Replies

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 see, so you believe a private club reflects on the community around it?

Yep. If it were in my community, I would not go there until they got rid of the racist BS and apologized to those kids. Publicly and repeatedly.

The fact they exist is not a statement about the community it exists in.

I suppose time will tell.

You exercising your rights is repugnant to someone else out there.

You know, this is getting silly. I didn't say I want the government to shut the place down, I said I want the community to make sure some heads roll if the place doesn't make this right.

You can have the last word and repeat yourself for the tenth time if you want. I have already stated my case pretty clearly.

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.