0
   

How Dare They Hold Up That Sign?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 03:09 pm
snood wrote:
"To restrict the ramifications...would be unAmerican..."



Shocked haveta get backatcha on that...


Perhaps he is speaking about the ramifications of being black in 1950 alabama? Entirely un-American to restrict those ramifications.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 05:51 pm
mysteryman wrote:

It does NOT violate the first amendment if a PRIVATE organization restricts what its members say or do while representing that organization.


But private organizations that serve a public function sometimes do lose some of their abilities to limit access. Several golf clubs in the 70's and 80's lost court cases for discrimination because they were essentially open to the public. This was especially true for clubs that hosted public tournaments. Several clubs in the 70's stopped hosting public tournaments in order to continue to discriminate in membership. It's hard to argue that the USBF is not a public organization. Membership in the ACBL is apparently open to anyone who pays the fee and membership in the USBF is open to those who are members of the ACBL. Any lawyers out there with more insight into this?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 08:26 pm
engineer wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

It does NOT violate the first amendment if a PRIVATE organization restricts what its members say or do while representing that organization.


But private organizations that serve a public function sometimes do lose some of their abilities to limit access. Several golf clubs in the 70's and 80's lost court cases for discrimination because they were essentially open to the public. This was especially true for clubs that hosted public tournaments. Several clubs in the 70's stopped hosting public tournaments in order to continue to discriminate in membership. It's hard to argue that the USBF is not a public organization. Membership in the ACBL is apparently open to anyone who pays the fee and membership in the USBF is open to those who are members of the ACBL. Any lawyers out there with more insight into this?


I am not an attorney. I have noted how the Boy Scouts lost funding after being allowed to discriminate against gays. Military bases are no longer allowed to support boy scout troops.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 11:41 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Bush supporters remain clueless as to the depth of the resentment his administration has generated around the world.

Ask anyone outside the USA.

Joe(Guantanamo)Nation


Not really, we just don't care.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 11:45 pm
revel wrote:
A lot of us are idiots...


Yes, you are, and apparently quite a lot of you were questioned in the poll you cite.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 11:46 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
Jeezus Mary and Joseph... Another chance of amending the American image slightly by letting this silly thing go blown away. Penalizing these women or even barring them will only make things worse. It woul be funny if it weren't so sad.

Reminds me of home - in 1990s we had a wave of rabid nationalism and anyone who criticised the government abroad was labeled a traitor, there were libel suits, even lawsuits based on treason and subversion of the republic. Our government then was considered authoritarian by most of the outside world. The logic and rhetoric used here reminds me a lot of that.


Damn Nazi Bridge Federation! Why won't they get with the program?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 12:24 am
It was prudent, finn, to keep that chip on your shoulder. It will be just the thing you need when your fellow citizens turn and vote Hillary in as Commander in Chief.

Please, let us agree to meet right here on that new morning. A handshake, a bit of small talk, and then we'll get right to admiring your chip...its size, its vitality, its persistence, and its loyalty...always there for you.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 12:32 am
Every time a discussion of free speech arises in this forum we are treated to the numerous and varied misunderstandings of the Constitutionally protected right of free speech.

There are always members who attempt to explain to the ignorant, but it never seems to take hold.

My favorite repeat non-sequitor in this repeating debate is the notion that because private institutions have, in some cases, been found to have violated anti-discrimination statutes, they also are not allowed, within the parameters of their jurisdiction, to restrict the speech of their members.

One may not think kindly of the US Bridge Association for their actions in respect to this incident, but they are not violating the protected right to free speech of these ladies.

Not being permitted to join an organization is one thing (and we can argue elswhere if organizations should have the right to refuse anyone membership for any reason), but once you voluntarily become a member of an organization you submit yourself to the rules and relevant authority of that organization.

I don't know why anyone would be offended by these women's frivilous expression of their political bent, but then I also don't understand why the Rutgers womens basketball team was offended by the comments of Don Imus. How easily we seem to be offended these days.

Neither the actions of the Bridge Assoc nor Imus's bosses, however, were violations of anyone's First Amendment rights.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 12:36 am
blatham wrote:
It was prudent, finn, to keep that chip on your shoulder. It will be just the thing you need when your fellow citizens turn and vote Hillary in as Commander in Chief.

Please, let us agree to meet right here on that new morning. A handshake, a bit of small talk, and then we'll get right to admiring your chip...its size, its vitality, its persistence, and its loyalty...always there for you.


Chips, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.

Like the one on your shoulder that I seem to have the consistent ability to dislodge.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 05:21 am
Finn has been right about two things in the past few posts:
Quote:
Neither the actions of the Bridge Assoc nor Imus's bosses, however, were violations of anyone's First Amendment rights.


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
Bush supporters remain clueless as to the depth of the resentment his administration has generated around the world.

Ask anyone outside the USA.

Joe(Guantanamo)Nation


Not really, we just don't care.

But he is only right about the first one in a strictly legal sense, not in the sense of what most Americans see as their right of expression, especially political expression. Deluded souls that they are, every time they sing "...land of the free... ." they think that's actually true. It is true until you cross some line and offend somebody - the supporters of Mr. Bush, his war et al or a group of basketball players. (Isn't it ironic that in both of the instances, the 'perpetrators' were trying to be funny?) Jokes are as dangerous as guns.) Then you, the speaker of offense, must pay a cultural price which usually, not always, boils down to what I like to call the "Who's picking on who? rule:
The smaller a person is who is picked on by a bigger person, the bigger the penalty the bigger person must pay. (See Imus.)

The bridge players (small) didn't pick on anyone smaller, they picked on Bush. Those offended were a few for whom any fun, especially political, is verboten at such affairs and Bush backers whom, despite Finn being right about them not caring about the sensibilities of the rest of the world, do get upset when they hear or see dissent from their views. They wouldn't have made a single huff if the ladies had held up a sign saying "We love our President." or even "Jesus loves George."

And that's where the folks in the USA who believe they are free and the folks around the world who believe that Americans are free see the hypocrisy of this whole small sad situation.

"Make a list." "Whose idea was it?" "Confess" "Sign this that I have written."

Cripes, man, it was a joke.

Doesn't anyone have any sense of perspective in the Bridge world? Shouldn't someone just said to them "Hey, that was out of line. Please don't do it again." They would have mumbled 'sorry' and the whole thing would have been done with.

Instead, mostly because those supposedly uncaring Bush backers really like drama, just like their heros, the situation will be dealt with in the harshest way possible. In San Francisco yet.

Which brings us to the reverse of "Who's picking on Who?"

If a small person picks on a big person and the big person, or his representatives, reacts in a stupidly harsh manner, it is the big person and his representatives who end up on the short end of the admiration stick.

Joe(then they wonder cluelessly why no one seems to like them)Nation
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 07:02 am
Women can't play bridge in my experience.

They play whist and call it bridge because bridge is posher than whist. A bit like technologists calling themselves scientists. Or child minders calling themselves teachers.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 08:38 am
or pontificators calling themselves... .

Joe(fill in the blank)Nation
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 08:41 am
pontificators. It covers everything.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 08:43 am
heh.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 08:47 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
It was prudent, finn, to keep that chip on your shoulder. It will be just the thing you need when your fellow citizens turn and vote Hillary in as Commander in Chief.

Please, let us agree to meet right here on that new morning. A handshake, a bit of small talk, and then we'll get right to admiring your chip...its size, its vitality, its persistence, and its loyalty...always there for you.


Chips, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.

Like the one on your shoulder that I seem to have the consistent ability to dislodge.


I confess it was always a poorly made thing, more holes and spreading cracks than timber.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 08:54 am
And so small,
barely there at all,
while others struggle
to manage the heft and
the breath of theirs,
Latham's sits balanced
by his wits.

But, watch them,
they can bite.

Joe(grrrrr)Nation
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 09:52 am
Joe, you know I'm loath to quibble
but finn, at most, can bare a nibble
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 05:39 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
Bush supporters remain clueless as to the depth of the resentment his administration has generated around the world.

Ask anyone outside the USA.

Joe(Guantanamo)Nation


Not really, we just don't care.


Sour grapes?

It's clear Bush and his supporters don't care about much, least of all their reputations.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 05:43 pm
As Bob Dylan said- "They can talk about me plenty when I'm gone."

Brownsville Girl I think.

That's the one with the wheels falling off and burning line.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 05:45 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
or pontificators calling themselves... .

Joe(fill in the blank)Nation


Spendi's not primarily a pontificator, Joe. It's a technical style he uses to operationalize his true identity of provocateur. And he takes his task seriously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 02:35:22