Physician blasts club, claims family blackballed over abortion

Providence Journal ^ | 11/17/01 | JENNIFER LEVITZ

[realpatriot71]

Abortion aside, a private organization can pick and choose who they want to allow in, period.

[Romulus]

An important case is Louisiana Debating and Literary Ass'n v. City of New Orleans, 42 F. 3d 1483 (5th Cir. 1995), applying precedents set by two Supreme Court opinions: Board of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (1987) and Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (both affirming the concept of freedom of intimate association, but holding that state anti-discrimination laws could be applied to local Rotary and Jaycee chapters, on the ground that the chapters lacked the "distinctive characteristics" of intimate associations).

In Louisiana Debating and Literary Ass'n, the Fifth Circuit held that a New Orleans city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation could not be applied to four private clubs without violating the members' right of intimate association. The court wrote that:

[Supreme Court precedents] provide that the Constitution protects two types of associational freedom:

First, the [Supreme] Court has held that the Constitution protects against unjustified government interference with an individual's choice to enter into and maintain certain intimate or private relationships. Second, the Court has upheld the freedom of individuals to associate for the purpose of engaging in protected speech or religious activities. . . This appeal implicates the former--private association

"Determining the limits of state authority over an individual's freedom to enter into a particular association unavoidably entails a careful assessment of where that relationship's objective characteristics locate it on a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of personal attachments." [Roberts, 468 U.S. at]

620. . . In determining whether a particular association is sufficiently private to warrant constitutional protection, as well as the scope of that protection, the Court has considered several factors, including: (1) the organization's size; (2) its purposes; (3) the selectivity in choosing its members; (4) the congeniality among its members; (5) whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship; and, (6) other characteristics that in a particular case may be pertinent.

The court in Louisiana Debating and Literary Ass'n considered the cited factors, and noted, among other considerations, that "the Clubs have a longstanding history of existing exclusively for private, social purposes;" that "a close nexus exists between the Clubs' purposes and membership criteria;" and that bringing guests is "severely limited." The court then concluded that:

Obviously, the Clubs are not similar to the Jaycees or the Rotary. Relatively small in size, they seek to maintain an atmosphere in which their members can enjoy the comradery and congeniality of one another. Employing very restrictive guest and admission policies, they seek to remain isolated. In light of the undisputed facts. . . we conclude. . . that the Clubs constitute organizations whose location on the spectrum of personal attachments places them near those that are "most intimate." Accordingly, they enjoy the fullest protection of their right of private association

[While showing a "compelling state interest" in eradicating discrimination] the City has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating how the means it has selected to enforce the [anti-discrimination ordinance] are the least intrusive on the Clubs' and their members' right of private association. We hold, therefore, that the [ordinance], as applied to the Clubs, is unconstitutional.

The US Supremes upheld the Fifth Circuit on appeal.