. The fact they exist is not a statement about the community it exists in.
Certainly it is a statement about the members of and the club itself, but that is all.
The community cannot take away their property rights nor their rights to associate, and if they should they’d be violating the very tenants of liberty. Remember the very simple truth, when you announce how others have no right to exercise their rights because you find them repugnant.... You exercising your rights is repugnant to someone else out there. Sooner or later you’re in the minority, and if all it takes is the majority to say the minorities rights can be walked all over, yours will be walked over at some point.
I just read a shortened version of this story in my local paper today. (I live in the Philadelphia area.) But the story here gives far more info. There’s probably a grain of truth to everything on both sides of this story. It caught my attention mainly because I’ve been looking for a local swim club but wondering if we would be welcome.
If this pool is indeed a private swim club, then I want to back up what HamiltonJay is saying. This should be nothing more than a contract dispute. Free association should be the cornerstone of our society. Without it, there is tyranny. Furthermore, free association works for EVERYONE, even when we ourselves are refused admittance.
For example: My family once joined a private group, paid money, and invested time and effort, only to discover people in leadership there were making remarks about us behind our backs. I would’ve preferred a private club refuse us admittance, rather than take our money and whisper behind our backs. I’d prefer the opportunity to know up front that a club or organization doesn’t want us there because then I’d know not to support that club/organization.
When we know which clubs to avoid, we also know the people to avoid. Because we know anyone joining or associating with that club isn’t someone we can trust. OTOH, sometimes people form their own associations because they have something in common. I see nothing wrong with clubs formed for only men, or women only, or around a specific faith, or a particular ethnicity/race/culture, for example, and private associations have the right to be restrictive. Whoever isn’t welcome doesn’t have to pay the dues.
Of course, if this swim club is considered a public accommodation (because it rents to outside groups), then maybe there could be a legal case. But, so far, the story seems blown out of proportion.
I have since read more about this. The first story was as you noted unclear. I agree with your analysis. I did from the start. HamiltonJay came screaming out of the box in an absolutist framework. Most of what was ‘attributed’ to me was not what I had written but rather arguendo. I tried to come to some common ground but sometimes folks with an absolutist view point can not see anything else.
The club oviously made a mistake in the number of people it allowed in from summer camps. To compound the situation the terminalogyg that the president of the club used was bound to set someone off (”...changed the complexion of...”).I understand that what was meant waswe have moved from a small private club to a public over crowded swim pool. That usn’t the way it got played ( and probably was not perceived).
Like it or not perception is everything and choice of words is sometimes critical
Likewise if the children did not behave themselves and that was in the contract, they breached it too.
One FReeper posted he was at this event and said the kids were tearing the place up and the parents were doing nothing about it.
I've been to private swimming pools and when a kid decided not to play by the rules, harassing other people, running around the pool, etc. he and parents were told to leave.
I hope they had a safety clause. If not, they should write one in. Common sense unfortunately, is not so common.
Well, it's the same with us regarding our own homes. We have the right to decide who we let through our front doors, and reserve the right to throw them out.
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.