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
I have two issues. One, I happen to think that discrimination based on skin color “stinks” as I said in my first post.
The second issue has to do with the fact that the club took money from the Day Camp outfit to allow the kids to swim for an hour and a half one day a week. I have since found out that they had that same arrangement with two other camps, since cancelled, also.
I have absolutely no problem with private clubs for whatever purpose, but what this club did, unconscionable or not, seems to put them in jeopardy, not the least of which is a hit to their reputation.