> > I would think the only time a club cannot be exclusionary is when
> >business> is done within these groups since that would put
women, men,>
> minorities,
> >etc.
> >> (whatever group not allowed in the club) at an unfair disadvantage.
> >
> >Any private club can exclude any person they wish.
>
> Not as neat as you might think.  Any organization receiving public funding
may
> NOT discriminate.  And large institutions serving the public may not
> discriminate.
>
>  I believe that the US>Supreme Court arbitrarily defined
"private" as any
club
> with fewer than 600 members.
>
> And like anything else, the number may change, but even with 600 or less
> members, institutions serving the public may not discriminate.
>
>  It is perfectly legal to discriminate. It is also legal to>discriminate
in
> housing depending on where you live. For example, in most>places if you
own a
> property with 4 or less units and you reside there you
> >may discriminate. There would be nothing illegal in advertising for
> tenants>and stating you don't rent to females, blacks, jews etc
>
> Or males, no?  :-)  The way this idea is best served is cold :-) because
you
> must LIVE on the property in order to discriminate; this is seen, not so
much
> as discrimination against a group, but rather choosing ones roomates.


Absolutely not. You can always discriminate against people you want as
roomates. This applies to cases where a person owns for example an apartment
building with 4 units. Or might own 4 townhouses where he lives in one of
them.



>
> >Consider in my town:  We have regularly scheduled "Business>
> *Women's*>Luncheons."  The guys are not allowed.  The women,
however, will
> >hire> a >business *man* to come and give a talk about how they can
improve
> their business skills.
> >>
>  Sure.  The theory behind this is that women have been
historically>excluded,
>  and thus, disadvantaged and some organizaitons, like "Junior
League" are
> >for the purpose of training.
> >
> >You're really naive about how the world works screwball perhaps you
should
> >get out of the house more. EVERYONE is excluded but historically it's
been
> >the MEN(and a few females) who have fought their way in by their
competence
> >and persistance.
>
> We all know that you believe women should have to compete with the double
> burden of discrimination, but most fair minded people don't think that
way.

What would YOU know about fair minded?



> >
> Any "business*man's* luncheon affair has to, however, *allow* women
> to>participate.
> >
> >No they don't.
>
> >> Well, how were men historically prevented from being businessmen?
>
> History is not the same as presently, and presently, most organizations
are
> co-ed.
> When you have organizations made up of women and men, it simply pays to
include
> those within your organization.  ;-)
>
>  I don't think this is a fair situation.  If women want to talk business
> amongst themselves, fine.  But, let the men talk business
amongst>themselves,>>
> too.
> >>
>  That's a bit like saying, there are two groups of people;  Group "A"
owns>7/8
>  of all the property in the world.
> >
> >Because they were the most competent in all the things required to
acquire
> >the property.
>
> >  I'm not going to list these things because it would be lost on>a wacko
like
> you.
> >
> You can "list" or not list whatever you like; it won't have
any effect on
this
> debate.  Today women are included and there's nothing you can do about
that.
>
> > They can trade only with members of group> "A" and
Group "B" owns the
other
> 1/8 and they can trade only with group
> >B...now>> that's fair, right?  :-)
> >
> >Life isn't fair for men.
>
> Oh my goodness, for men like you who carry about their microscopic dicks
in
> wheel barrows, life will never be fair.

And a cunt as big as the Grand Canyon  lol



>
> >




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/10/05 2:44:29 AM ---